Is Advertising Useful?

I think advertising IS useful. Though it MAY influence us to want things we didn't previously desire (well, of course--that's what it's TRYING to do), it also informs us about HOW and WHERE to buy things we need.

I needed to buy my Dad something for Christmas... how would I know what he wants?! I opened up an "Outdoor" magazine, of course, because I knew that the advertisements inside would be things he would like and wouldn't buy for himself. From there I just had to pick something in my cost bracket, and I was done!

Good, Bad and Ugly Ads

With all the noise in advertising, the important thing about an ad is that it captures attention. So good ads get attention, and bad ads don't, right? There is a fine line, however, between good-interesting and compelling and scary-disturbing compelling. Let's take a look:

GOOD:



Wow, this ad is scary, unsettling and memorable. Really cuts through noise. But is it too disturbing to be "good?"


BAD:




This ad is interesting, but not compelling enough to grab attention.





UGLY:
These might be "good," but I think they are just disturbing. Too disturbing to make me remember the product, I think.

Public Relations... Ethical?

“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some hire public relations officers.”

--- Daniel J. Boorstin,

American social historian and educator, 1914

Image consulting is not ethical, because making something appear as something else in order to promote it is deceit. I realize it's been going on for hundreds, even thousands of years, but the extent to which this "arrangement of truth" is use is becoming ridiculous. The scandal with Condoleeza Rice shaking an actual dictator's hand and referring to him as a champion of democracy came about because of his excellent PR program.

"PR Specialists make flower arrangements of the facts, placing them so that the wilted and less attractive petals are hidden by sturdy blooms”

-- Alan Harrington

Barnum and Balogna

Do ridiculous promotion tactics like those used by P.T. Barnum still exist today?


Yes.

Is Brittney Spears really a circus performer?
...
No.

Although her newest concert is not actually claiming that she IS a circus performer, the theme is ridiculous--but not challenged. The ad campaign features her dressed up as various roles in a circus--all ads are sexually tense and some border on the prnographic--and the costumes are simply outrageous.












But there's more!
Ridiculous claims are abundant in advertising:


This ad not only implies that pregnant women are thing--except for stomachs, of course!--but that beer is A-OK for expectant mothers to enjoy.











Sheesh!

Television... for the LCD? / television viewing habits

I absolutely think television is for the lowest common denominator. SO many shows on television are so... DUMB... they cannot be meant for higher-educated people. King of the Hill, Desperate Housewives, Gossip Girls, pretty much all the reality shows, sitcoms... OK, it's hard for me to think of a program that is NOT for this lowest common denominator group. But it is possible! The Office is one, I think, that makes fun of this dumb kind of show. It requires (or used to, at least) a little bit higher of a thinking process.

I don't watch TV. I just always have better things to do, and it seems like such a waste of time because of the types of programming on. So, I tried to watch some, and guess what, big surprise. It felt like a waste of time. It CAN be something to keep me company, I guess, while I'm making dinner or doing another activity, but I can't even imagine just sitting down to watch television. There is too much sex and swearing on for me to be comfortable just watching it or relaxing with it. I'd much rather talk to a real person or watch a movie.

Producer: Dia Darcey

To be a blockbuster hit, the movie would be cited as new, the biggest of the century, "you won't believe your eyes," huge effects, and would include familiar and talented actors/actresses. It wouldn't have sex--you don't need it if the dialogue and tension in other places is involving enough!

However, if I were to make a blockbuster hit for this year, it wouldn't matter as much what the movie was about as how well I would promote it. Regardless of whether it was a film version of a book, a comic, or another film, or a sequel to another blockbuster, or a completely new script--the promotion would be the point.

I would put out a 10-second exciting preview about a year before it released--NOT earlier. Audiences forget about things if they are further away than a year release date. 6-months before, promotion would go crazy. I would use the Internet to get audiences involved like the Blair Witch Project and Batman: Dark Knight did, and the theatre previews would be filled with my teasers. I would follow a few other surprisingly hot movies' examples in putting fliers and information into the hands of normal people like taxi drivers, waiters, etc., in order to get the word of mouth moving. I would NOT make a McDonalds toy. Ughh, lame.

Mirror Over Water

Do media's ever degrading values reflect society's opinions, or does society's opinion reflect the ever degrading values shown in media?
Both, my friend.

