What do you think the world would be like without advertising? How would our relationships be with one another?
A world without advertising is impossible to imagine. In order for a world without advertising to exist, we would have to live in a world without brand names because even wearing a shirt with a Nike symbol is an advertisement for Nike. It is true that we are defined by advertisers so to imagine a life without seeing an advertisement redefines the entire world as we know it. The things that we own, what we eat and the way that we eat, how we look, how we relate to one another, how we act... these things have all been defined by advertisers. I believe that relationships would be stronger because through the removal of the advertising overlords, we would depend more upon interactions with other human beings. We would actually rely on other people's perceptions rather than acting as mindless slaves to advertisements. A world without advertising and consumerism--too good to be true!
This made me think of a point that Jamie brought up in one of her other questions: can a person really say they are not impacted by advertisements? My answer is, definitely not. Advertisements have an effect on every aspect of our lives whether we know it or not. Our very beings are so intertwined with ads, it is impossible to separate the two. In a class on theories of communication, we discussed how attempting to show that you have not been affected by societal standards show the exact opposite--that you perhaps have been more affected. Someone who claims that they have not been impacted by advertisements is the exact opposite of what they say. In order to avoid being impacted by advertisements, it would consume your life and you would end up being the ultimate slave to advertising.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Chapter 12 Questions
1. What is one specific example in which you have seen news journalism be unethical in their coverage of a story? What was it about the coverage that seemed unethical to you (a clear bias, questionable sources, etc...)? What do you think about the coverage we typically see of particularly traumatic events? Do you think journalists go too far in attempting to get a story by attempting to interview family members, etc? How would you handle a story? For example, trying to get in touch with the family members of the four police officers killed in Lakewood, Washington this morning? Have you found the coverage to be ethical/appropriate so far?
2. Do you agree with the assertion made by Woodward and Denton that "Generally, the public thinks that the press has become too powerful, too negative and too biased in its news coverage (353)." What examples come to mind that give you a negative impression of the way that broadcast journalism has become less credible or ethical? What specific channels do you believe are more biased than others? Is it possible to find a news source that is not biased? Why or why not?
3. In a list of major concerns with the ethical considerations of news journalism, Woodward and Denton believe that the negativity portrayed in broadcast journalism has "contributed to the public becoming alienated from the political process (355)." I often find the news is too depressing to watch because of all of the negative stories and the use of scare tactics to keep people tuned in to a particular station so we hear what dangerous things to avoid, etc. What other effects do you think the negativity of broadcast journalism has?
2. Do you agree with the assertion made by Woodward and Denton that "Generally, the public thinks that the press has become too powerful, too negative and too biased in its news coverage (353)." What examples come to mind that give you a negative impression of the way that broadcast journalism has become less credible or ethical? What specific channels do you believe are more biased than others? Is it possible to find a news source that is not biased? Why or why not?
3. In a list of major concerns with the ethical considerations of news journalism, Woodward and Denton believe that the negativity portrayed in broadcast journalism has "contributed to the public becoming alienated from the political process (355)." I often find the news is too depressing to watch because of all of the negative stories and the use of scare tactics to keep people tuned in to a particular station so we hear what dangerous things to avoid, etc. What other effects do you think the negativity of broadcast journalism has?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Defining Film Rhetoric
1. In Blakesley's article "Defining Film Rhetoric," he writes "In its most general sense, the visual turn simply asserts that symbolic action entails visual representation in the inseparable and complex verbal, visual and perceptual acts of making meaning. Who we are and what we know suddenly become intertwined with questions about visual representation or about the relationship between what we can see or imagine and what we know... Seeing is believing, but believing is seeing as well (112)."
In what ways do visual representations in film rhetoric intertwine what we know, see and imagine to make us believe what we are seeing in front of us? What is a specific example of a time this has been effective for you as a viewer? When has it not been effective?
2. "The task of film criticism is to expose film's complicity with or deconstruction of dominant ideology. Rhetorical analyses (of film, texts, speeches or any other symbolic activity) are typically concerned with both how works achieve their effects and how they make their appeals to shared interests (the margin of overlap)among people (115-116)."
In what ways is it easier to analyze and criticize film as a symbolic activities? In what ways is it more difficult? Do you believe that all film needs to be analyzed? Can a film ever be made solely for the purpose of entertainment, with no message attached? Must films always have a rhetorical function?
3. Blakesley argues "The aim of rhetoric, according to Burke, is identification... Film is an especially powerful medium for cultivating this desire for identification, and, of course, not just between film and spectator, but among characters on screen (117)."
How do filmmakers direct our attention to shape our identification when watching a film? Not only in the film itself, but in the way that films are marketed and promoted? Is it possible for filmmakers to create more than one identification with their viewers?
