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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)