In my junior year of high school, everyone--the ACT, the AP English Exam, the EOIs, the BOIs, the SAT--and their dog thought that this would be the most unique and enlightening essay question. By the end of the year, my class could write an answer to it in their sleep.
Therefore, I only thought about this seriously once--the first time I wrote the essay. I went over a couple examples of morally decrepit media in my mind (Gossip Girl, King of the Hill, Desperate Housewives, C.S.I. , Halo 2), concluded that they were worse than the society at the time, and wrote a absolutely convicted opinion that media's degrading values have put society down the tube.

But is that really so?

Mass media are businesses. They like to make money like any other businesses. They will not make something that will not sell. They will go for shock value--people don't want to watch other people being normal--but they cannot shock past what the audience will accept and adore.

The Lowest Common Denominator is a new idea to me and seems to explain this. Maybe the media is shockingly and unacceptably morally decrepit to me, but I am a white, upper-middle class, partially-college educated female. I can look at the morals included in such programming with a critical and educated eye. We explained in class that most of programming is NOT for my type of television watcher--it's for those who watch television as their only outlet for entertainment, relaxation and catharsis.

As the media puts out more and more degrading material, audiences see it as the norm, and demand even more shocking programming... leading to the media putting out even more filth. Thus, a mirror over water... which is reflecting which?

.

Book Survey

The results of my book survey were probably skewed. I asked my grandmas, who are both librarians, and other members of my family who read A LOT. Most of them said that they'd read more than 10 books in the last 6 months, and all had read at least 2. Most of them read fiction, religious or humorous books. A few read nonfiction, and a few read mostly textbooks, cookbooks or manuals. The most regular responses were "Twilight" (bleh), Harry Potter, the Book of Mormon, and gluten-free Cookbooks.
My survey group was probably not a very good sample of society! My family members have similar interests and preferences, and all are well-educated and intellectual. I don't think most of America (probably?) reads as much as my sample indicated.

ebooks

I cannot stand e-books for leisure reading. Reading on the computer screen hurts my eyes and drives me nuts! I really don't like that the computer is so non-portable, too.
E-textbooks, however, is a totally different matter. The fact that an online textbook costs me about 200 dollars less than a print copy TOTALLY makes the headaches and inaccessibility worth it! I hate it, but it's true. My roommates, though, hate online textbooks because they cannot highlight or annotate them. The thought of saving 200 dollars usually makes this fact less important for me...

Radio and Its Personal Nature

Radio has always been about the music to me. I don't care, really, about the morning personalities, the give-aways, the contests, the jokes, the "office gossip"... I just want to listen to Queen (or Journey, or Bon Jovi, or Callie Callait, or Regina Spektor, or Boston...) OK?

However, I can totally see why radio is seen as the most personal of media. My friend's mother HAD to listen to the morning personalities, Kevin and Callie, on my local radio station (K97)every moring between 8 and 10, or her day just wasn't the same. These DJs were personable, funny, and made it seem that they were talking directly to YOU. Radio stations personalize the music, of course, to their audiences, but less obvious is that they personalize the TALK that goes on. Family stations will mention the harried mess of getting kids off to school while more edgy stations would NEVER mention children.

Radio stations are familiar, comforting, local and personal. Though our excuses vary (it keeps me awake, it makes it fun, it keeps me from hearing the noises the CAR is making), car rides almost require this constant talk or music. It keeps us company. Radio is a friendly presence-- it does not intrude, we can turn it on or off, and when ads come on, it's very simple to find a new frequency.

Music is all-important because it shows us new things, connects us as audiences, and is so personal. I often hear a new song on the radio (well, "new" for me is still from the 70's... but it's new to me) and if I like it enough, I'll go buy it online. When I hear a familiar favorite, it connects me to the radio station--as if they had played it just for me!

Talk radio is popular for several reasons, but I'll focus on the reason my Dad does not go to work (even on his bike...) without listening to NPR. Talk radio is a companion on the commute and a way to keep up on the news, economy, or humor without requiring full attention like television, newspapers or the Internet. It has great personalities that people get VERY attached to, creative programming and unique takes on the everyday news. My favorite program on NPR is "Fresh Air", and I like it enough that I will often look it up online and listen there.