In what ways do visual representations in film rhetoric intertwine what we know, see and imagine to make us believe what we are seeing in front of us? What is a specific example of a time this has been effective for you as a viewer? When has it not been effective?
2. "The task of film criticism is to expose film's complicity with or deconstruction of dominant ideology. Rhetorical analyses (of film, texts, speeches or any other symbolic activity) are typically concerned with both how works achieve their effects and how they make their appeals to shared interests (the margin of overlap)among people (115-116)."
In what ways is it easier to analyze and criticize film as a symbolic activities? In what ways is it more difficult? Do you believe that all film needs to be analyzed? Can a film ever be made solely for the purpose of entertainment, with no message attached? Must films always have a rhetorical function?
3. Blakesley argues "The aim of rhetoric, according to Burke, is identification... Film is an especially powerful medium for cultivating this desire for identification, and, of course, not just between film and spectator, but among characters on screen (117)."
How do filmmakers direct our attention to shape our identification when watching a film? Not only in the film itself, but in the way that films are marketed and promoted? Is it possible for filmmakers to create more than one identification with their viewers?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Seattle's Best Coffee
Looking in from the street outside, Seattle’s Best Coffee has the look of a 50s-style diner. Red lights in the window glow, shine on the red tiled counter, red bar stools and posters proudly displaying Christmas themed drinks: a Peppermint Mocha, a Sugar-and-Spice Latte and Peppermint Hot Chocolate.
Inundated with the scent of freshly ground coffee, cinnamon and peppermint before even stepping foot in the shop, Seattle’s Best Coffee tempts potential customers inside with these comforting fragrances. The low-lit shop is warm and cozy, friendly baristas greet customers and take their orders. A chalkboard presents customers with an opportunity to answer a trivia question to receive a 10 percent discount.
Hand-drawn menus are displayed on the back wall of the shop. Perfectly arranged shelves offer customers a selection of coffee by the pound, mugs, bowls and espresso machines. Next to the register containers of candies entice customers at the point of purchase to have just a taste.
Seattle’s Best Coffee does whatever they can to attract people into their store by displaying their new Christmas offerings, whether it be their drinks or other merchandise. They persuade their customers that Christmas drinks are worth buying as the baristas ask “Would you like to try a Peppermint Mocha today?” as people approach the counter.
Although it is only the beginning of November, Seattle’s Best, along with every other retail site, is dead-set on getting people into the Christmas spirit as soon as they possibly can. By breaking out the coffee filled drinks we associate with the Christmas season, we are reminded that this signifies the start of the Christmas shopping season madness. We are persuaded to go forth and spend, spend as much money as you possibly can, as fast as you can and as soon as you can. In a time of economic uncertainty, even our coffee is telling us that we need to spend more money to get us out of this recession.
By only offering certain drinks at certain times of the year, our past experiences consuming these drinks remind us that it’s time to start shopping. By persuading us to purchase their drinks, Seattle’s Best Coffee is persuading us to continue to consume and spend money on our other Christmas shopping endeavors. They cater to the consumer in us all, by providing us with an opportunity to be reminded of Christmases past. They take us back to memories of drinking Peppermint Mochas last year and provide a nostalgic escape during what is the most chaotic time of the consumer’s year.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
CMJR 350 Blog #1: Response to Ryan's question
2.) In Chapter 6, “The Psychology of Persuasion”, in a section labeled “The Interactions of Beliefs, Attitudes and Values”, Page 137, Woodward and Denton state:
“Our value system gives meaning to the world around us by providing frames of reference and cues for acceptable behavior. Attitudes help us form the dos and don’ts of our daily lives.”
This statement made me think, aren’t attitudes and beliefs rooted in values. I mean Woodward and Denton, say later on that our value system help create a framework for what we believe as acceptable in this world, while our attitudes and beliefs help us form the dos and don’ts of our daily lives. Isn’t what we perceive as acceptable, a basis for what we believe is the good and bad, or in this case our dos and don’ts? Are dos and don’ts different from good and bad? He says earlier that values are much harder to express, while attitudes and beliefs are expressed regularly through conversation. Knowing that values may be inherent to Attitudes and Beliefs couldn’t it be said that values are inherent to our daily expression?
This question makes several good points about values, beliefs and attitudes. While they all represent something different, they are so intertwined that it becomes difficult to tell where one's beliefs and and their values start. Yes, it is true that our values form the framework by which we decide what we do and don't do.
Dos and don'ts, to me are one in the same with good and bad. The choices we make, what we do and what we don't are dictated by our perceptions of what is right and wrong. What one believes is right and wrong is influenced by that person's dos and don'ts.
