VIBE magazine was founded in 1993 by Quincy Jones; the magazine prides themselves on being the “preeminent brand in urban and music culture.” Most of the publication talks about ‘swagger,’ which VIBE’s editor in chief defines as “sexy pride personified. Usually associated with men and the way they walk, swagger has come to mean an overall sense of confidence, style, attitude, and an unadulterated knowledge of, and love of, self.” The authors and editors strive to put ‘swagger’ into every article and advertisement because they target younger, urban music lovers. Compared to Rolling Stone’s 1.4 million subscribers VIBE is relatively small with a circulation of only 800,000.
The July 2008 issue features Usher on the cover and has a four-page spread about his recent ascent to the top of hip-hop culture. The article focuses mainly on the reclaiming of his previously abandoned hip-hop throne but gossip about his relationship with his mom, and his new life with wife and baby seep through the seems of Mitzi Miller’s interview. The story begins by setting the surroundings; “Usher Raymond adjusts the cuffs on his navy BStar button-up and momentarily exposes a glimmering gold Cartier watch”, “he’s barely seated himself on the edge of an oversized armchair in a swank Midtown New York City hotel.” The mention of his attire and where the interview is taking place seems to enhance the notion that Usher Raymond was once dubbed The King of Hip-Hop and was paid extremely well.
The reader experiences the ‘happily ever after’ feeling when Miller gives a brief history of Usher’s struggle to gain respect in the music business and the results of such hard work; “nearly 26 million albums sold worldwide.” With five Grammy Awards and a troubled past, his father Usher Raymond III was absent throughout his childhood, Usher seems to fit the pattern of hard upbringings, scandals and gossip of many other hip-hop artists. “In my youth, I was made to feel like I had to be wary of [my biological father] because he was into drugs and a lifestyle that might not necessarily have been the best thing for me,” said Usher. “If there was anything that I would take back [about being so focused on my career], it’s the lack of connection with my father.”
In May 2004 Usher gave a similar interview to Vanessa Grigoriadis, an author of the popular music magazine Rolling Stone. In Grigoriadis’s interview Usher was portrayed more as a wild, more skeptic artist. Rolling Stone is not apprehensive about using profanity in their articles so most quotes are not edited and are directly from his mouth; the editors aren’t worried about how they depict celebrities as long as they sell magazines. Usher seemed to be more comfortable at Fox Theater, “the ornate 1920s palace in downtown Atlanta”, where the interview is taking place. He cracks a few April fools jokes and says “I sold millions of albums in my time and never been on the cover of Rolling Stone? Shoot, I thought they don’t put black faces on those covers.” This shows that black artists don’t expect Rolling Stone to have an interest in featuring them. The interview is mainly about his music and never mentions Usher’s childhood past focuses his hopeful future. “I'm going to be one of the richest motherfuckers in the world,” he says.
The advertisements in VIBE are solely focused on increasing one’s ‘swagger’. Advertisements such as Urbanworld Film Festival, Dark and Lovely hair conditioner and Pure 50 body spray by 50 Cent are a few examples. Most advertisements are dark in color and take place in Urban settings such as cities, street corners or with cars. Because the magazine is targeted toward young African Americans, African Americans are in almost every advertisement throughout the magazine. This most likely helps the products sell to their targeted consumer audience. The advertisements in Rolling Stone are targeted toward general music fans and vary in race, settings and content.
At the beginning of the magazine there’s a section on scandals from the past fifteen years including Kim Kardashian and Ray J’s sex tape, Halle Berry and Eric Benet’s relationship shocker, Senator Larry Craig’s “lewd conduct” in a public bathroom and New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s affairs with high end prostitutes. Most of the stories are informal and make fun of the news being reported. None of the reports go into too much detail and slang is used through out the stories.
The story on Governor Spitzer’s scandal doesn’t stay on topic and lacks important details that most mainstream magazines would report. The author of article lacks connection with the stories because each ‘scandal’ is only a paragraph long which doesn’t leave enough room for any background information. When Rolling Stone reported on these issues, Senator Larry Craig and Governor Eliot Spitzer, the same type of format was used. Because both magazines’ target audiences are music fans the editor knows not to waste time and space on issues that readers won’t be interested in reading.
The main objective of both magazines is to make money and they use the same techniques to sell magazines: attract a certain audience and relate to their interests. The message that VIBE seems to send to their subscribers is that being sexy and having swagger is achieved by listening to their featured artists and buying what they advertise. They are trying to convince the consumer that what they feature is popular so most of their articles on artists are biased and slanted to make the reader buy the products.