Newspapers-- Booming, Busting, WHY?!

Large newspapers are going under fast. I know this personally, because I used to work (well, volunteer) as a teen staff writer for "the Tulsa World", Tulsa's paper. It is a relatively large "metro daily", and its sales have been decreasing steadily and rapidly. The teen section, "Satellite" was started a few years before I joined its staff as one of the efforts to turn around the declining trends. While I was at the paper, several huge changes were made. They started putting display ads on the front pages of sections, which, according to our editor, was a sign of the Apocalypse. They also really worked on the paper's website to pull readers--especially younger readers-- through that medium.
The paper was really declining because it had to cover so many areas. The Tulsa county area is growing, and the suburbs of Tulsa (Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sapulpa...) are getting larger. As they grow, they depend more upon their own local papers for news. The Tulsa World has too broad of an audience to focus its news.
The Internet also has a huge effect. Readers, especially teenagers, are increasingly going to the web for news. The Tulsa World has, I feel unsuccessfully, tried to increase its online presence with added blogs, podcasts, video interviews and montages of photos on the website.
On the other hand, the Jenks Journal and the Broken Arrow Ledger (local papers) are growing so quickly that they don't have enough staff to cover the need. I almost worked at both of these papers (at different periods), but, honestly, I was put off by how unprofessional they were. They have a long way to go to be as "legit" as the Tulsa World... but maybe that's what the locals like about them. These local papers contain a local sound and feel; they usually aren't stuffy or boring at all. They have local news and events and have more room for personality profiles and local flavor.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?brd=2754&Nav_Sec=77225

Radio Stations

I'm not from Utah, so this was a whole new experience for me...

103.9 Mix (and 107.9)-- This is a young adult oriented station that plays 90's and new alternative music. It is geared to a younger crowd, but is not vulgar or profane. The commercials are... annoying. I hate radio commercials, and it drives me nuts to listen to them.
FM 100--soft Sunday Sounds is to a Mormon audience (crazy!) looking for music to play on the Sabbath. The commercials were normal,though, which is weird to me. It was obnoxious to listen to on Sunday and made me want to turn off the station completely.
My 99.5-- This station plays mostly artists like Jason Mraz, Coldplay, and Maroon 5. They are mostly tween to young adult, but I'd say that they have some kind of family following too because of the commercial content.
97.1 ZHT--This station is definitely geared toward families with tween to teen kids. Jesse McCartney, the Jonas Brothers, and Disturbia reign supreme.
980 AM KSVC-- a talk, news, weather radio station. There is a counselor named Dr. Laura who talks through problems with listeners and an exciting male personality on in the mornings who talks about the drive and weather, as well as politics and news.

outside magazine

I read through "Outside" magazine. Here are some of the tag lines:
"Beat this: 59 real food secrets to get fit and live longer"
"Nutrition Special"
"Why Your Workout Is All Wrong"
"Winter Gear and Travel--Ski, Sports, Style and North America's 15 Best Resorts"
"The World's Fastest, Lightest Mountain Bike"
"My Ski Trip Disaster"

These tag lines say to me that normal readers of this magazine are interested in outdoor sports and everything connected to them: biking, skiing and hiking, along with working out and eating right so they'll be better at them and going to the right places so they'll have the most fun in our sports. They also probably live in the Midwest, because the magazine is loaded with skiing and hiking, and is skewed toward doing these activities in the Rockies.
Readers of this magazine are also willing to shell out the cash in order to enjoy their sports the most! Ads were VERY specialized to this audience of (mostly) single or just married 30-something year old men with a penchant for adrenaline and the great outdoors.

Advertisements:
Timberline Boots
Columbia Ski and Sport Wear
Eddie Bauer ski and sport wear
Dare Fragrance by Adidas-- it's interesting that there IS a "cosmetics" ad, but it's for a "daring, exciting, edgy" cologne (that will apparently make you better at your sport??).
Patagonia clothing
Sprint
Figg--waterbottles, Swiss
REI
Whistler ski resort
Orbits travel site
Northface ski and sports clothing
Invisiline invisible braces-- this is such an odd ad, but really makes sense if you think about it! The target audience, if they are told that they need braces, are not going to want to get those lame, teenager-y metal mouths... but this new, hip technology is totally fine!
Soyjoy nutrition bars
Ski resorts in Utah 10 pages
Suzuki cars-- very "wilderness friendly", perform well in snow.

