I confess, I hate watching TV. I just don't have the time for it, and I usually don't care to make time for it. I watch election coverage, and that is about it.
So, to watch TV for a week was a challenge. I confess that I only watched for the majority of a week, (four days) I missed a few days. But I did learn some interesting things about myself and TV.
One night I watched an episode of "America's Most Wanted," about a lesbian couple who murdered both of one lover's parents. One was shot, the other was electricuted by pushing a television into a hot tub. The lovers later commited suicide. I was apalled and disturbed. I can see where the "mean world syndrome" comes into play. I don't like those kinds of shows.
I watched a Larry King interview of Jim Carey only briefly. Jim was talking about drama as opposed to comedy acting. I've been impressed with both his styles of acting. Larry King is a skilled interviewer, although fairly intimidating.
I watched a bit of the Discovery Channel. They were making gourd creatures. It seemed fun, and I was educated by the show. I enjoyed it. I really like the Discovery Channel. It leaves me feeling smarter and uplifted, generally speaking.
I watched a bit of BYU channel on the last night. The football players were being interviewed about their Christmas traditions. I learned that TV has the ability to manipulate interviews to get their points across. The interviews most often stated that "Elf" was their favorite Christmas video, although this may have been done by movie editting.
I can see that television can provide people with entertainment when they are bored, information when they feel out of the loop, and connections with other people. I know what to say if someone starts talking about gourds, murder, Elf, football, or Jim Carey now. That is the greatest need television provides me, a busy college student.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
When Personal Expression goes TOO Far
Those who support freedom of expression often fail to think through the implications of their defense. Everything we do is self-expression. Winking, laughing, talking, shooting a gun at someone, stealing a car, shoplifting, eating, showering, and everything in between: these are all expressions of one's self. Some acts of self-expression are good, and others are bad because they break the commandments of God or put other people in harm's way.
Concerning freedom of expression thru speech, I can think of one instance in particular when words went too far. Earlier this year, the popular talk radio host Michael Savage got on a rant about autism. Autism is a real disease, a struggle for many people and especially children. Over national radio airwaves, Savage stated ""[a] fraud, a racket. ... I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot.' " (http://mediamatters.org/items/200807170005)
Now, Savage may have a point. Some diagnosed cases of autism may be simply cries for attention. But to accuse 99% of the autistic population of being fraudulent idiots was completely out of line. What a heart-rending thing for the parent of an autistic child to hear!
In this case, many people protested and asked for Savage's resignation. Savage apologized and backpedaled rapidly. The potential drop in listener ratings was his punishment, and I'm certain his advisors kept a more watchful eye on him after that episode. This was an appropriate punishment. Everybody says stupid things without thinking every now and then. To fire a good radio host over a stupid mistake is a little severe. All the same, Savage went too far. I do not believe such statements should be prevented, because that is inhibiting freedom of speech. I do, however, believe that whatever is said, the speaker should be held accountable for. Savage was, and it nearly cost him his occupation.
Concerning freedom of expression thru speech, I can think of one instance in particular when words went too far. Earlier this year, the popular talk radio host Michael Savage got on a rant about autism. Autism is a real disease, a struggle for many people and especially children. Over national radio airwaves, Savage stated ""[a] fraud, a racket. ... I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot.' " (http://mediamatters.org/items/200807170005)
Now, Savage may have a point. Some diagnosed cases of autism may be simply cries for attention. But to accuse 99% of the autistic population of being fraudulent idiots was completely out of line. What a heart-rending thing for the parent of an autistic child to hear!
In this case, many people protested and asked for Savage's resignation. Savage apologized and backpedaled rapidly. The potential drop in listener ratings was his punishment, and I'm certain his advisors kept a more watchful eye on him after that episode. This was an appropriate punishment. Everybody says stupid things without thinking every now and then. To fire a good radio host over a stupid mistake is a little severe. All the same, Savage went too far. I do not believe such statements should be prevented, because that is inhibiting freedom of speech. I do, however, believe that whatever is said, the speaker should be held accountable for. Savage was, and it nearly cost him his occupation.
Tom Thumbling Celebrities
The talents of Tom Thumb and Jenny Lind were certainly exaggerated, which helped them be more successful. The interesting thing about popularity is that it is independent of beauty, talent, or importance. Popularity depends entirely on the belief of the public that a celebrity if popular. It is all in our heads. Thus, when Tom Thumb was portrayed as being wildly popular, he became wildly popular.
There are such celebrities today as well, I believe. I remember recently when David Beckham came to America. He moved to California. Generally speaking, the lives of celebrities in California don't merit coverage in my hometown newspaper in Montana. But I believe Beckham did. He really isn't all that cool; he is a big-wig soccer player with a face that apparently attracts women. But his coming to America was a big deal because the papers covered it. If no one had paid attention to his coming, it wouldn't have been popular news. The newspapers fed off of the popularity they percieved Beckham as having and increased that percieved popularity by making a big deal out of him.
Another celebrity who the media "created" in my mind is Miley Cyrus. She is a cute girl and has a good voice, but there happen to be a lot of cute girls with good voices in this world. Because Disney created a hype over her, she now has hit songs on the radio and gives concerts for thousands of screaming teenage girls. Miley is popular because the media created her popularity. Both of these celebrities are talented, but their popularity is largely a fabrication.
I don't believe there are flat out lies about these celebrities, as there may have been about Tom Thumb and Jenny Lind. However, there is borderline deceit in that the media gives them more coverage than they necessarily deserve, thus creating their importance.
There are such celebrities today as well, I believe. I remember recently when David Beckham came to America. He moved to California. Generally speaking, the lives of celebrities in California don't merit coverage in my hometown newspaper in Montana. But I believe Beckham did. He really isn't all that cool; he is a big-wig soccer player with a face that apparently attracts women. But his coming to America was a big deal because the papers covered it. If no one had paid attention to his coming, it wouldn't have been popular news. The newspapers fed off of the popularity they percieved Beckham as having and increased that percieved popularity by making a big deal out of him.
Another celebrity who the media "created" in my mind is Miley Cyrus. She is a cute girl and has a good voice, but there happen to be a lot of cute girls with good voices in this world. Because Disney created a hype over her, she now has hit songs on the radio and gives concerts for thousands of screaming teenage girls. Miley is popular because the media created her popularity. Both of these celebrities are talented, but their popularity is largely a fabrication.
I don't believe there are flat out lies about these celebrities, as there may have been about Tom Thumb and Jenny Lind. However, there is borderline deceit in that the media gives them more coverage than they necessarily deserve, thus creating their importance.
Why P.R. Consulting is Ethical
Before Image Consulting 
After Image Consulting
I believe that public relations management is absolutely ethical and necessary. Image consulting, appropriate press releasing and the like help companies best represent themselves, and they also benefit society.
I would liken a company to a person. We all look ugly when we wake up in the morning. But that doesn't change who we are on the inside. When we shower, put on nice clothes, make-up, and style our hair, we make a better impression on people around us. We are more desirable companions and tend to act our best because we look our best. This is not deceit; this is representing yourself well. Similarly, we each have "press releases" of sorts. Personal press releases might include, "Mom, I flunked my chemistry test," "I'm sorry sir, but you have lung cancer," or "I just ran over your dog." It is important to time these press releases carefully. It is best for you, and best for your mother, that you tell her about your chemistry test humbly, when she is in a good mood. Similarly, timing press releases for a company is smart business and good manners.
Image consulting does not make someone appear as something they're not, it makes them something they weren't. We all give image consultation to each other on a daily basis: "I like your hair," "I would wear the blue shirt, it brings out your eyes." Improving your image is improving yourself, and this is absolutely ethical in my mind.
I would liken a company to a person. We all look ugly when we wake up in the morning. But that doesn't change who we are on the inside. When we shower, put on nice clothes, make-up, and style our hair, we make a better impression on people around us. We are more desirable companions and tend to act our best because we look our best. This is not deceit; this is representing yourself well. Similarly, we each have "press releases" of sorts. Personal press releases might include, "Mom, I flunked my chemistry test," "I'm sorry sir, but you have lung cancer," or "I just ran over your dog." It is important to time these press releases carefully. It is best for you, and best for your mother, that you tell her about your chemistry test humbly, when she is in a good mood. Similarly, timing press releases for a company is smart business and good manners.
Image consulting does not make someone appear as something they're not, it makes them something they weren't. We all give image consultation to each other on a daily basis: "I like your hair," "I would wear the blue shirt, it brings out your eyes." Improving your image is improving yourself, and this is absolutely ethical in my mind.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
How Advertising has Affected my Buying Habits
Is advertising effective? This is too broad a question to be answer "yes" or "no." Some advertisements are extremely effective with some audiences, whereas other advertisements are ineffective with the same audiences, and similar advertisements are ineffective with other audiences. Because we are pounded with so many advertisements each day, I believe that most advertisements are ineffective. Most fall on deaf ears. I ignore most advertisements on TV and most pamphlets I get in the mail. Even the funny ones often only motivate me to laugh, not to buy.
However, there are a few very effective advertisements that have induced me to buy a few products. These advertisements usually either stand out as very different and notable advertisements, or else pertain directly to me and my condition.
