Writing prompt: "The third blog post should be a thoughtful analysis of how the strategic marketing of products and services through the Internet and Television has changed the way we now view commercials and/or advertisements."
In class, we watched a lot of Super Bowl commercials. Apart from all costing at least $3 million each (not for the actual production of the videos, but to show them during the Super Bowl), many of them had something else in common -- they were designed to make viewers laugh. I didn't actually count the percentage of funny to not funny commercials, but I guess that at least 75% of the ones we watched in class were humorous by design. Even the ones that were not outright funny (like the one in which a Dalmatian trains a horse who wants to be a Budweiser Clydesdale) had elements of humor in them . Americans love to laugh, after all, and funny commercials are attention-grabbers -- especially those which are easily understandable. Witty, educated humor has no place in Super Bowl ads, because they would leave too many people scratching their heads in confusion. They have to cater to the average American.
The results seem to be working. Doritos are very popular chips and Budweiser is sold all over the world. These two brands in particular have advertised during the Super Bowl for years. Budweiser even has a special page on its website so that anyone (over the age of 21) can download their commercials. This way, viewers can, as the website states, "enjoy Budweiser on [their] computer or mobile phone." However, before they get access to the website, each visitor to the website must enter his or her date of birth. This can easily be faked, of course, but at least Budweiser has some semblance of "protection" for minors.
It is not that the beer commercials contain explicit content. Rather, many parents believe that alcohol should not be glorified while children are watching. Kids could easily get the wrong idea, which could lead them to trying alcohol when their parents aren't looking. Adults can make the decision to drink, and many of them know the consequences of drinking alcohol. Kids are different. They do not realize that alcohol can be glorified on television and in movies, and rarely are the results of drugs and alcohol shown.
Commercials are designed to get into a consumer's mind. For example, if I were a beer drinker, I may be inclined to pick up a pack of Budweiser because I liked (and still remember) their commercials that featured talking frogs. It may not even be a conscious decision; I could pick up a certain brand of beer because I am familiar with it...I've heard about it and seen it advertised. This works wonderfully for the companies who sell these products, but (again) the products they sell may not be appropriate for children. That's why it's important that parents talk to their kids about these kinds of things, so that if they happen to see advertisements for alcohol or, say, condoms, they will know what these things are...not just what the advertisers want them to know. It's imperative that parents talk to their kids about controversial subjects; if they don't, they run the risk of their children learning about these things through the media.
Advertisements geared toward children present their own problems. As we learned when we watched Local Kids TV, ACT (Advertising Community Together) was formed in the 1990s to help control what kids are exposed to on television. At the time, some kids' shows used not-so-subtle advertising techniques, even though the "purpose" of the show was supposed to be education, NOT promoting a certain brand of something. It's refreshing to know that these people are coming together in the interest of children, because that seems rare these days.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Just the Highlights
Blog prompt: "The second blog post should address the different MEDIA INFO outlets that now exist for the acquisition of news, and in particular those of a POLITICAL nature".
One of the things that frustrates me the most about modern society is the fact that so many people speak in news headlines. They will watch the news for a few minutes, "get the highlights," as it were, and then go about their day. While at work or hanging out with friends, if someone else mentions a news story, they are quick to regurgitate whatever snippet of the news they heard earlier that day. Political discussion cannot happen because not everyone involved in the conversation is knowledgeable about the situation.
We live in a "give it to me now" society; people want things quickly, and they want to access them easily. It is much more time-consuming to read a newspaper or book about an issue than it is to listen to a five-minute news segment.
Of course, it is out of necessary that the media (television news stations, newspapers, etc.) edit news stories. They do not have the time or resources to put all the information out there for consumption; not only that, viewers would be bored and bogged down in all the details. These necessary exclusions are not a major problem for many adults, who can seek out more information about issues they see on the news if they wish. It's different for children. If they happen to catch a few minutes of a news show (either on a national news channel or a satirical news show like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report), they are likely to take it at face value. They have not yet learned to be filters instead of sponges for everything they see and read.