I think it's interesting that the magazine can tell the reader what the best equiptment and clothing is, and the reader will not only believe them, but BUY the magazine to see what they think!

Addicted?

I think that there is a great possibility of people over-distancing themselves from the real world in the all-encompassing entertainment of the media. I read somewhere that media in itself is not evil, it is a tool, only a means. It is the way that people use this tool that can become evil. In the same way, I think that not all people who engage in a large amount of media-consumption will become addicted, but I think that a large amount of media-consumption can be VERY scary and negative to some people.

Children are very sensitive to becoming addicted, I think, because video games or television has more potential in this age group to become their reality.
"According to the Media Research Lab at Iowa State University, about 8.5 percent of 8-to-18-year-old gamers can be considered pathologically addicted, and nearly one quarter of young people—more males than females—admit they've felt addicted." This was a 2008 study.

There have been some really powerful examples of kids being too-consumed in the media. The scariest ones, to me, have to do with the school shootings and bombings.

This study discussed a theory about the Columbine shooters: "More recently, a US psychiatrist, Jerald Block, has differed with this opinion, arguing that the killers' actions are not well explained by such diagnoses. Rather, he states that Klebold and Harris were immersed in games like Doom and that their lives were most gratifying while playing in the virtual. As they got into trouble, the two teenagers started to get their computer access restricted. Anger that was being projected into the games was now unleashed into the real world. In addition, the computer restrictions opened up substantial amounts of idle time that would have otherwise gone towards their online activities. They increasingly used that time to express their anger and their antisocial tendencies likewise increased. This, in turn, generated more restrictions. Finally, immediately after being arrested and banned from their computers for about a month, the two teens became homicidal and began documenting plans to attack the school."

One of the photographs in the Virginia Tech killer's "multimedia manifesto" may have been inspired by a bloody South Korean movie, "adding to the debate over the influence of pop culture on heinous crimes".

I'm from Oklahoma, so I have always been familiar with the Oklahoma City bombing and Timothy McVeigh. I wondered if he had been at all affected by media, and I found this during my research:
"Apocalyptic and anticommunist Hollywood films also captivated McVeigh, including The Omega Man, Logan's Run, the Planet of the Apes series and especially the 1983 Cold War screed Red Dawn (directed by right-winger John Milius)—about a group of small-town teenagers who become guerrilla fighters when “communists” invade the US—which he rented four times. He also favored militaristic fantasies like First Blood, the first of the Rambo films, and Missing in Action, in which Chuck Norris rescues American prisoners of war. McVeigh began collecting guns and firing them, going so far as to purchase a 10-acre piece of property in southwestern New York with a friend where they could fire their weapons in peace."


Though these examples are not absolutely true or false (each is arguable), I think it's interesting that each of them has a media connection.

Sterotypes in the Media

Of course there are negative stereotypes in the media! Although obvious examples, like this one, are prevalent, they are purposefully stereotypical, and are not as harmful as less blatant "deceivers".
One of these more subtle deceivers is the stereotype that generalizes obesity. This stereotype dictates that ALL overweight people are either jolly and jovial or lazy, nerdy, unemployed and worthless. Want proof? Think of the sitcom: the "funny guy" is the overweight male--or rather, if there is an overweight male character, he is either funny or lazy, or both. Want proof? Homer Simpson, Winnie the Pooh, Santa Claus. More recent examples? Kevin Malone (the office), Jack Black (everything...), Drew Carrie, George Lopez.
In The Office's first season, Michael Scott was much heavier--because it was thought that he wouldn't be funny enough as an average-weight guy.
This stereotype is debilitating, both to those who struggle with weight and to those who are happy and healthy--but not necessarily constantly jovial-- at their current weight.

Good, better, best-- The Three Bears of Media

Which form of media is the best at informing? Persuading, entertaining? Give relevant and recent examples.

One fine spring day, a beautiful girl named Goldilocks was walking in the woods for no reason in particular. As she strolled, she whistled a merry tune that was playing on her iPod, and munched on an apple that the kind, smart tiger, Woods, had told her would improve her golf score. Almost immediately (as happens in short stories, for time's sake) the fine spring day turned sour, and a cloudburst showered raindrops upon the sleepy forest.

