The picture I have selected is "Gandhi at his Spinning Wheel" taken by Margaret Bourke-White in 1946. The photo was an emblem of the Indian independence movement against Britain. This picture served, and continues to serve, as encompassing the being, essence and character of Gandhi. This picture greatly impacted society at the time because it served as a picture of the independence movement, giving an iconic image of the great man who was the leader of this retaliation against the British, the man who gave his life for the cause. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi dies a mere two years after this picture was taken, possibly the last portrait of him alive. This image, although it does not directly impact me, relates to the struggles my ancestors faced under British rule. Although I was not born nor raised in India, my parents and their parents were. My heritage and culture impact my daily life, and this involves the freedom that India gained because of the great Mahatma Gandhi. And every year, the day that India gained independence is celebrated, and this day came about, in large part, because of Mahatma Gandhi. The sight of this simple man forgoing materialistic pleasure and weaving his own cloth, a man, who on the day the picture was taken, had sworn a vow of silence, a man who gave so much for the country of this country, this is a man I respect. And this iconic image captures all of those occurrences and more.
Stereotypes allow us to easily recognize a certain type of person by simply initiating the stereotype. For example, in movies, it is critical to establish a persona of a character quickly, and common stereotypes help establish these characters quickly. Many are also ignorant and believe that the stereotypes are true, and in this way of ignorance, the stereotype exists and remains. Many times, we do not even recognize or realize that stereotypes are being pushed at us. For example Disney creates characters abounding with stereotypes, the princesses, for the most part, are bland and lack character of their own, except for the aspiration to marry a prince or be saved by a prince. These types of stereotypes just pass over our heads, many times, we cannot recognize the stereotype for what it is since we are used to it so much. As an Indian person, we are commonly stereotyped in the media as intelligent, glasses wearing people, usually male, with a humorous accent (and lots of head bobbing). To me, these stereotypes do not usually offend because I think of them in a humorous light. I know, for the most part, that these stereotypes are not meant to be taken seriously, so I do not take them as such. But, overall, stereotypes are a problem in the media because some stereotypes are not meant to be taken lightly and can seriously hurt someone’s feelings. We should take steps to further prevent stereotypes from pervading the media, such as fining those who excessively use stereotypes in an offensive manner.
Arguments for Media Consolidation and Deregulation:
Beneficial to the Consumers of Media:
1.The marketplace generally delivers to the public: if the people like it, the people get it, and if the people do not like it, then what is being delivered generally dies out. So, if the people want differing viewpoints, the people will get them. This train of thought can be furthered to emphasize that quality media succeeds since the people are responsible for the success of the type of media (so the people would want quality media to prevail versus poor quality media).
2.The competition between the few conglomerates leads to low prices, another boon for the consumers of media.
3.Better journalism can be provided to a community by sharing the resources of the print and television news staffs.
4.If there is regulation, the level of objectionable programming would increase since those who own the media source will be looking to turn a profit and in today’s day and age, sex sells.
5.
Benefits to and of the Media Conglomerates
1.Newspapers are losing market share, and therefore profit and value, so limiting the amount of traditional print media that a company owns is incomprehensible since the conglomerates are not actually controlling too much of what retains the largest impact on the society as whole.
2.The rules of the Federal Communications Commission are dated to 1975, meaning that the standards that may have made sense for regulating the media then are not applicable to modern day scenarios that have seen the rise of the Web and cable television.
3.Federal regulations on the media are tools for the government to interfere and control speech, particularly speech directed towards the government itself.
4.Internet and cable TV create many outlets that allow for many voices to be heard, along with the more traditional outlets that have been available like the newspapers and the radio.
Arguments against Media Consolidation and For More Regulation:
Beneficial to the Consumers of Media:
1.A diversity of opinion from a variety of sources is necessary to promote democracy and is important to keep the people objectively informed.
2.The number of outlets is not necessarily as much of an issue as the amount of outlets available to the people that are not in direct or indirect control of big corporate media.
3.Conglomeration homogenizes the playlists and local news on the radio, effectively shutting out different viewpoints and news that may deter the big corporations.
4.According to Senator Bryon Dorgan, “Diverse, independent, and local media sources are essential to ensuring that the public has access to a variety of information” and such sources are deprived to a community when few owners own most outlets of media.
Disadvantages of Media Conglomerates
1.Few large conglomerates effectively create less competition, which in turn creates monopolies, ending democracy and limiting the points when the people can have a say in the media (restricting the public’s access to information).
2.The same owners of the more traditional media have control of the newer media for many own some of the most popular parts of the internet.
3.Conglomerate ownership creates monopolies, jeopardizing minority ownership and focus on localism, creating net losses of local news.
4.Regardless of the opinion that media consolidation creates more outlets for the people, these outlets are from, according to Senator Bryon Dorgan, the “same ventriloquists” of many other media outlets.
5.Cross promoting from the media companies has replaced substantive reporting and inadequate reporting of the media business itself.
Overall, I believe that media consolidation has had a negative impact on a journalist’s ability to provide important information to the citizens of our democracy. Because big media owns many of the sources that the people derives their news from, including newspapers and news stations, even some news related websites, they are able to control what the public sees and hears. This is like having blinders put on the public, for how many of them are able to see and realize what may truly be occurring? Though I do not believe that the media conglomerates are out to get us and intend to do evil, I do believe that the corporate media, to some extent has deprived people of the truth or facts and opinions that may be essential to our understanding and perception of the world. This may be due, in part, to the fact that they desire to protect their own best interests and assets, and to do so would require that the information that the people receive from their national or local journalists be jaded.