In my classroom, I attempt to teach middle schoolers how to think critically. It is crucial that they learn to question everything. In his preface to Leaves of Grass (1855 edition), Walt Whitman encouraged his readers to "re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book." I have taken this advice to heart, and I want my students to as well. I don't want them to not trust anyone, but I do want them to understand that everyone is biased to some degree (in the case of the media, this is an important concept) and that it is ok to question what others say...for it is only by asking questions that we learn.
When people start asking questions about the media (especially political media) and why certain things/issues/ideas are presented the way they are, they become more media literate. They are able to filter what they see and hear, which is necessary for critical thinking.
One of the things that frustrates me the most about modern society is the fact that so many people speak in news headlines. They will watch the news for a few minutes, "get the highlights," as it were, and then go about their day. While at work or hanging out with friends, if someone else mentions a news story, they are quick to regurgitate whatever snippet of the news they heard earlier that day. Political discussion cannot happen because not everyone involved in the conversation is knowledgeable about the situation.
We live in a "give it to me now" society; people want things quickly, and they want to access them easily. It is much more time-consuming to read a newspaper or book about an issue than it is to listen to a five-minute news segment.
Of course, it is out of necessary that the media (television news stations, newspapers, etc.) edit news stories. They do not have the time or resources to put all the information out there for consumption; not only that, viewers would be bored and bogged down in all the details. These necessary exclusions are not a major problem for many adults, who can seek out more information about issues they see on the news if they wish. It's different for children. If they happen to catch a few minutes of a news show (either on a national news channel or a satirical news show like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report), they are likely to take it at face value. They have not yet learned to be filters instead of sponges for everything they see and read.
In my classroom, I attempt to teach middle schoolers how to think critically. It is crucial that they learn to question everything. In his preface to Leaves of Grass (1855 edition), Walt Whitman encouraged his readers to "re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book." I have taken this advice to heart, and I want my students to as well. I don't want them to not trust anyone, but I do want them to understand that everyone is biased to some degree (in the case of the media, this is an important concept) and that it is ok to question what others say...for it is only by asking questions that we learn.
When people start asking questions about the media (especially political media) and why certain things/issues/ideas are presented the way they are, they become more media literate. They are able to filter what they see and hear, which is necessary for critical thinking.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
"Adult" Cartoons: What They Mean for Kids
This is a blog written for my Media Literacy class. The writing prompt I was given was: "Address cable television shows, and in particular adult cartoons like South Park, Family Guy and The Simpsons, in context with the other video we watched in class – Pioneers of Television – Local Kids TV."
When I was growing up, my parents were very strict about the television shows that I was allowed to watch. I could not watch The Simpsons (my dad's favorite show) because my mother thought it was inappropriate for children. When I was in middle school, I was the only girl in my entire class who didn't get to watch Dawson's Creek. It wasn't for lack of time or trying; I vied for it, but my mom thought that its depictions of teenage sexuality were not suitable for a thirteen-year-old.
I railed against this television censorship as a child, but as an adult I understand what my parents were trying to accomplish. It wasn't exactly television tyranny; my mother simply did not want to expose me to adult issues and explicit language before I was ready. She was worried about the effect those kinds of shows have on childrens' minds.
Other parents have expressed the same concern for decades -- almost since television's inception. An organization called Parents Television Council (PTC) was formed in the mid-1990s to educate parents about the television programs their kids are watching. For less media-savvy parents, it has doubtless been a lifesaver. Some parents let their kids watch television unsupervised, and thus they do not know what their kids are seeing.
Thanks to the PTC, TV shows now have ratings. Not only do these ratings tell the minimum suggested age for a viewer (seven for TV-PG and 14 for TV-14, for example), they tell what the show contains, like adult language, suggestive [read: sexual] dialogue, and/or nudity. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, for example, always has a TV-MA rating. This show is suggested for mature audiences only, and the rating (which appears before every show and during commercial breaks, for viewers who are just tuning in) includes the specific aspects of the episode that some may find offensive. (One of the most recent episodes did include male nudity, but viewers were warned.) Always Sunny's target audience does not include children, and it is not likely that they will seek it out.