It is true that values are more difficult to express outright. A person doesn't go around announcing their values to justify actions. Action and expression speak for themselves and display our values whether we are conscious of it or not. It is nearly impossible to act without regard to one's values because they permeate every aspect of our lives.
I would argue that values have the most influence on forming our dos and don'ts of daily life. However, values, beliefs and attitudes all function on the same level and removing one wouldn't allow the other two to function in the way they are meant to or that we are used to.
Values also serve us in many, many more ways than laying out references and cues for acceptable behavior. Woodward and Denton give several different examples of what values are, how they are shaped and how they shape people.
"Values are out central, core ideas about how to conduct our lives. They represent what we intrinsically consider right or wrong (Woodward and Denton 140)."
"Thus, values are ideals, overarching goals that people wish to obtain. Values are more global and general than attitudes (140)."
Values also manifest themselves differently from person to person, depending on their system of values. This makes it difficult to attempt to generalize the roll that values play in society.
“Our value system gives meaning to the world around us by providing frames of reference and cues for acceptable behavior. Attitudes help us form the dos and don’ts of our daily lives.”
This statement made me think, aren’t attitudes and beliefs rooted in values. I mean Woodward and Denton, say later on that our value system help create a framework for what we believe as acceptable in this world, while our attitudes and beliefs help us form the dos and don’ts of our daily lives. Isn’t what we perceive as acceptable, a basis for what we believe is the good and bad, or in this case our dos and don’ts? Are dos and don’ts different from good and bad? He says earlier that values are much harder to express, while attitudes and beliefs are expressed regularly through conversation. Knowing that values may be inherent to Attitudes and Beliefs couldn’t it be said that values are inherent to our daily expression?
This question makes several good points about values, beliefs and attitudes. While they all represent something different, they are so intertwined that it becomes difficult to tell where one's beliefs and and their values start. Yes, it is true that our values form the framework by which we decide what we do and don't do.
Dos and don'ts, to me are one in the same with good and bad. The choices we make, what we do and what we don't are dictated by our perceptions of what is right and wrong. What one believes is right and wrong is influenced by that person's dos and don'ts.
It is true that values are more difficult to express outright. A person doesn't go around announcing their values to justify actions. Action and expression speak for themselves and display our values whether we are conscious of it or not. It is nearly impossible to act without regard to one's values because they permeate every aspect of our lives.
I would argue that values have the most influence on forming our dos and don'ts of daily life. However, values, beliefs and attitudes all function on the same level and removing one wouldn't allow the other two to function in the way they are meant to or that we are used to.
Values also serve us in many, many more ways than laying out references and cues for acceptable behavior. Woodward and Denton give several different examples of what values are, how they are shaped and how they shape people.
"Values are out central, core ideas about how to conduct our lives. They represent what we intrinsically consider right or wrong (Woodward and Denton 140)."
"Thus, values are ideals, overarching goals that people wish to obtain. Values are more global and general than attitudes (140)."
Values also manifest themselves differently from person to person, depending on their system of values. This makes it difficult to attempt to generalize the roll that values play in society.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Questions for Week 10
1. In his article, Parry-Giles says that "Politics in the postmodern media age is a struggle over images. That struggle forms political reality, as the media mediates the "cultural norms of the postmodern age." According to Baty, "mass-mediated rememberances [act] as the common grounds of political cultural residence." Yet when we consume these televisual images, which Stephens depicts as "a magic that may come to dwarf... other forms of communication" we are invited, via the medium itself, to forget their mediated form." I think that this is an interesting concept and especially relevant with the last election. Tina Fey's representation of Sarah Palin are images that many associated with the Republican ticket in November. How did these images from the media mediate cultural norms during the election? How did Fey's impersonations dwarf other forms of communication in the election?
2. Rose's article "Researching Visual Materials" makes the distinction between vision and visuality. She defines visuality as "the way in which vision is connected in various ways: 'how we see, how we are able, allowed, or made to see, and how we see this seeing and the unseeing therin.'" Rose addresses the effects that tv, advertisments, newpapers and other forms of media and how they offer views on the world. How do we make these connections between vision and visuality initially? How do we construct our visuality? How do these forms of media connect our vision to out visuality?
3. "It is often suggested - or assumed - that in premodern societies, visual images were no especially important, partly because there were so few of them in circulation. This began to change with the onset of modernity. In particular, it is suggested that modern forms of understanding the world depend on a scopic regime that equates seeing with knowledge... 'looking, seeing and knowing have become perilously intertwined' so that 'the modern' world is very much a "seen" phenomena." At what point did looking, seeing and knowing become so intertwined? Is it possible to separate the three? How exactly did the modern world become such a seen phenomena? Why is it that people are always needing some sort of visual stimulation?
