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