"Good thing I read the weather forecast online this morning," Goldilocks trilled to herself, as she popped open her High School Musical umbrella. The cheap Floor-Mart plastic was not very stable however, and, realizing that "Zac Efron IS getting all wet," Goldilocks looked around for a shelter from the storm . Luckily, the small house soon (short story, remember--no time for long excursions before the main plotline begins) entered her view.

Goldilocks entered the cottage curiously, her big blue eyes (which DID look larger thanks to the Covergirl mascara, she decided), opened wide. She gazed at the many types of informative, persuasive and entertaining media, and, like any good teenager, went immediately to the fridge.

After a quick snack, Goldilocks sat down at the computer to check her MySpace page. While on the Internet, she also checked to see when the rainstorm would end and which candidate her friends thought would win the election. The Internet offered fast, easily-accessed, recent information, but some of it was not very reliable. "The Internet is too fast," she observed, as several friends changed information to match new opinions of other friends.

As she surfed, she switched on the radio. The radio hosts were discussing the race for the presidency, and Goldilocks settled down to listen for the information that she had been looking for--but a string of annoying commercials interrupted the broadcast, and who seriously has enough time to wait for that to be over? "The radio is too slow!" she exclaimed out loud.

Finally, Goldilocks opened the newspaper lying on the coffeetable. It contained a relatively short article about each presidential candidate's stand on the issues about which Goldilocks was concerned. "This newspaper is JUST RIGHT! It shows both sides of an issue and offers me the information from a reliable source. It's relatively easy to access and easy to understand, too!"

After all that mental exertion, Goldilocks was ready to skip the next 2 stages of the story. "Can we skip the 'too this, too that' for persuasion, please?" she begged the author. "I am a blonde, after all."

The author is merciful, and a little tired, as well, so then, Goldilocks opened a magazine. "Ahh," she sighed. For the next few minutes, she took her time looking at the carefully designed photographs, articles and advertisements. She concluded from her reading that she needed a new pair of shoes, that she was four pounds overweight, and that her love life was in serious trouble. Such was the persuading power of the magazine.

"It's amazing how magazines can be so persuasive from the emotional appeals contained therein," she mused. "The articles are interesting, amusing and non-hostile, so I don't feel like I am being pressured to act, buy or be a certain way, but at the same time, I trust the source and already agree with many of its views--otherwise I wouldn't be reading such a specialized magazine. If it tells me that I should be curling my hair in a different way--why, it certainly MUST be right!"

Goldilocks did not consider that the magazine industry strives to have a relationship with a specialized customer for this very reason--it sells. She also did not consider the manipulative effects of photojournalism to persuade, as in the heart-wrenching photo stories in the Time magazine of Abu Ghraib, the tsunami, September 11th and Hurricane Katrina. These images had great impact upon viewers, and the long, detailed articles included with them in magazines have a very persuasive voice.

Feeling a little fat, slightly too pale, and very short after her run-in with the magazine models, Goldilocks took a break to binge on the ice cream in the freezer. She plopped back onto the couch and reached for a book, but (big surprise) found herself to not be much of a reader. "This book is TOO BORING," she groaned obnoxiously.

She switched back on the Internet, but found the magnitude of chatrooms and forums overwhelming. "This Internet is too BUSY!" she complained.

Finally, Goldilocks switched on the T.V. At last, she could turn off her brain and let the humorous incidents, dazzling sound effects and absolute insipidity seep into her. She concluded that television is the most entertaining form of media because it did not require much of her, it was humorous and easily accessed, and the programs were intriguing and "sucked" her in.

Lunch was just starting to sink in, and Goldilocks was getting tired. That darn author had required her to THINK so much that day, and the couch was SO soft... As Goldilock's perfectly makeup'd, heavy eyelids closed, the owners of the house returned.

The shaggy, brown-haired residents creeped up behind the couch upon which Goldilocks lay...

Did they EAT HER?

No, dear reader, but how she would wish that they had, because instead, she endured a lengthy and costly trial as she was prosecuted for breaking and entering.