Adult cartoons, however, blur these lines a little more. Unlike live-action shows for adults, cartoons seem created for children (even if the content itself is not). If one were to see a still image from South Park, a popular cartoon on Cartoon Network, it would be easy to think that it's a show for kids. One minute of dialogue from the show would likely convince you otherwise, if only because of the explicit language. F-bombs are dropped left and right. Family Guy is similar. Though it does not contain explicit language, the dialogue is not exactly kid-friendly. Yet it contains several elements that many kids appreciate in a TV show: a catchy theme song, a talking dog, an annoying older sister, and a smart-aleck baby. Neither of these shows have "kid-friendly" ratings, and both have been lambasted by the PTC for their wildly inappropriate content.
Like many things that are "off-limits," kids seek these shows out because they are popular among older kids, teenagers, and adults. This may be a recipe for disaster.
In PBS's Pioneers of Television: Local Kids TV show, it is pointed out that not all popular kids' television shows have to have a moral. They can be strictly made for entertainment and still very much appreciated by kids and parents alike. The problem comes when kids are exposed to language and issues that they are too young to understand. Perhaps it's better to let kids be kids for a while, and enjoy "adult" cartoons later.
When I was growing up, my parents were very strict about the television shows that I was allowed to watch. I could not watch The Simpsons (my dad's favorite show) because my mother thought it was inappropriate for children. When I was in middle school, I was the only girl in my entire class who didn't get to watch Dawson's Creek. It wasn't for lack of time or trying; I vied for it, but my mom thought that its depictions of teenage sexuality were not suitable for a thirteen-year-old.
I railed against this television censorship as a child, but as an adult I understand what my parents were trying to accomplish. It wasn't exactly television tyranny; my mother simply did not want to expose me to adult issues and explicit language before I was ready. She was worried about the effect those kinds of shows have on childrens' minds.
Other parents have expressed the same concern for decades -- almost since television's inception. An organization called Parents Television Council (PTC) was formed in the mid-1990s to educate parents about the television programs their kids are watching. For less media-savvy parents, it has doubtless been a lifesaver. Some parents let their kids watch television unsupervised, and thus they do not know what their kids are seeing.
Thanks to the PTC, TV shows now have ratings. Not only do these ratings tell the minimum suggested age for a viewer (seven for TV-PG and 14 for TV-14, for example), they tell what the show contains, like adult language, suggestive [read: sexual] dialogue, and/or nudity. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, for example, always has a TV-MA rating. This show is suggested for mature audiences only, and the rating (which appears before every show and during commercial breaks, for viewers who are just tuning in) includes the specific aspects of the episode that some may find offensive. (One of the most recent episodes did include male nudity, but viewers were warned.) Always Sunny's target audience does not include children, and it is not likely that they will seek it out.
Adult cartoons, however, blur these lines a little more. Unlike live-action shows for adults, cartoons seem created for children (even if the content itself is not). If one were to see a still image from South Park, a popular cartoon on Cartoon Network, it would be easy to think that it's a show for kids. One minute of dialogue from the show would likely convince you otherwise, if only because of the explicit language. F-bombs are dropped left and right. Family Guy is similar. Though it does not contain explicit language, the dialogue is not exactly kid-friendly. Yet it contains several elements that many kids appreciate in a TV show: a catchy theme song, a talking dog, an annoying older sister, and a smart-aleck baby. Neither of these shows have "kid-friendly" ratings, and both have been lambasted by the PTC for their wildly inappropriate content.
Like many things that are "off-limits," kids seek these shows out because they are popular among older kids, teenagers, and adults. This may be a recipe for disaster.
In PBS's Pioneers of Television: Local Kids TV show, it is pointed out that not all popular kids' television shows have to have a moral. They can be strictly made for entertainment and still very much appreciated by kids and parents alike. The problem comes when kids are exposed to language and issues that they are too young to understand. Perhaps it's better to let kids be kids for a while, and enjoy "adult" cartoons later.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)