I laughed at "freecreditreport.com" advertisements for many months without actually visiting the site. Then, one day, I realized I wanted a credit report. Where did I go? You bet I went to freecreditreport.com! They have very unique, fun, effective advertisements.
It seems there is always some kind of sale going on at furniture stores. There are always inserts in the newspaper and billboards advertising "blowout sale at Henry's Furniture Store!" I think this is one secret to effective advertising. No one pays attention to these advertisements. Until one day, they realize they need a new sofa. They then see a sale advertised and rush to the store, thinking they can get a great deal. They don't realize that the prices are marked up; that there is ALWAYS a sale going on. Advertisements are somewhat effective when they are cute and funny, but most effective when they find a consumer who is looking for their product.
Most of the advertisements I remember as a child (Kool-Aid, Gushers, Hotwheels) never really provoked me to purchasing. Things like Orbit gum or Icebreakers, Axe Cologne or JC Penny's are more likely to affect me, because these are things that pertain to me. These are things I am thinking of buying anyway, and the fun advertisements just inspire me to pick a particular brand.
However, there are a few very effective advertisements that have induced me to buy a few products. These advertisements usually either stand out as very different and notable advertisements, or else pertain directly to me and my condition.
I laughed at "freecreditreport.com" advertisements for many months without actually visiting the site. Then, one day, I realized I wanted a credit report. Where did I go? You bet I went to freecreditreport.com! They have very unique, fun, effective advertisements.
It seems there is always some kind of sale going on at furniture stores. There are always inserts in the newspaper and billboards advertising "blowout sale at Henry's Furniture Store!" I think this is one secret to effective advertising. No one pays attention to these advertisements. Until one day, they realize they need a new sofa. They then see a sale advertised and rush to the store, thinking they can get a great deal. They don't realize that the prices are marked up; that there is ALWAYS a sale going on. Advertisements are somewhat effective when they are cute and funny, but most effective when they find a consumer who is looking for their product.
Most of the advertisements I remember as a child (Kool-Aid, Gushers, Hotwheels) never really provoked me to purchasing. Things like Orbit gum or Icebreakers, Axe Cologne or JC Penny's are more likely to affect me, because these are things that pertain to me. These are things I am thinking of buying anyway, and the fun advertisements just inspire me to pick a particular brand.
Effective and Ineffective Advertisements
I will first bring to the stand one of my all-time favorite advertisements: Mac v. PC. I absolutely love these commercials, and I view them as remarkably effective. The portrayal of a Mac as a down-to-earth, user-friendly, likeable guy in juxtaposition to the obnoxious, difficult, unecessarily formal PC is very convincing. It is also very funny. Those who have experience with both Mac and PC computers know that Mac software is generally more intuitive and reliable. At least that has been my experience. These adds bring to my mind the experience I have had and convince me that the stereotype really is true. I believe Mac computers to be superior to PC computers, in part thanks to these television ads.
The second series of advertisements I think are effective and good are the "freecreditreport.com" advertisements. These advertisements always feature a catchy song with funny lyrics that get stuck in one's head. When a jingle is stuck in your head, the advertising continues on long after you hear or see it. This guy with his guitar sings a song (I believe) about marrying into thousands of dollars of debt because he didn't check his fiancees credit report. He wishes he was a happy bachelor with a dog in his yard, instead of living in his mother's basement with his wife. These advertisements are obviously very effective, because when I needed a credit report a while ago, they were the first website that popped into my mind.
Now the following advertisement is symbolic of the many, many identical car advertisements I have seen in my life. There are many unique, funny, fun car advertisements. However, there are too many that simply
show a shiny car driving thru woods or mountains or deserts or snowy roads. When I see such an advertisement, I am immediately turned off. I usually don't even pay attention to what brand of car is being advertised. I have just seen that exact same advertisement too many times, and it is boring to me. I suppose if I was looking to buy a car I might feel differently, but even then I am doubtful. I don't care for these nature-drive commercials at all. They strike me as too similar and ineffective. Advertising should be all about standing out so consumers take note.
This final advertisement is just plain bad. Granted, it looks like it was designed before modern advertising techniques were developed, but it is still just a bad advertisement. The advertisement uses the words "less irritating." In my mind, this insinuates that Luckies Cigarettes are still irritating to some degree, albeit a lesser one. The doctor at the top of the page seems to be saying, "Go ahead, have a cigar. It will only irritate your throat a little!" Also, this advertisement switches tenses from "they are less irritating" to "It's toasted!" I want to know: less irritating than what? Than chewing fiberglass? and what's toasted? What does toasted even mean? You smoke cigarettes, you don't toast them! For these reasons, I consider this a bad advertisement.TV and the LCD
Critiques argue that in trying to “offend no one,” the networks tend to offer TV programs that appeal to the “lowest common-denominator.” Do you agree? Can you name programs that are definitely for the LCD? Can you think of any network (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CW) programs that defy the LCD label? Explain.
I am not certain I understand the definition of "lowest common denominator." I have heard it used with two very different connotations. I have heard people refer to "the lowest common denominator" as the lowest class in society; those with the lowest morals and the fewest inhibitions. I have also heard "the lowest common denominator" used to mean the average person, the most common man. I will therefore answer the prompt in both ways.
"LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR:" Dregs of society
I see how one could argue that some television shows appeal to the lowest eschelon of society. For instance, "America's Most Wanted," MTV, and the Simpsons and other shows leave me with a gross and unclassy feeling. However, in general, I think that television shows don't insult the viewers intelligence. There are many classy and uplifting shows with high moral standards. 60 Minutes, the Discovery Channel, and even CNN and FoxNews all appeal to viewers from any social class. There are plenty of classy and impressive shows on TV. I therefore disagree with the statement that television appeals to the lowest social class, or rather, the one with the lowest morals."LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR": Average Joe
I think television does largely appeal to a wide audience. However, with cable and satellite dishes, the newest generation of television watchers are very diverse. For instance, the cooking channel does not appeal to the "lowest common denominator." The Outdoor Channel does not appeal to the average man. These are specialized shows that target certain audiences, just as magazines have target audiences.That being said, most news channels (CBS, CNN, NBC) do largely appeal to the average man. Anybody and everybody will watch CNN. The lowest common denominator watches The Office, America's Got Talent, and American Idol. The average person is not offended or disinterested in these shows. Therefore, it is a general guideline that television does appeal to the lowest common denominator, though there are specialized channels that offer unique shows. These allow non-average viewers to see as obscure, amoral, or unconventional television as they might wish.
TV--On Impact
Some people say that television has had a greater influence on society than any other medium. My gut reaction to this supposition is to disagree: I think the internet has had a far greater impact. However, upon reflection, I do agree that television has had the greatest influence on society.
I come to this conclusion because of the power television has in deceminating ideas rapidly. When the Superbowl is on, all of America tunes in. Dorm life ceases every Thursday night while everyone in my hall goes to watch the office. Most people in America who were alive at the time remember watching Neil Armstrong walk on the moon. I know of no other media that holds the rapt attention of such a majority of Americans. It is true, there are quite probably more internet users than television watchers, but the internet is an enormous and diverse place. When one surfs the web, they choose what sites they go to and what they do. While a TV-watcher can change channels, they are limitted to watching what is playing on the channels they have.
Few people read the newspaper these days. Not everyone has time for magazines or radio. However, even many of the lowest class in America today have televisions as a permanent fixture in their homes. Yes, I do believe that the television has the greatest impact of any medium on Americans. With 60 million people owning cable television and American households averaging 7 hours of TV per day, it is clear that television is the most widely used and effectively unifying of the forms of media.
I come to this conclusion because of the power television has in deceminating ideas rapidly. When the Superbowl is on, all of America tunes in. Dorm life ceases every Thursday night while everyone in my hall goes to watch the office. Most people in America who were alive at the time remember watching Neil Armstrong walk on the moon. I know of no other media that holds the rapt attention of such a majority of Americans. It is true, there are quite probably more internet users than television watchers, but the internet is an enormous and diverse place. When one surfs the web, they choose what sites they go to and what they do. While a TV-watcher can change channels, they are limitted to watching what is playing on the channels they have.
Few people read the newspaper these days. Not everyone has time for magazines or radio. However, even many of the lowest class in America today have televisions as a permanent fixture in their homes. Yes, I do believe that the television has the greatest impact of any medium on Americans. With 60 million people owning cable television and American households averaging 7 hours of TV per day, it is clear that television is the most widely used and effectively unifying of the forms of media.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Chapter 9: To make a BlockBuster 2008
I am going to answer this question as if I had no morals or qualms whatsoever, because it is quite possible that some producers in Hollywood don't.
The Blockbuster would be an epic Good v. Evil battle film. I would involve new technology and place the hero in the midst of a civil war on Mars, between two alien civilizations. The beautiful damsel would be the daughter of the Chief Bad Guy, and she would be torn between allegience to her father's regime and her attraction to the hero. I would make certain there were plenty of twists in the plot: deception, betrayal, the Hero captured, the empire on the verge of destruction, and then a sudden and triumphant comeback. The damsel would marry the hero, (or at least make out with him) and he would be offered the throne, but he would decline, preferring to ride off alone to his next adventure like a true western hero.