As my roomie puts it, bad news, bears.






simply
the info:

informing--easily accessed, shows both sides (good facts), bites of understandable info, must be trustworthy source, fast!! (newspapers/Internet) (Newspapers most trustworthy, internet fastest-- weather forecast, candidates in upcoming election, blogs have ideas/ forecasts)
persuading--interesting and entertaining, emotional appeal, non-hostile (magazines) (images stay for a long time. you have the power to move on at your own rate) (Photojournalism to new heights makes for better persuasion--images have the power to move you--Time's Abu Ghraib, tsunami, Sept. 11 shots). EMOTIONAL
entertaining--funny, non-hostile, easily accessed and understood, dazzling, almost "dumb" (TV) laughed through an entire episode of the office.

The Impact of Electronics on the Magazine Media

Glossy, alluring, smooth. The bright pictures and ridiculous promises jump out from grocery shelves, newspaper stands, doctor's office waiting rooms and even toilet-side magazine racks. Magazines are a very tactile and sensory experience. The pictures pop, the pages are full of interesting and eye-catching articles and advertisements, and I, as a consumer, enjoy holding the product and turning the pages. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but it makes me feel like I actually bought something.
For these reasons, I think electronic technology will not have a great impact on the magazine industry.
Both e-books and magazines online have not worked very well. Reading on a computer hurts the eyes and readers enjoy the tactile experience explained above. Subscription and payment issues are also a real problem. However, I think there IS a future for trade magazines--those that are for very specific industries and professions--online. If the consumers of these magazines are only subscribing for the information therein, and if there is not as much enjoyment in the ownership, feel, etc., then I think that selling these magazines online would not affect sales negatively. College students do not complain about having articles from which they can research online instead of only available at a library.

The Model of Media

NEWSPAPER-- sender: the news corporation or publisher
encoding: the newspaper articles (by writers)
decoding: readers receiving, reading and interpreting the paper
feedback: letters to the editor, sales trends, online surveys

MAGAZINE -- sender: the magazine publisher
encoding: message is sent in the form of pictures, "spreads" and articles
decoding: readers read articles
feeback: readers respond by buying or not buying advertised products and through letters to the editor, or even in online surveys

RADIO -- sender: disc jockey or talk host
encoding: message is sent through short blurbs, talk shows, or music selections
decoding: listen and interpret information and choices
feedback: listeners begin or stop tuning in, "call in" or "request" services, listeners respond to advertisements or promotions or not

TELEVISION -- sender: television stations or corporations
encoding: images, sounds, music, dialogue, animation- each has a part in the message TV sends
decoding: audiences watch television and interpret its message
feedback: calling in or writing in, sponsorship (in some cases), tuning in, some voting services

I think radio has the most "noise" interference, because it has all four of the types of noise, and represents the least amount of commitment to the consumer. What I mean, is that an audience must buy or at least pick up a newspaper, buy a magazine, or sit down to the television-- but the radio is free and easily switched off. The message radio sends is the most easily confused (semantic noise) because of its constantly-streaming characteristic. You can "come in" to the conversation halfway through it, and turn it off before it finishes--simply because you've arrived at your destination or you have something else to do. Radio also has the most mechanical and environmental noise, because often it cannot tune in well, and other noises in the environment (screaming kids, loud engine, etc) distract one easily. Internal noise is the most prevalent of all, because if the conversation in the reader's head does not go along with the radio, then it is simply too easy to change stations or just switch it off. Radio has the least amount of "coming soon" as well. Television keeps our attention through commercials with promises of the end of episodes, and magazines keep us turning with promotions and extended articles. Radio cannot accomplish these tasks, and suffers for it.

Coming soon-- Does the model work more efficiently for some media than it does for others?

Several of the media do not have a very clear "response" mechanism--especially radio and television. Television is getting better at involving audiences in order to elicit the "response" in the model, but it is still seemingly a one-way process. Radio seems to be very one-sided in its communication. The disk jockeys encode and send messages, but they have no idea if the audience received, decoded, or sent a response. Internet, on the other hand, is much easier to break into the model. Content is "published" online, people read it, process it, and respond, and the process starts all over.

BAN THAT BOOK!! ... or at least let me know what kind of content it has?