2. Rose's article "Researching Visual Materials" makes the distinction between vision and visuality. She defines visuality as "the way in which vision is connected in various ways: 'how we see, how we are able, allowed, or made to see, and how we see this seeing and the unseeing therin.'" Rose addresses the effects that tv, advertisments, newpapers and other forms of media and how they offer views on the world. How do we make these connections between vision and visuality initially? How do we construct our visuality? How do these forms of media connect our vision to out visuality?
3. "It is often suggested - or assumed - that in premodern societies, visual images were no especially important, partly because there were so few of them in circulation. This began to change with the onset of modernity. In particular, it is suggested that modern forms of understanding the world depend on a scopic regime that equates seeing with knowledge... 'looking, seeing and knowing have become perilously intertwined' so that 'the modern' world is very much a "seen" phenomena." At what point did looking, seeing and knowing become so intertwined? Is it possible to separate the three? How exactly did the modern world become such a seen phenomena? Why is it that people are always needing some sort of visual stimulation?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Questions for Week 9
1. In "Reflecting on Marshall McLuhan" the author discussed media and technologies and how they extend and amputate our sensory perceptions. "'The wheel,' for example, 'is an extension of the foot': 'the book is an extension of the eye': 'clothing is an extension of the skin': and 'electric circuitry is an extension of the central nervous system.' Moreover, whenever one of these senses is extended, others experience amputation. If we extend the eye, for instance, we may at the same time amputate the ear." What do you think McLuhan would say that the Internet and other modern technologies are extensions of? What sensory perceptions are extended and what are amputated by the Internet?
2. McLuhan asserts that "the whole nervous system of man has undergone a radical change. In breaking the hold that the Gutenberg galaxy had on man for more than four centuries, 'electric circuitry has overthrown the the regime of 'time' and 'space' and pours upon us instantly and continuously the concerns of all other men. It has reconstituted dialogue on a global scale." He discussed the evolution of language and communication over time. Seeing how far we have come and thinking about where we are headed reminded me of the Disney movie, Wall-E. It takes place in the future where humans have become so dependent upon technology that they no longer interact with one another, they live in chairs with screens attached to them that allow them to talk to others and order food. These chairs drive them everywhere and they don't have to do anything for themselves because machines and robots do everything. Is this where we are headed now? What is next? The Internet and other technological advances have already eliminated much of day to day human interaction. Where would McLuhan say we are headed now? Are we to end up completely amputated from our sensory perceptions by technology?
3. Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" discusses society's necessity to be constantly entertained. "Our politics, religion, news, athletics, education and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice. The result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death." He goes on to say that "Indeed, in America God favors all those who possess both a talent and a format to amuse, whether they be preachers, athletes, entrepreneurs, politicians, teachers or journalists." Shows like the Colbert Report and The Daily Show with John Stuart draw viewers in with their humorous approach to the news. And yes, it's entertaining but it is unfortunate when people use shows like that as their single source of news. It's great that people watch them and get at least somewhat informed but what can we do to change the way that this country operates, as only wanting to engage in something as long as it's entertaining? How can we call upon the citizens of this nation to look past appearances and what is entertaining to focus on what is truly important and become more media literate?
2. McLuhan asserts that "the whole nervous system of man has undergone a radical change. In breaking the hold that the Gutenberg galaxy had on man for more than four centuries, 'electric circuitry has overthrown the the regime of 'time' and 'space' and pours upon us instantly and continuously the concerns of all other men. It has reconstituted dialogue on a global scale." He discussed the evolution of language and communication over time. Seeing how far we have come and thinking about where we are headed reminded me of the Disney movie, Wall-E. It takes place in the future where humans have become so dependent upon technology that they no longer interact with one another, they live in chairs with screens attached to them that allow them to talk to others and order food. These chairs drive them everywhere and they don't have to do anything for themselves because machines and robots do everything. Is this where we are headed now? What is next? The Internet and other technological advances have already eliminated much of day to day human interaction. Where would McLuhan say we are headed now? Are we to end up completely amputated from our sensory perceptions by technology?
3. Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" discusses society's necessity to be constantly entertained. "Our politics, religion, news, athletics, education and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice. The result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death." He goes on to say that "Indeed, in America God favors all those who possess both a talent and a format to amuse, whether they be preachers, athletes, entrepreneurs, politicians, teachers or journalists." Shows like the Colbert Report and The Daily Show with John Stuart draw viewers in with their humorous approach to the news. And yes, it's entertaining but it is unfortunate when people use shows like that as their single source of news. It's great that people watch them and get at least somewhat informed but what can we do to change the way that this country operates, as only wanting to engage in something as long as it's entertaining? How can we call upon the citizens of this nation to look past appearances and what is entertaining to focus on what is truly important and become more media literate?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