These are elements I have seen work in other movies. Aliens, a suave hero divorced from history and society, a swooning damsel, epic attraction and epic violence: all of these things are really quite popular these days.
It seems to me that making a blockbuster is really a matter of money, or a gamble. Some ridiculously low-budget films (Napolean Dynamite) for example, do very well. But usually, it is the highest budget films (Lord of the Rings, Dark Knight, War of the Worlds, etc.) That are most popular and bring in the most revenues.
The Blockbuster would be an epic Good v. Evil battle film. I would involve new technology and place the hero in the midst of a civil war on Mars, between two alien civilizations. The beautiful damsel would be the daughter of the Chief Bad Guy, and she would be torn between allegience to her father's regime and her attraction to the hero. I would make certain there were plenty of twists in the plot: deception, betrayal, the Hero captured, the empire on the verge of destruction, and then a sudden and triumphant comeback. The damsel would marry the hero, (or at least make out with him) and he would be offered the throne, but he would decline, preferring to ride off alone to his next adventure like a true western hero.
These are elements I have seen work in other movies. Aliens, a suave hero divorced from history and society, a swooning damsel, epic attraction and epic violence: all of these things are really quite popular these days.
It seems to me that making a blockbuster is really a matter of money, or a gamble. Some ridiculously low-budget films (Napolean Dynamite) for example, do very well. But usually, it is the highest budget films (Lord of the Rings, Dark Knight, War of the Worlds, etc.) That are most popular and bring in the most revenues.
The Pervasiveness of Violence and Sexuality in the Theatre
Why are sex and violence increasingly pervasive in our movies?? In the first place, I wanted to make certain that they are. I went online to Fandango and found that of the Top 10 ranked movies there listed, 8 contained some violence or sensuality. Clearly, thhese things are much more readily accepted than they were in the days of "Leave it to Beaver."
Why are violence and sex so popular these days? I think it partly has to do with the oft-quoted couplet,
Vice is a creature of such frightful mein,
that, to be feared, needs but to be seen
Yet seen too-often, familiar with her face
We first shun, then pity, and then embrace.
Our society is becoming more and more numb to violence and sexuality on the screen. To excite the senses and bring in money, moviemakers have to push the limits and find new frontiers. I don't think the public are asking for more sex and violence, but they are interested when they see it. Most people don't want to see more sex and violence. However, most people subconciously do want to see these things. When people yield to the 'natural man', more violent and pornographic movies are produced.
In short, I think it goes two ways: movie producers force the sex and violence they want to see on the public, and half of the audience clamors for more, while the other half doesn't speak up against it. They numbers are all the same to the producers: they don't care if you object to the content of a movie, they care that you buy a ticket in the theater.
Why are violence and sex so popular these days? I think it partly has to do with the oft-quoted couplet,
Vice is a creature of such frightful mein,
that, to be feared, needs but to be seen
Yet seen too-often, familiar with her face
We first shun, then pity, and then embrace.
Our society is becoming more and more numb to violence and sexuality on the screen. To excite the senses and bring in money, moviemakers have to push the limits and find new frontiers. I don't think the public are asking for more sex and violence, but they are interested when they see it. Most people don't want to see more sex and violence. However, most people subconciously do want to see these things. When people yield to the 'natural man', more violent and pornographic movies are produced.
In short, I think it goes two ways: movie producers force the sex and violence they want to see on the public, and half of the audience clamors for more, while the other half doesn't speak up against it. They numbers are all the same to the producers: they don't care if you object to the content of a movie, they care that you buy a ticket in the theater.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Newspapers: Hard or Fluffy?
In reading The Provo Herald, I find that about half of the cover section is hard news and half is soft news. The front page, however, is mostly human interest stories of local people, very soft news, with only a little blurb of real hard news, about a democratic leader, and a small article on a new local elementary school. The real hard national news about oil prices and politics was found deeper in the A section of the newspaper.
The sports section was basically purely hard news, with stats and game reports all the way thru. There was very little extra commentary, just cold hard facts.
The Lifestyle section was basically pure soft news. It was magazine-esque in it's content; there was no real news to report, just tips and style ideas.
Is the Newspaper still the "watchdog" for the public? I think that depends on who you are. In my hometown, Bozeman Montana, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle was remarkably liberal and biased, and many conservatives in that area didn't feel a connection with it. I know I certainly was rubbed the wrong way. But to some people, the newspaper served to inform them and confirm their beliefs. The paper certainly exposes crime and lets people know what is going on, but I think Muckraking has gone by the wayside and become the job of documentary film makers and novel writers: eg. "Fast Food Nation," "Nickeled and Dimed," "Press for the Truth" and "Supersize Me." So the newspaper is less of a watchdog now, and more of a secretary. There is no real muckraking, but much informing and keeping up to date of citizenry.
The sports section was basically purely hard news, with stats and game reports all the way thru. There was very little extra commentary, just cold hard facts.
The Lifestyle section was basically pure soft news. It was magazine-esque in it's content; there was no real news to report, just tips and style ideas.
Is the Newspaper still the "watchdog" for the public? I think that depends on who you are. In my hometown, Bozeman Montana, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle was remarkably liberal and biased, and many conservatives in that area didn't feel a connection with it. I know I certainly was rubbed the wrong way. But to some people, the newspaper served to inform them and confirm their beliefs. The paper certainly exposes crime and lets people know what is going on, but I think Muckraking has gone by the wayside and become the job of documentary film makers and novel writers: eg. "Fast Food Nation," "Nickeled and Dimed," "Press for the Truth" and "Supersize Me." So the newspaper is less of a watchdog now, and more of a secretary. There is no real muckraking, but much informing and keeping up to date of citizenry.
Chapter 6: Radio Stations
Here is a brief outline of five Utah radio stations:
KHTB 94.9 FM
FORMAT: "Hot 94.9 The Blaze - Utah's Hottest Rock Station" (Rock)
ADVERTISING: Dollar Loan, Tela Performance, Del Taco. general local offers.
TARGET AUDIENCE: People of any age who like rock music. (I called and asked)
WHY IS IT SUCCESSFUL: This station plays very current, popular songs, such as "Womanizer" by Brittany Spears, "I'm Yours" by Jason Mraz, and "Viva la Vida" by Coldplay. These are big sellers on Itunes right now, and people like this kind of music. I would listen to this radio station, because it plays songs I know and like. Other popular singers this station is playing today include Chris Brown, Christina Aguillera, and Nickelback. It's successful because it is just plain good music! Also there was hardly any advertising, mostly just music.
KENZ 107.5 FM
FORMAT:107.5 FM The End (Adult Album Alternative/Old time Country)
ADVERTISING: Karl Malone Toyota, Best Deal Spring, Chevrolet (Mostly Auto)
TARGET AUDIENCE: Oldish Adults who like old time country
WHY IS IT SUCCESSFUL: This is fun, quirky country and music that would appeal to an older crowd. This could be a nice background music for a office. They played Instrumental guitar music, and "Lay You Down." This did not appeal to me at all. But I can see how old, rural, adults would like to listen to this music and reminisce about the old days. They keep this station alive. There was very little advertising, mostly just solid music, which appeals to music listeners. Ads tend to turn listeners off.
FM 104.3 "The Cowboy"
FORMAT: Country Music
ADVERTISING: Dodge trucks, Jewerly, Medicine, Peppermill Concert Hall, etc. (Adult to college student content)
TARGET AUDIENCE: College students and older who like Country
WHY IS IT SUCCESSFUL: Country is popular with many people, especially in Utah. It's fun music to listen to. The music is the appeal, I believe. There were a significant number of advertisements, but they were interesting and fun to listen to advertisements, so they were tolerable between songs. Songs such as "Young" and "Start a Band" are popular and appealing. Good music and a country audience keeps this radio station alive, because advertisers see how many people tune in.
AM 1160 KSL
FORMAT: This is talk radio, with Sean Hannity and others
ADVERTISING: Legal Zoom.com, Geico, Medicines, Mitsubishi sales
TARGET AUDIENCE: Conservative listeners. A liberal would never want to listen to this. :)
WHY IS IT SUCCESSFUL: It resonates so powerfully with conservative listeners! I got riled up listening to the outrages of liberals while listening. I felt my own personal political views validated. This is one of the only media which has a blatantly conservative perspective. Where else would conservatives go to have a pat on the back?
AM 1280-The Zone
FORMAT: Sports talk radio
ADVERTISING: Jared's Jewelery, State Farm Insurance, Noise Cancellation Headphones (genereal interest advertisements)
TARGET AUDIENCE: Sports fans
WHY IS IT SUCCESSFUL: This radio show appeals to people who love sports. They can catch up on the latest stats, hear an educated opinion about current sports, and become informed for conversations with sports friends. Sports people love this sort of thing! That audience keeps this station alive. Another fun function that makes the station popular is that it has a "whiner line," a telephone line whereon anyone can call in an complain to a public audience about something that irritates them. This not only makes for heightened listening (and thus more advertising $) but also appeals to gripers. This unique idea makes the radio program a novel and successful one.
KHTB 94.9 FM
FORMAT: "Hot 94.9 The Blaze - Utah's Hottest Rock Station" (Rock)
ADVERTISING: Dollar Loan, Tela Performance, Del Taco. general local offers.