The future of advertising is ever nearer, and everyday that passes brings us another day closer to new steps of advertisement. I believe that advertisements will become more demanding, albeit a bit shorter. Over time, ads have gone from the detailed depictions of a product, combined with an image, to short one second ads meant to subliminally attract your attention. The realm of advertising is quickly realizing that the tactics of the 90s, even those of the early 2000s are no longer usable. Advertisements, in the future, will engage the audience at a more subconscious level, engrossing the audience without them even realizing it. We have already taken steps in that direction with the extremely brief one second ads. The advertising media has realized that the great amount of advertisements forced in our paths on a daily basis has led us to become immune to ads, and therefore, they no longer hold our interest. The media developed one second ads to capture our attention, and in the future, we may only see flashes and glimpses of ads, leaving the audience to create their own ads in their imaginations. In the next ten years, I believe ambient ads will become more popular, marketing goods at unexpected places, and sometimes engaging the viewer without them even noticing. These advertisers will have to face the challenges of making sure their unconventional ads reach their target audience, for certain ambient ads may reach broader or narrower audiences than was intended. As I also mentioned, the ads may not even make sense to their audience. In such instances, the advertisers must take an approach of trial and error, and if they are wise, they would do this process before they actually place the ads out for the mass. They must fine tune their ads to ensure that their target audience is reached, and they will also need to make sure that their audience understands and can relate with the ad, whether the product is directly mentioned (as it is done so rarely in modern ads) or not. Advertisers must also make sure, if they begin to utilize extremely brief ads, that the message and product are clear, for with the extremely reduced time, the audience should still be reached.
I believe that the point and fact of product placement, a covert means to advertise products, with testimonials and endorsement, is ruined if the government forces TV shows to reveal the fact that there is product placement. I believe that advertisers who use product placement are utilizing a more covert and indirect means to advertise their products, and if they are forced to reveal their actions, the subtlety required for product placement will be destroyed. Though requiring TV shows to have disclaimers about the product being advertisement does actually act as more advertising, viewers and audiences will become frustrated with the fact that they are being advertised to and marketers will lose a valuable venue for marketing.
I would train the cool hunter to look for brand names and mooks. It seems to me that brand names seem to dominate the clothing trends in the school, as people tend to wear items that may be simple and plain enough except for the tell-tale label. That label sets that garment apart as one that must cost at least triple what a similar shirt without the label would cost. Many of the males in this school exemplify the attitudes depicted by a mook: they are crude, brash and just plain gross. You can see them mixing gross concoctions from the remains of others’ lunches, daring each other to drink them. These sorts of revolting habits or games are what a mook enjoys, and many of the boys at this school seem fascinated with such concepts. Many are also lewd and sexually suggestive. The teens at this school follow the trends of brand names and logos, and many even get knock-offs of those popular or trendy objects. Cool hunters do, in a sense, engage in a self-fulfilling prophecy. They give the teens they select money, information and attention, which will cause these teens to gain popularity. So, instead of a cool hunter finding the trendsetter, they are essentially creating a trend setter, someone who has gained popularity by garnering attention from media related persons. Moreover, cool hunting seems to be a bit overrated, for what may be popular or trendy in one area, may be seen as completely repulsive in another. How can one say that such-and-such a product is cool, popular and trendy based on a small sample size? And also, as the Merchants of Cool mentioned, when a thing thought of as cool is advertised and advocated, the media radar or deflection that many teens have (the dislike for things that are heavily advertised) causes what the cool hunters find as cool to turn, consequentially, un-cool. So the concept of cool hunting, of finding what can be marketed for a large profit, is not so great because the very thing that is cool becomes unpopular, as if people have gotten too much of it, an overdose, if you will.
The ads both use interesting pictures to draw in the audience. The first ad from the 1950s uses an attractive image of a handsome couple to force or compel the viewer to read the small scenario. The modern ad has a picture of an unattractive woman and a small quote. Both bring in the audience. The modern ad uses language that is humorous to point out that the Listerine product creates so much confidence that obviously repelling people feel as if they are hot shots. The older ad has a lengthier message, about 200 words long, on the topic of how a woman was distancing herself from her boyfriend because of her bad breath. It goes to promote Listerine as “the most widely used antiseptic in the world”. The old ad appeals to the emotions of a female, luring in women and telling them how to get or keep their man by having good breath. The modern ad uses humor to lure in the audience, the small slogan at the bottom informing the viewer that the Listerine strips. The older ad appeals to female audiences, the people who would be doing most of the shopping at the time. The newer ad appeals to most young adults, those in their late teens or early twenties, possibly even those into their thirties. The older ad appeals to the notion of love and happiness, whereas the newer ad appeals to beauty and appearance in the sense that the Listerine strips give confidence about how one looks. The older ad has a long, detailed message, for at the time, the ad would most likely be found in a magazine, when women would peruse it at their leisure. The ad from now, on the other hand, has a brief message with a small slogan or phrase near the image of the product. This minute amount of writing, compared to the 50s ad, appeals to the nature of our times. We as a generation and time period tend to only give commercials and ads a glance before redirecting our attention elsewhere. The older ad definitely focuses on appealing to young women, whereas the newer ad has a wider range of audience. Before, the persuasive techniques could be lengthy, with small stories to draw in the audience and compelling images to initially bring in the viewer. But, the ad from 2009 has one large image with a small phrase meant to excise humor because of the wit involved in calling the large image a picture of a highly attractive woman. The technique of appealing to emotions of love and romantic happiness has now shifted to those of beauty, confidence and even humor.