Dia's Satellite for Tulsa World Article

By DIA DARCEY Satellite Correspondent 8/11/2008
Last Modified: 8/11/2008 4:14 AM

My advanced literature class has introduced some truly enlightening literature this semester."Yay! More black-and-white p-rnography!" I exclaimed as we students were assigned the latest required reading by our English teacher.

In Advanced Placement English, we are offered both timeless classics and newer, popular titles to challenge and advance our thought processes. Still, at times, I feel that I'm being subjected to more sensual and violent detail than is found in an X-rated movie.

This kind of p-rnographic content should be banned, or at least censored.
...Heck, I'd even appreciate a warning scribbled on a Post-It note inside the front cover.

Personally, I would prefer that my primary sex education NOT occur accidentally during English class. My English teacher, a human with feelings and a heart, believe it or not (just kidding), has made it abundantly clear to the class that she does not condone the content, but at the same time, she's requiring the material. This is almost a double standard. "Here, read about this and this and this. Aren't we learning a lot? Whoa, hey! Stop that! Where ever did you ever get that idea?!"
The sad fact is that though we, as teenagers, would like to be seen as more mature than say, the average 2-year old, some things never change. Though our maturity level has (hopefully) increased ten-fold, "monkey see, monkey do" still applies to some. The deadly combination of developing frontal lobes, raging hormones and the ever looming monster, "peer pressure" becomes even more dangerous when paired with "great" examples in literature.

How can intelligent parents block cable, V-chip MTV, ban HALO III and punish teens for dirty language, but not bat an eyelash as they pull out their homework assignment to annotate the (at least) R-rated "Beloved" or "Catch-22"?

Some teenagers are more mature than others, sure. Some may even be able to "handle" this adult content, but how well can anyone, even adults, truly be unaffected by this kind of material?

Do we think it won't affect us because it's on a page or because it's not a series of moving pictures or graphics? It's in print, so it requires an advanced vocabulary and increases our comprehension, but so what. Some of the most influential mediums in the world were and are books. Anyone ever heard of the Bible? "Mein Kampf"?

What we listen to, what we watch and, believe it or not, what we read, affects us. When faced with my resistance, my English teacher does her best to give me a few reasons that we, as high school seniors, are exposed to these kinds of books:
___________________________________________
Art is art, and those who would define, refine or confine it lose its very essence.
Who is to say what is acceptable and what is not, and how long will it be until the tyranny of politically correct editing creates a real "1984" state?
Only illiterate, ignorant zealots want to censor books — we fear what we cannot understand!
Truly discerning readers are able to appreciate the author's purpose in including any language, events or descriptions.
----------------------------

Personally, and as a mature, AP literature student with a kick-butt ACT reading score, I'm a bit skeptical of the generalizations that all censorship is the product of ignorance and can be placed on the same level as cannibalism, deforestation and Hillary-- oops, I mean Hitler.

It seems to this ignorant National Merit Scholar (not to drop titles or anything) that everyone is anti-censorship because none of us wants to be labeled a philistine. Book-banning is bad, of course — it's censorship. It is anti-progressive to chain the creative tendencies of our budding authors because of fogey old ideals-- but I am not advocating censorship. I'm asking the schools and publishers alike to consider my point of view.

Even as an 18-year-old "adult," I would like a choice in my exposure to gratuitous sex, violence and language, even in the name of learning, literature or art. I would love to read compelling literature without the public-pleasing passages that "elevate" the book to best-selling status, but in lieu of that impossible dream, I need some form of warning, a label, a rating or even hint on the outside of literature to let me know the extent of objectionable content therein-- no matter how highly the talk shows recommend it or how "enlightening" it may be.

In every other entertainment industry, producers rate their product so the public can make an informed decision. Which is the greater travesty? Depriving the reader of information, judgment and free choice and calling it freedom of speech, or risking the buzzword "censorship" to facilitate knowledge and choice?

Voltaire is credited with the remark: "Though I may not agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Though Voltaire never actually uttered this truism, it is an aim of freedom of speech and indeed, of all liberties, American and otherwise. I would not like to contradict, but rather to augment this passage with another phrase: "...however, I do not have the obligation to read, listen to or analyze whatever erotic, violent, explicit trash you have passed off as "art" this afternoon."

Posted by Queen Team D