TARGET AUDIENCE: People of any age who like rock music. (I called and asked)
WHY IS IT SUCCESSFUL: This station plays very current, popular songs, such as "Womanizer" by Brittany Spears, "I'm Yours" by Jason Mraz, and "Viva la Vida" by Coldplay. These are big sellers on Itunes right now, and people like this kind of music. I would listen to this radio station, because it plays songs I know and like. Other popular singers this station is playing today include Chris Brown, Christina Aguillera, and Nickelback. It's successful because it is just plain good music! Also there was hardly any advertising, mostly just music.
KENZ 107.5 FM
FORMAT:107.5 FM The End (Adult Album Alternative/Old time Country)
ADVERTISING: Karl Malone Toyota, Best Deal Spring, Chevrolet (Mostly Auto)
TARGET AUDIENCE: Oldish Adults who like old time country
WHY IS IT SUCCESSFUL: This is fun, quirky country and music that would appeal to an older crowd. This could be a nice background music for a office. They played Instrumental guitar music, and "Lay You Down." This did not appeal to me at all. But I can see how old, rural, adults would like to listen to this music and reminisce about the old days. They keep this station alive. There was very little advertising, mostly just solid music, which appeals to music listeners. Ads tend to turn listeners off.
FM 104.3 "The Cowboy"
FORMAT: Country Music
ADVERTISING: Dodge trucks, Jewerly, Medicine, Peppermill Concert Hall, etc. (Adult to college student content)
TARGET AUDIENCE: College students and older who like Country
WHY IS IT SUCCESSFUL: Country is popular with many people, especially in Utah. It's fun music to listen to. The music is the appeal, I believe. There were a significant number of advertisements, but they were interesting and fun to listen to advertisements, so they were tolerable between songs. Songs such as "Young" and "Start a Band" are popular and appealing. Good music and a country audience keeps this radio station alive, because advertisers see how many people tune in.
AM 1160 KSL
FORMAT: This is talk radio, with Sean Hannity and others
ADVERTISING: Legal Zoom.com, Geico, Medicines, Mitsubishi sales
TARGET AUDIENCE: Conservative listeners. A liberal would never want to listen to this. :)
WHY IS IT SUCCESSFUL: It resonates so powerfully with conservative listeners! I got riled up listening to the outrages of liberals while listening. I felt my own personal political views validated. This is one of the only media which has a blatantly conservative perspective. Where else would conservatives go to have a pat on the back?
AM 1280-The Zone
FORMAT: Sports talk radio
ADVERTISING: Jared's Jewelery, State Farm Insurance, Noise Cancellation Headphones (genereal interest advertisements)
TARGET AUDIENCE: Sports fans
WHY IS IT SUCCESSFUL: This radio show appeals to people who love sports. They can catch up on the latest stats, hear an educated opinion about current sports, and become informed for conversations with sports friends. Sports people love this sort of thing! That audience keeps this station alive. Another fun function that makes the station popular is that it has a "whiner line," a telephone line whereon anyone can call in an complain to a public audience about something that irritates them. This not only makes for heightened listening (and thus more advertising $) but also appeals to gripers. This unique idea makes the radio program a novel and successful one.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Chapter 6: Radio: It's Personal
Radio has been described as the "most personal" of the media. I believe this is due to several factors.
For one thing, listeners have very personal control over the radio. Most people drive alone in their cars the majority of their time (who else from your family would come with you to work everyday?) As such, the lone drivers have complete control over what is played, and can decide what they want to listen to with the twist of a knob. I know of very few people who sit and watch television all alone for hours on end. It's just so lame and anti-social! In contrast, lone radio-listening in the car is perfectly socially acceptable. When you are the only person to satisfy, you have complete control over what is played.
Another factor that makes radio more personal than magazines, newspapers, or television, is that it brings a live human voice with no indicated audience right into your car or room.
For example: I turn on the Rush Limbaugh Radio Program. Rush starts ranting, telling me "Do you know what's wrong with this country? I'll tell you what's wrong with this country!" I can't see who he's looking at to see who he is addressing, but his voice is loud and clear as if he were present in my car. I feel like he is talking directly to me. Singers have the same effect. I hear "Desperado" by the Eagles, and I feel like they are playing and singing right to me, like they KNOW me. This phenomenon is not present in television, where messages come from a box, and images clearly show that the speakers are either not looking at you, or else addressing you insincerely. They don't know you! Magazines and Newspapers don't know you either, they just prepared their information for the masses. Radio, on the other hand, with it's floating and poignent voice floating out of thin air to you, feels much more personal. You can sing along to music, (most people do, I bet :) or argue with talk radio show hosts (at least I do. :) because it feels like they are right there with you in the car.
Music is an essential element of radio programming because it provides ambience in an obscure location and advertises new songs. These two functions make it appealing to listeners for several reasons. Let's take "If Everyone Cared" by Nickelback, as an example:
-SOCIAL FUNCTION: A kid turns on the radio in his car because he wants to impress his friends with his savvy "in-the-know" knowledge of music. He hears "If Everyone Cared" and remembers to ask his friends, "Have you heard Nickelbacks new song?" to boost his social status.
-ENTERTAINMENT FUNCTION: A man turns on the radio and hears Nickelback. He starts drumming on his dashboard and singing along. He enjoys the music and is entertained on an otherwise boring drive (or boring afternoon at work.)
-EMOTIONAL FUNCTION: A tired and discouraged civil rights activist hears the song on the radio and it lets out her frustration. She revels in the defiant and powerful message of the song and feels better after hearing it.
ADVERTISING FUNCTION: A producer from a record label which sponsors Nickelback wants to get their music out there and boost sales. They put it on the radio and sales go up.
Talk radio also is a popular part of radio. Why so? I personally love listening to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage or calling in on local talk radio shows. Listening makes me feel more informed and aware of what is happening in the world. My priest quorum used to discuss stories and topics we had heard from Glenn Beck all the time. I am also entertained by these speakers, and my personal political views are vindicated on the air. Many conservatives in America don't speak out because they feel like they have a minority view. This is probably due partly to the (debatably) liberal television and print media bias. Radio is the last truly conservative media. Listening to a conservative soap-box speech from a powerful speaker is justifying and refreshing. It is also rather entertaining. For these reasons talk radio is popular and probably will continue to be so.
For one thing, listeners have very personal control over the radio. Most people drive alone in their cars the majority of their time (who else from your family would come with you to work everyday?) As such, the lone drivers have complete control over what is played, and can decide what they want to listen to with the twist of a knob. I know of very few people who sit and watch television all alone for hours on end. It's just so lame and anti-social! In contrast, lone radio-listening in the car is perfectly socially acceptable. When you are the only person to satisfy, you have complete control over what is played.
Another factor that makes radio more personal than magazines, newspapers, or television, is that it brings a live human voice with no indicated audience right into your car or room.
For example: I turn on the Rush Limbaugh Radio Program. Rush starts ranting, telling me "Do you know what's wrong with this country? I'll tell you what's wrong with this country!" I can't see who he's looking at to see who he is addressing, but his voice is loud and clear as if he were present in my car. I feel like he is talking directly to me. Singers have the same effect. I hear "Desperado" by the Eagles, and I feel like they are playing and singing right to me, like they KNOW me. This phenomenon is not present in television, where messages come from a box, and images clearly show that the speakers are either not looking at you, or else addressing you insincerely. They don't know you! Magazines and Newspapers don't know you either, they just prepared their information for the masses. Radio, on the other hand, with it's floating and poignent voice floating out of thin air to you, feels much more personal. You can sing along to music, (most people do, I bet :) or argue with talk radio show hosts (at least I do. :) because it feels like they are right there with you in the car.
Music is an essential element of radio programming because it provides ambience in an obscure location and advertises new songs. These two functions make it appealing to listeners for several reasons. Let's take "If Everyone Cared" by Nickelback, as an example:
-SOCIAL FUNCTION: A kid turns on the radio in his car because he wants to impress his friends with his savvy "in-the-know" knowledge of music. He hears "If Everyone Cared" and remembers to ask his friends, "Have you heard Nickelbacks new song?" to boost his social status.
-ENTERTAINMENT FUNCTION: A man turns on the radio and hears Nickelback. He starts drumming on his dashboard and singing along. He enjoys the music and is entertained on an otherwise boring drive (or boring afternoon at work.)
-EMOTIONAL FUNCTION: A tired and discouraged civil rights activist hears the song on the radio and it lets out her frustration. She revels in the defiant and powerful message of the song and feels better after hearing it.
ADVERTISING FUNCTION: A producer from a record label which sponsors Nickelback wants to get their music out there and boost sales. They put it on the radio and sales go up.
Talk radio also is a popular part of radio. Why so? I personally love listening to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage or calling in on local talk radio shows. Listening makes me feel more informed and aware of what is happening in the world. My priest quorum used to discuss stories and topics we had heard from Glenn Beck all the time. I am also entertained by these speakers, and my personal political views are vindicated on the air. Many conservatives in America don't speak out because they feel like they have a minority view. This is probably due partly to the (debatably) liberal television and print media bias. Radio is the last truly conservative media. Listening to a conservative soap-box speech from a powerful speaker is justifying and refreshing. It is also rather entertaining. For these reasons talk radio is popular and probably will continue to be so.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Popular Paper Problems
There has been a trend recently of large-scale metropolitan newspapers losing circulation, while community papers are thriving.
EXAMPLES OF BAD CIRCULATION IN THE METROPOLITAN ARENA:
Paper Circulation for six months ending March 31 2008: % change vs. '07
USA Today......................................2,284,219 .........................+0.27
Wall Street Journal.......................2,069,463........................+0.35%
New York Times............................1,077,256 .........................-3.85%
Los Angeles Times..........................773,884...........................-5.13%
New York Daily News................... 703,137...........................-2.09%
New York Post............................... 702,488......................... -2.35%
Washington Post........................... 673,180.......................... -3.57%
Chicago Tribune............................ 541,663........................... -4.44%
Houston Chronicle....................... 494,131............................ -1.79%
Arizona Republic ..........................413,332........................... -4.70%
Newsday........................................ 379,613............................ -4.68%
San Francisco Chronicle............. 370,345............................. -4.20%
Dallas Morning News.................. 368,313............................-10.59%
Boston Globe................................ 350,605............................. -8.34%
(Information from http://seekingalpha.com/article/74417-newspaper-circulation-wsj-usa-today-manage-to-buck-trend)
Obviously, most of these papers haven't been doing very well. Why? I called the Provo Daily Herald circulation office and asked them that question. They confirmed what I had thought: people just don't have time to read big newspapers. Steven, the man I talked with, called it "time empoverishment." The internet is just a more convenient, inexpensive, and efficient medium for gleaning national information than a bulky and expensive newspaper. Television also provides news in a quick and efficient manner, and requires less time than tedious reading does.
Steve also told me that studies show that about 40% of people buy newspapers for the advertisements. They want the information about sales and offers, and newspaper is a way to get it. But with the development of the online media, advertisement is easier than ever. If I want to see an advertisement for paints, because I'm working on a house project, I can go look up good deals immediately on the internet. I can even request emailed advertisements. For these reasons, it makes sense that newspapers would be on the decline.
However, small community papers are bucking this trend.
Bozeman Daily Chronicle is a bit of an example. In 2008, its circulation for the third quarter was around 17,800 people. Although overall circulation went down 2% from 2007 to 2008, house delivery sales went up, as well as online subscriptions.
What can be learned from this? While people may not go out of there way to buy newspapers on the street, they do like local papers delivered to their houses or viewed online.
Why would local newspapers be doing well when metro ones are declining? I beleive (and Steve agrees) that small community newspapers are still the most effective way to get local news. National news and advertising can be found all over the internet, but local news stories--like personal profiles, city council meeting results, and events schedules--are harder to find. They exist in the far reaches of cyberspace. These small-town news stories and articles belong best being locally circulated thru newspapers. There is no discrimination between cities online. You can get info no matter where you are from. Thus, information pertinent to only your community is harder to find, because no geographic boundaries exist. For these reasons, community papers are more successful in the face of the rising online media boom.
I believe metro papers will continue to decrease in popularity, while local papers will remain an important source of local news for a very long time.
EXAMPLES OF BAD CIRCULATION IN THE METROPOLITAN ARENA:
Paper Circulation for six months ending March 31 2008: % change vs. '07
USA Today......................................2,284,219 .........................+0.27
Wall Street Journal.......................2,069,463........................+0.35%
New York Times............................1,077,256 .........................-3.85%
Los Angeles Times..........................773,884...........................-5.13%
New York Daily News................... 703,137...........................-2.09%
New York Post............................... 702,488......................... -2.35%
Washington Post........................... 673,180.......................... -3.57%
Chicago Tribune............................ 541,663........................... -4.44%
Houston Chronicle....................... 494,131............................ -1.79%
Arizona Republic ..........................413,332........................... -4.70%
Newsday........................................ 379,613............................ -4.68%
San Francisco Chronicle............. 370,345............................. -4.20%
Dallas Morning News.................. 368,313............................-10.59%
Boston Globe................................ 350,605............................. -8.34%
(Information from http://seekingalpha.com/article/74417-newspaper-circulation-wsj-usa-today-manage-to-buck-trend)
Obviously, most of these papers haven't been doing very well. Why? I called the Provo Daily Herald circulation office and asked them that question. They confirmed what I had thought: people just don't have time to read big newspapers. Steven, the man I talked with, called it "time empoverishment." The internet is just a more convenient, inexpensive, and efficient medium for gleaning national information than a bulky and expensive newspaper. Television also provides news in a quick and efficient manner, and requires less time than tedious reading does.
Steve also told me that studies show that about 40% of people buy newspapers for the advertisements. They want the information about sales and offers, and newspaper is a way to get it. But with the development of the online media, advertisement is easier than ever. If I want to see an advertisement for paints, because I'm working on a house project, I can go look up good deals immediately on the internet. I can even request emailed advertisements. For these reasons, it makes sense that newspapers would be on the decline.
However, small community papers are bucking this trend.
Bozeman Daily Chronicle is a bit of an example. In 2008, its circulation for the third quarter was around 17,800 people. Although overall circulation went down 2% from 2007 to 2008, house delivery sales went up, as well as online subscriptions.
What can be learned from this? While people may not go out of there way to buy newspapers on the street, they do like local papers delivered to their houses or viewed online.
Why would local newspapers be doing well when metro ones are declining? I beleive (and Steve agrees) that small community newspapers are still the most effective way to get local news. National news and advertising can be found all over the internet, but local news stories--like personal profiles, city council meeting results, and events schedules--are harder to find. They exist in the far reaches of cyberspace. These small-town news stories and articles belong best being locally circulated thru newspapers. There is no discrimination between cities online. You can get info no matter where you are from. Thus, information pertinent to only your community is harder to find, because no geographic boundaries exist. For these reasons, community papers are more successful in the face of the rising online media boom.
I believe metro papers will continue to decrease in popularity, while local papers will remain an important source of local news for a very long time.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Chapter 5: Specialized Magazine Readership
I went to the local Barnes and Noble bookstore and picked up a copy of a magazine I had never seen before: Woodcarving Illustrated.
I have never been passionate about woodcarving; the extent of my carving experience was whittling with a dull knife at scoutcamp. But this magazine actually got me a little excited about the prospect of woodcarving. I think I may take it up as a hobby.
In looking for the "target audience" of this magazine, I found a helpful note from the Editor, Shannon Flowers: "With every issue, we receive emails and letters from readers commenting on the mix of carving styles we've included...Experienced carvers say we don't have enough advanced projects and others claim there aren't enough articles of beginners. For every letter I receive asking for more of a particular type of project, there is another letter requesting the opposite. Over the course of the year, you'll find the mix pretty even."
This shows that feedback comes from both expert and beginning carvers, and thus both types of woodcarvers read this magazine. There is virtually nothing of any interest in here for anyone who does not or does not desire to carve wood. All of the ads pertain to carving, to list a few: wood tool sharpeners, wood, workshop lamps, workshop sawdust collectors, carving design software, carving tools, carving Santa contests, carving books, hand forged knives, and woodburners. There were no ads that did not pertain to this topic.
Articles were written by and about woodcarvers. One man taught children to appreciate carving by helping them carve faces into sweet potatoes in school, and he was highlited for it. There was a how-to guide for artists to make a relief mantle piece and another on creating a house sign. These were obviously for experienced carvers, because the tools they referred to were unfamiliar to me. There were also a few articles appealing to beginners, explaining what grain is in wood and why it is important to pay attention to it. This article by Everett Ellenwood was interesting and informative to me, but I can see how it would be obvious to an expert. He had great illustrations of using grain, though, like this piece, called "One Feather."If we look at Woodcarver's Illustrated using the "uses and gratifications" theory, it is clear that this magazine exists because it offers information and entertainment to a small group of people who don't get that kind of information any other way. I've never heard of a woodcarving channel on TV. The magazine thrives because it fills a need that no one else is filling.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Chapter 5: Impact of Internet on Magazines
Internet has been big for almost two decades now. While this new medium has impacted the magazine industry in some ways, the perseverance and popularity of magazines suggests that they still hold an important place in our society.
Electronic media make everything more readily available. Right now, I am looking at www.readersdigest.com and finding all sorts of current and applicable articles. The development of the internet might intuitively seem like an antagonist to magazine sales. The two seem to compete with eachother. In some ways, they may. Those unwilling to pay for magazines can get their information from online sources. But in other ways, the internet has helped the magazine cause. Subscribing to a magazine is now easier than ever: all you need to do you can do online in a matter of minutes. Advertising is also facilitated. Magazines can place ads anywhere on the internet to attract subscribers.
It is my opinion (and I dare say a verifiable one) that the internet will not drive magazines out of business. In high school, many of my teachers subscribed to magazines. I have a few theories as to why they are preferred:
1. The internet has a lot of information, and a lot of false information. People trust what they read in print more than they trust what they read in cyberspace.
2. There is something nice about having a tangible medium. I love holding magazines and looking at their glossy pages. Who doesn't?
3. Some magazines don't publish the same information online as they do in their publications. There were new and unique articles online at www.readersdigest.com, different from those published in the magazine. To get the good stuff, people have to subscribe.
The internet isn't changing much these days, apart from spreading in influence. I do not see it changing much in the future. A good friend of mine says, "laziness is the mother of invention."
What could change about the internet that would make it easier to use? It is so efficient, quick, and easy!! If the internet does not change, there is no reason it's current effect on magazines should change. Magazines will always be important to our society.
Electronic media make everything more readily available. Right now, I am looking at www.readersdigest.com and finding all sorts of current and applicable articles. The development of the internet might intuitively seem like an antagonist to magazine sales. The two seem to compete with eachother. In some ways, they may. Those unwilling to pay for magazines can get their information from online sources. But in other ways, the internet has helped the magazine cause. Subscribing to a magazine is now easier than ever: all you need to do you can do online in a matter of minutes. Advertising is also facilitated. Magazines can place ads anywhere on the internet to attract subscribers.
It is my opinion (and I dare say a verifiable one) that the internet will not drive magazines out of business. In high school, many of my teachers subscribed to magazines. I have a few theories as to why they are preferred:
1. The internet has a lot of information, and a lot of false information. People trust what they read in print more than they trust what they read in cyberspace.
2. There is something nice about having a tangible medium. I love holding magazines and looking at their glossy pages. Who doesn't?
3. Some magazines don't publish the same information online as they do in their publications. There were new and unique articles online at www.readersdigest.com, different from those published in the magazine. To get the good stuff, people have to subscribe.
The internet isn't changing much these days, apart from spreading in influence. I do not see it changing much in the future. A good friend of mine says, "laziness is the mother of invention."
What could change about the internet that would make it easier to use? It is so efficient, quick, and easy!! If the internet does not change, there is no reason it's current effect on magazines should change. Magazines will always be important to our society.
Chapter 4: Paper or Plastic?
For my classes, I prefer using real paper textbooks. These are the advantages I see in using them:
1. If they sit on your shelf or on your floor, they are a constant reminder that you need to study.
2. They contain quantified information. When I read a textbook, I see that it is so many inches thick, so many pages long. That makes me feel like I have a goal with an end destination; I can one day say "Ha! I have conquered you, textbook! I learned everything you threw at me!" I have looked at our chemistry textbook online, and I feel overwhelmed in doing so, because I feel like I am looking out at a vast ocean of information. The end is not in sight!
3. Computers are fickle things. They get grumpy if you glance at them wrong and catch colds and viruses very easily. When this happens, you call up your computer repair man and wait for a few days before you have internet use again. With a paper textbook, there are no such risks and delays.
The only reason I would prefer to use an online textbook would be if it has flash animation educational resources. These are helpful and available only in this medium.
I have never used an e-book, and the thought does not appeal to me. I like paperbound books for my leisure reading. Why? Several reasons come to mind:
1. If I have a paperbound book, it is mine! I can put it on my shelf to remind me I have read it. I can write notes in it if I want to, lend it to a friend, hold it, heft it, love it! I have no sense of ownership over online books. They are public property. Anyone can read them. I like paper books just like people like to own their own land. There is something gratifying about ownership and responsibility for objects.
2. I am a prime example of "online ADD." I get distracted from my goals very easily when I am online and end up in the far reaches of cyberspace reading about penguins, because I clicked on some add that looked interesting. Gmail and Facebook especially would distract me from reading an ebook, whereas a paper copy has no distractions.
3. I have heard that reading on screens is unhealthy for one's eyes. I enjoy reading paper more than looking at a bright screen.
For these reasons, I am a paper book and textbook fan.
1. If they sit on your shelf or on your floor, they are a constant reminder that you need to study.
2. They contain quantified information. When I read a textbook, I see that it is so many inches thick, so many pages long. That makes me feel like I have a goal with an end destination; I can one day say "Ha! I have conquered you, textbook! I learned everything you threw at me!" I have looked at our chemistry textbook online, and I feel overwhelmed in doing so, because I feel like I am looking out at a vast ocean of information. The end is not in sight!
3. Computers are fickle things. They get grumpy if you glance at them wrong and catch colds and viruses very easily. When this happens, you call up your computer repair man and wait for a few days before you have internet use again. With a paper textbook, there are no such risks and delays.
The only reason I would prefer to use an online textbook would be if it has flash animation educational resources. These are helpful and available only in this medium.
I have never used an e-book, and the thought does not appeal to me. I like paperbound books for my leisure reading. Why? Several reasons come to mind:
1. If I have a paperbound book, it is mine! I can put it on my shelf to remind me I have read it. I can write notes in it if I want to, lend it to a friend, hold it, heft it, love it! I have no sense of ownership over online books. They are public property. Anyone can read them. I like paper books just like people like to own their own land. There is something gratifying about ownership and responsibility for objects.
2. I am a prime example of "online ADD." I get distracted from my goals very easily when I am online and end up in the far reaches of cyberspace reading about penguins, because I clicked on some add that looked interesting. Gmail and Facebook especially would distract me from reading an ebook, whereas a paper copy has no distractions.
3. I have heard that reading on screens is unhealthy for one's eyes. I enjoy reading paper more than looking at a bright screen.
For these reasons, I am a paper book and textbook fan.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Chapter 4: As the Good Book Says....
In surveying fifteen people (the more the merrier, right?) I found a large range of diversity in book readers.
The stats on numbers of books read among my freshman honors english class were:
3,15, 5,5,3,10,3,2,20,15,6,2,3,4,3 books read in the past six months.
The average was 6.6 books in the past six months.
The median was 4 books in the past six months.
The most common number was 3 books in the past six months.
These stats tell us a few significant things:
1. In my sample population (freshman Honors English students at BYU) most people read at least one book ever two months.
2. There are a few select individuals in this population who read like crazy and ought to take up a sport. :) just kidding.
The genres of these books were:
Fiction: 13
Sci-fi: 1
Classics: 3
Religious: 3
Autobiog: 1
Obviously, fiction is a popular genre among freshmen. Religious books are also popular among LDS youths. We might assume that the number of religious books is higher than it would be among underachieving LDS youths or youths in general. As competitive as it is to get into BYU, the Honors freshman students are probably more academically inclined than the average.
This also shows us a high acceptance and love for fiction novels. There was a time in America when fiction was frowned upon by scrupulous citizens, under the rationale: "why would you read lies when there is so much truth in the world?" A anecdotal story may help show the change America has undergone since that time. John Taylor, in the early days of the Church, found that his son had one day brought home the novel "2,000 Leagues Under the Sea" by Jules Verne. He confiscated the book, and told his son, "in this family, we do not read fiction!"
The next morning, John Taylor's son came downstairs to see his father just turning the last pages of the book. He handed it back to his son and told him, "that's a good book! You should read it sometime!" (Source: William R. Flake, Professor of Religion at BYU, September 2008).
It is clear that since that time, fiction has become a very popular genre, especially among young adults. We can see this in the crazes surrounding Harry Potter, Eragon, Lord of the Rings, Twilight, and even historical fictions like The DaVinci Code.
The stats on numbers of books read among my freshman honors english class were:
3,15, 5,5,3,10,3,2,20,15,6,2,3,4,3 books read in the past six months.
The average was 6.6 books in the past six months.
The median was 4 books in the past six months.
The most common number was 3 books in the past six months.
These stats tell us a few significant things:
1. In my sample population (freshman Honors English students at BYU) most people read at least one book ever two months.
2. There are a few select individuals in this population who read like crazy and ought to take up a sport. :) just kidding.
The genres of these books were:
Fiction: 13
Sci-fi: 1
Classics: 3
Religious: 3
Autobiog: 1
Obviously, fiction is a popular genre among freshmen. Religious books are also popular among LDS youths. We might assume that the number of religious books is higher than it would be among underachieving LDS youths or youths in general. As competitive as it is to get into BYU, the Honors freshman students are probably more academically inclined than the average.
This also shows us a high acceptance and love for fiction novels. There was a time in America when fiction was frowned upon by scrupulous citizens, under the rationale: "why would you read lies when there is so much truth in the world?" A anecdotal story may help show the change America has undergone since that time. John Taylor, in the early days of the Church, found that his son had one day brought home the novel "2,000 Leagues Under the Sea" by Jules Verne. He confiscated the book, and told his son, "in this family, we do not read fiction!"
The next morning, John Taylor's son came downstairs to see his father just turning the last pages of the book. He handed it back to his son and told him, "that's a good book! You should read it sometime!" (Source: William R. Flake, Professor of Religion at BYU, September 2008).
It is clear that since that time, fiction has become a very popular genre, especially among young adults. We can see this in the crazes surrounding Harry Potter, Eragon, Lord of the Rings, Twilight, and even historical fictions like The DaVinci Code.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Chapter 3: Too Much Media!!!
There is a disease among us, so insidious, that no one can withstand. It has infiltrated our homes. It has absorbed the lives of our children. It is manifest everywhere, growing more prevalent every minute, and it is currently allowing me to write this and publish it to a world-wide audience. Cool, eh?
The mass media obviously cannot be reduced to a good or bad thing. While many vices and evils have been promoted, much good has come about as well from the rise of the mass media society.
Media is a just a vehicle: it allows us to go more places and see more things at greater speeds than we could before. But it can also lead to trouble if we spend too long in the car.
Evidence of over-dependence on mass media is all around us. I recently played a CD of Disney tunes in my car. My freshman friends instantly started singing along as if they had the songs programmed into their minds. In a sense they did! My generation grew up watching Disney, Nickalodeon, and PBS. The trend still continues: whenever I babysit my siblings and don't know what to do with them, I put on a movie or TV show. I'm insinuating that child exposure to media is inherently bad; such things obviously teach children about the world around them. However, over-exposure can have negative effects. In Aaron Espe's recently released album, Songs from a Small Town, he sings the lyrics, "I grew up without a television/All we ever did was play with the neighbor kids." Real life social interaction must be more healthy for young children then fake, scripted, virtual realities taught by movies and media.
One major threat presented by the media is idleness. For centuries, idleness was looked upon as a terrible vice. Inactivity keeps people from achievement and excercise. The growing obesity rate of Americans may very well be due to the population's inactivity based on overuse of computers, televisions, and magazines. Most of us need look no further than our own lives for recent evidence of this fact. I personally spent at least two hours today in front of a computer. Imagine the excercise I could have gotten or the good I could have accomplished with that time.
Another threat of overuse with the media is overdependence. Media influence dominates our lives. If the government were to somehow gain control over all forms of media coverage, we would be living in an Orwellian nightmare. As things stand, people depend on media for news, perspective on which issues are important, fashion, and social standards. This was clearly illustrated by L. Tom Perry's talk in 2003, "The Importance of the Family." He told the following story:
"Several years ago, I was having dinner with my daughter and her family. The scene is all too common in most homes with small children. My daughter was trying to encourage her young, three-year-old son to eat a balanced meal. He had eaten all the food on his plate that he liked. A small serving of green beans remained, which he was not fond of. In desperation, the mother picked up a fork and tried to encourage him to eat his beans. He tolerated it just about as long as he could. Then he exclaimed, “Look, Mom, don’t foul up a good friendship!”
Those were the exact words he heard on a television commercial a few days earlier. Oh, what impact advertising, television programs, the Internet, and the other media are having on our family units!
We remind you that parents are to preside over their own families."
Clearly, while media is a useful tool, we must be careful not to get so drawn into it that it begins to define our lives. One day, our media may be gone. All it would take is a well-planned bombing of a few satellites. If our lives based and centered on various forms of media, we may realize we don't have much should that day come. It is important for people not to become involved in media to the point that it defines their being.
The mass media obviously cannot be reduced to a good or bad thing. While many vices and evils have been promoted, much good has come about as well from the rise of the mass media society.
Media is a just a vehicle: it allows us to go more places and see more things at greater speeds than we could before. But it can also lead to trouble if we spend too long in the car.
Evidence of over-dependence on mass media is all around us. I recently played a CD of Disney tunes in my car. My freshman friends instantly started singing along as if they had the songs programmed into their minds. In a sense they did! My generation grew up watching Disney, Nickalodeon, and PBS. The trend still continues: whenever I babysit my siblings and don't know what to do with them, I put on a movie or TV show. I'm insinuating that child exposure to media is inherently bad; such things obviously teach children about the world around them. However, over-exposure can have negative effects. In Aaron Espe's recently released album, Songs from a Small Town, he sings the lyrics, "I grew up without a television/All we ever did was play with the neighbor kids." Real life social interaction must be more healthy for young children then fake, scripted, virtual realities taught by movies and media.
One major threat presented by the media is idleness. For centuries, idleness was looked upon as a terrible vice. Inactivity keeps people from achievement and excercise. The growing obesity rate of Americans may very well be due to the population's inactivity based on overuse of computers, televisions, and magazines. Most of us need look no further than our own lives for recent evidence of this fact. I personally spent at least two hours today in front of a computer. Imagine the excercise I could have gotten or the good I could have accomplished with that time.
Another threat of overuse with the media is overdependence. Media influence dominates our lives. If the government were to somehow gain control over all forms of media coverage, we would be living in an Orwellian nightmare. As things stand, people depend on media for news, perspective on which issues are important, fashion, and social standards. This was clearly illustrated by L. Tom Perry's talk in 2003, "The Importance of the Family." He told the following story:
"Several years ago, I was having dinner with my daughter and her family. The scene is all too common in most homes with small children. My daughter was trying to encourage her young, three-year-old son to eat a balanced meal. He had eaten all the food on his plate that he liked. A small serving of green beans remained, which he was not fond of. In desperation, the mother picked up a fork and tried to encourage him to eat his beans. He tolerated it just about as long as he could. Then he exclaimed, “Look, Mom, don’t foul up a good friendship!”
Those were the exact words he heard on a television commercial a few days earlier. Oh, what impact advertising, television programs, the Internet, and the other media are having on our family units!
We remind you that parents are to preside over their own families."
Clearly, while media is a useful tool, we must be careful not to get so drawn into it that it begins to define our lives. One day, our media may be gone. All it would take is a well-planned bombing of a few satellites. If our lives based and centered on various forms of media, we may realize we don't have much should that day come. It is important for people not to become involved in media to the point that it defines their being.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Stereotypes in the Media Today
Stereotypes absolutely exist in the media today. As much as our society stresses political correctness (a modern euphamism for censorship) stereotypes have endured and likely will endure, both blatantly and subtly.
This depiction of men in the media leads some to turn to steroids and pills for greater self esteem. In the end, they just end up looking like this guy:
Gross, huh?
It is present in magazines, where women are given tips to lose weight and get "the body you've always wanted." Really, the message the advertisers are intending is "this is the magazine you've always wanted." The stereotype is seen in television shows (Desperate Housewives, Lost) and even in the news broadcasters who are women. All this media pressure is leading many girls to anorexia and bulimia in an effort to find self-respect and beauty.
Stereotypes of the elderly are also prevalent. The following picture advertises: "For the prompt control of senile agitation: Thorazine." This is an old ad, but it shows that senior stereotypes are nothing new. Not all old people are angry and unreasonable, not all need canes, and certainly none deserve to be treated like animals, in need of "prompt control." On the contrary, many are free-spirited and able-bodied men and women capable of almost anything, like this guy here:
Some old people are like maxine; I know a few personally and love them for it. But to assume the Maxine is a typical elderly woman is absurd! People are more diverse than that.
One of the most prevalent stereotypes is of body image, for both men and women. Nearly every women's magazine offers some secret formula for a girl to improve her appearance, and many men's magazines do as well. In movies, the heroes are usually lean, slim, musclular men of medium height and remarkable good looks. 
(Think: The Rock, Batman, Spiderman, Speedracer, Pirates of the Carribean.)The truth is, most men are average looking, come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, and aren't ripped.
(Think: The Rock, Batman, Spiderman, Speedracer, Pirates of the Carribean.)The truth is, most men are average looking, come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, and aren't ripped. This depiction of men in the media leads some to turn to steroids and pills for greater self esteem. In the end, they just end up looking like this guy:
Gross, huh?Body image stereotypes are even worse for women of all ages. Girls are constantly bombarded with the message that looks are all that men care about, and that their bodies aren't good enough until they are stick-thin and perfectly porportioned. This is the message in movies (John Tucker Must Die, Pirates of the Carribean, Mean Girls, and nearly every adventure or romance film.)
It is present in magazines, where women are given tips to lose weight and get "the body you've always wanted." Really, the message the advertisers are intending is "this is the magazine you've always wanted." The stereotype is seen in television shows (Desperate Housewives, Lost) and even in the news broadcasters who are women. All this media pressure is leading many girls to anorexia and bulimia in an effort to find self-respect and beauty.
Many of these media also portray women as promiscuous and sensual. Desperate Housewives is a classic example, but not the only one. A recent study showed that the most common role for a woman in video games is the role of prostitute. (see http://www.commonsensemedia.org/resources/body_image.php) This is obviously a distortion of true womanhood, because the real world simply isn't that way.
Other stereotypes involve minorities. Granted, there are far fewer racial stereotypes in the media today than in the days of John Wayne. We now see more and more protagnists of minority races (Hancock, Rush Hour, Hitch, College Road Trip, etc.) But some stereotypes to persist. 
Have you ever noticed how when you see an asian in a film, you automatically assume they know karate or some form of martial arts? This fallacy could be partially accreditted to Jackie Chan's cinema work thru the decades. It is a stereotype nevertheless.
Have you ever noticed how when you see an asian in a film, you automatically assume they know karate or some form of martial arts? This fallacy could be partially accreditted to Jackie Chan's cinema work thru the decades. It is a stereotype nevertheless.
Stereotypes of the elderly are also prevalent. The following picture advertises: "For the prompt control of senile agitation: Thorazine." This is an old ad, but it shows that senior stereotypes are nothing new. Not all old people are angry and unreasonable, not all need canes, and certainly none deserve to be treated like animals, in need of "prompt control." On the contrary, many are free-spirited and able-bodied men and women capable of almost anything, like this guy here:
One obvious and well-known (and in some cases, beloved) stereotype of the elderly is Maxine. This old lady lives with her dog, looks grumpy, and always has something sardonic to say.
Some old people are like maxine; I know a few personally and love them for it. But to assume the Maxine is a typical elderly woman is absurd! People are more diverse than that.
Another interesting stereotype of the elderly is that they are usually white. The vast majority of senior citizens portrayed in the media are not of minority races.
These are just a few of the many stereotypes that persist today in our media. I do not believe stereotypes are usually intention nor malicious. Neither do I believe that we can eradicate stereotypes from our media, because the media by design portrays the world as the script-writers, advertisers, and reporters see it, and they all have our own classifications and stereotypes of people. We as media consumers must simply see these stereotypes for what they are.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Chapter 1: Informing, Persuading, Entertaining
Television, radio, newspapers and magazines are each useful because each fills a different societal need. To some degree, each serves to inform, persuade, and entertain simultaneously, but the emphases of these purposes vary between media.
Television is used largely to entertain, and to some degree to inform, viewers. By and large, viewers see television shows such as "The Office," "Lost" and "House" as more reliable sources of entertainment than they see CNN and Fox News as reliable sources of news. Because television is the only classic medium that utilizes both sound and sight (other than the internet) it is an ideal form of entertainment. It is fun to watch television for hours, whereas reading a magazine or newspaper for hours requires mental exertion. For this reason, I argue that television is the most effective medium of ENTERTAINMENT.
TV is likewise effective in communicating information, images and ideas. Debates and newsflashes inform viewers and tell them what to think about, but our media book states that most people rely on opinion leaders for guidance, and those leaders rely mostly on written media.
As such, newspapers and magazines typically are the surest source of INFORMATION. Whereas radio and television give brief overviews of the news highlights, newspapers and magazines contain in-depth articles devoted to specific issues. Herein opinions are expressed in open forums, allowing readers to understand other people's perspectives on issues. Newspapers generally deal with information essential to the informed reader. Magazines often publish information pertaining t
o specialized interests. For example, if I wanted information on how to effectively carve pumpkins, I would go to this months Reader's Digest. If I wanted to know about upcoming events in the provo area, I would go to the Daily Universe and look at the advertisements for the SEGO festival therein.
o specialized interests. For example, if I wanted information on how to effectively carve pumpkins, I would go to this months Reader's Digest. If I wanted to know about upcoming events in the provo area, I would go to the Daily Universe and look at the advertisements for the SEGO festival therein.The written word is the most effective means of INFORMING.
Radio has two facets: talk radio and music radio. Talk radio, I argue, is the most effective medium of PERSUASION. Music radio is a runner-up to television in the art of entertainment.
Talk radio features powerful and opinionated speakers like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck shouting their deepest feelings. I noticed that when I started regularly listening to talk radio over the summer, my opinions became more decidedly aligned with those of the radio hosts. For this reason--the power of oration--I am convinced that talk radio is the most effective means of persuasion.
Music radio, on the other hand, strives to entertain the listeners. Music is fun to listen to, but from my experience most people would rather watch and listen to television than strictly listen to music on the radio. Radio takes second place in it's effort to entertain. It still exists because it is available to drivers. Music stations are extant on TV, they just aren't extant in cars like the radio is.
For these reasons, I believe television is the most effective medium in entertainment, the written media in information, and radio in persuasion.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Chapter 1: The Communications Supermodel
The Communications Model is one of those things which, as you learn, leads you to say "Oh. That makes sense. I feel like I knew it all along. I just never thought of it that way." I think part of the reason this feeling comes when learning of the model is that any thoughtful analysis of media throughout life shows evidence of communication, noise, and interpretation.
This is a drastically different message, differing in the decoding of the article.
CASE IN POINT #1: NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
On Friday September 26, 2008, the Daily Universe ran an article with the headline: "Bailout deal breaks down; Paulson goes back to Capitol." This article chronicles the difficulty our national leaders are having in finding a solution for the enormous financial crisis on America's doorstep. It tells how leaders are disagreeing on important issues and percieved progress is illusory. The interesting thing about this article (as with all articles) is the inherent bias. This spin originates in the encoding the article writer performs while composing his article. Noise could include edits and revisions made by the paper editor. Decoding changes the meaning conveyed as well.
For instance, let us observe the following sentence: "John Boehner expressed misgivings about the emerging plan and McCain would not commit to supporting it..." This sentence could paint two distinct images in the readers' minds, depending on how they happen to decode it. Either they see the fact that McCain "would not commit" implying a lack of conviction or competency
This version of McCain is wishwashy.
This version of McCain is wishwashy.Another reader might decode the message to mean "Boehner had misgivings, but McCain was firm in his stance and would not commit to a bad plan."
This is a drastically different message, differing in the decoding of the article.
There is a very limitted feedback available in this medium. One could write a letter to the editor, or the associated press reporter, but it wouldn't make much difference. Newspaper involve basically half of the Communications Model. Reporters encode information, it is published, and we decode it as we wish, without much feedback. The channel is the writing, printing, and reading of the newspaper. The most significant noise in this model is probably lack of readership. If people don't read the articles, they won't get the message.
CASE IN POINT: Magazines.
Time Magazine recently ran a front-page article entitled "The End of Prosperity?" illustrating the similarities between the 1929 depression and our current economic situation. The author (sender)of this article communicated thru images, facts, and opinions written in the article. Part of the message encoded was
"In the case of households, debt rose from about 50% of GDP in 1980 to a peak of 100% in 2006. In other words, households now owe as much as the entire U.S. economy can produce in a year. " This stark fact communicated the message to the readers of the article: "Oh boy, we are in trouble!" Of course, this depends entirely on the decoding, or interpretation, the reader applies to the information.
Noise involved in this scenario is similar to the noise involved in newspapers: lack of readership, functional issues, and faulty encoding can distort or prevent the message from being transmitted thru the channel of magazine composition, distribution, and literary consumption. Feedback is limited in this medium as well. Letters to the magazine headquarters are permissable, and some magazines allow letters to the editor to be published. The internet has greatly allowed more readers of magazines to provide feedback by leaving online comments, blogs, and ratings of articles.
EXAMPLE: RADIO
Glenn Beck, a very popular national radio host, spoke in a show recently about the bailout bill just passed by the Senate. In that show, he rhetorically asked of senators:
It's not enough to vote for the bill to save your country? You need an incentive? You need something to convince you besides your sacred duty, besides our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor? This bill last night that was passed is the size of a novel. I'm a pretty fast reader. I couldn't read 435 pages in one night, let alone 435 pages written by attorneys! Section 325 provides essential tax breaks for the wool research fund. What else do we need to know! Could we make sandwiches out of wool? No! Sweaters! What else do you need to know about wool! Section 503 gives tax breaks for the manufacturer of wooden arrows used in toys for children. Price tag, $6 million. Wooden arrows? Aren't you the same people that are telling me that it's politically incorrect to play cowboys and Indians!
This is a prime showcase of the differences between print and radio media. Herein, the encoding of the message is Glenn Beck writing a speech and speaking into a microphone. The channel of transmission is thru radio airwaves, and the decoding takes play in car stereo systems and listener's minds all around the country. This message is conveyed not only with facts, but also with intense emotion, and talk radio shows are generally designed to make listeners resonate and emote in harmony with the sender. With both talk radio and music radio, noise comes thru static as mechanical noise, verbal mistakes from the sender and lack of comprehension as semantic noise, and outside influences such as other cars or crying children as environmental noise. Feedback in the radio medium is more common today than ever before, as many stations allow callers to express their opinions and agree or disagree with speakers or to request songs. Noise can interrupt feedback in the form of lost calls. There are also gatekeepers who screen the callers and can interrupt the channel of feedback.
TELEVISON:
TELEVISON:
CNN covered the vice-presidential debates, and put this clip of the debate online:
Television is a very popular medium for people to get their news. This may be due partly to the fact that there is very little noise involved in the television communication model. I am currently in the midst of a music project, an original CD that I will be releasing in about a month. The fellow who is mixing the music told me "in some ways you benefit from mixing via headphones. In other ways you shortchange yourself. Headphones give a very severe, blatant perspective to the sound you are making, and expose every little detail." The same might be said of television. Because it allows viewers such and unadulterated and direct channel to the sender of the message conveyed, it exposes minute details unavailable thru other media.
In this clip, Joe Biden sends a message in many ways. His appearance, his words, his slightest gesture and change of posture all send a message to the receivers: the American viewers. The endcoding lies in all of these factors, as well as the lighting, camera angle, and editting put in by workers at CNN. The message is that Barack Obama will end the war in Iraq, and McCain won't. The channel is thru electromagnetic waves thru-out the country. The decoding is in the televisions themselves, as well as in the minds and eyes of the viewers. Feedback occurs in forums online, and no feedback is available for viewers wishing to respond directly thru the same channel as they received the message. Noise can occur semantically (I don't understand what he just said!) , mechanically, (Oop, we've got static again!) and environmentally (Kids, quiet down! I can't hear the TV!)
All of these forms of media have different limitations and benefits. Notwithstanding, each can fit into the Communications Model. Some admittedly fit better than others. For instance, Television and magazines have less feedback opportunities than do radio and newspapers. And the channel is more tangible in television and radio than in newspaper and magazines. Still, the model can be stretched to apply to every medium with some degree of success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)