By Katie Montgomery
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Critical Reading: The Source magazine
Hip-hop is a style of music that emerged from New York City in the early 1970’s. It was initially sneered at and considered a trademark of lower class society. The future of hip-hop seemed bleak, at best; even the largest labels were unheard of to the general public, and artists were in a constant struggle to get airtime on radio stations. However, in a relatively short amount of time, the popularity of hip-hop made an abrupt shift. Rap albums exploded into music stores, radio stations and personal CD players nationwide. Since then, the genre has traveled thousands of miles from its humble beginnings in the slum neighborhoods of New York. It made its way across the country to California, steadily creeping into suburban record stores and popular music venues along the way. Today, it enjoys massive international popularity; hip-hop icons such as Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Flava Flav and Ice T have regularly made appearances in foreign countries, and expanded their careers to include a variety of film and television roles in addition to music.
The Source, since its creation in 1988, has been a magazine which carefully documents popular hip-hop artists, industry news, and popular culture surrounding the genre. The magazine was created by two white Harvard students and distributed out of their dorm room as a small concert newsletter. Over the years its production changed hands and grew exponentially; it currently caters to African-American and urban audiences between the ages of eighteen to twenty-five all across the country.
The July 2008 cover features the rugged, tattooed face of twenty-eight year old Jayceon Taylor, who, since his debut in 2002, has gained notoriety as rapper The Game. The picture draws particular attention to his unshaven beard, squinted eyes and anguished expression. Upon opening the magazine, the reader must flip through a full fifty-three pages of captivating article headlines, dazzling shoe and jewelry advertisements and large full-color pictures of rap artists before arriving at the cover page story. Before reaching this story, the reader finds articles which chronicle the lives of newly-discovered rappers, as well as reviews ranking the musical success of both major- and minor-label artists. News articles fill the spaces in between: one describes public outrage at the court results of a highly debated case (an article which delivers the news with a detectable bias toward the defendant), while another describes the level of “real-ness” that certain rappers incorporate into their lyrics and images.
The Source captures the reader with two full spreads of The Game’s startling glare before delving headlong into the article. The author begins by mentioning Jayceon’s astonishing success in the frighteningly unpredictable hip-hop industry. He describes the rapper’s deceptively gruff exterior as contrasting to his apparently kind-hearted personality, reasoning that, in the context of a dramatic and unforgiving life, a positive outlook is surprising. For several paragraphs, the author ponders the high death rate of rap artists and mentions its tie to the persistent drama and feuds within the industry. The remainder of the article covers the details of the rapper’s rocky childhood in Compton, his current feelings on life, and his intended future in music. The Game’s rise to fame is of particular interest to the author. Similar to other articles in The Source, this one emphasizes the rags-to-riches success that brought him his current status. Jayceon Taylor was once like so many other young urban Americans: unfortunate and impoverished, with few realistic hopes of escape. In six short years, he successfully created an entirely new lifestyle built on his rap career. His sudden success might be appropriately compared to the late rap artist Notorious BIG, whose lyrics proclaim, “And [my mom] loves to show me off, of course / Smiles every time my face is up in The Source.” Young readers might find encouragement in this story. It documents the unexpected rise of a once-hopeless kid, and, in a way, it becomes a story of motivation. It is proof to urban youth that dreams can come true, despite the odds against them. In most mainstream magazines, such messages are typically absent.
A comparable publication, Rolling Stone, painted its June 26th, 2008 cover with a different famous face: that of Chris Martin, member of the rock band Coldplay. Rather than portraying him as rough or unkempt, Rolling Stone offers its readers a polished, thoughtful, sandy-haired young Caucasian man who obviously comes from a wildly different socioeconomic background than The Game. The story features an interview with Martin, in which he comes across as straightforward and down-to-earth, opposite of Jayceon Taylor’s powerful bad-boy attitude. His level of education is substantial, evident in his near-perfect English marred only with the occasional obscenity. This stands in contrast to The Game, whose quotations are laced with slang; suggesting to readers that his academic opportunities have been poor. Rolling Stone is a more deeply establish and more widely distributed publication than The Source, and its cover article manifests this. Instead of discussing higher-than-average death rates or other sordid affairs, the author questions Chris Martin about an array of lighter topics, including the intricacies of his new album, his political views, and his musical production process. Ultimately, this presents an image of the musician that a larger number of American citizens will relate to. The author provides an appealing and acceptable documentation of Martin’s feelings regarding his upcoming music, comprising an article which runs parallel with common American ideals.
Evidently, there are several significant differences between Rolling Stone and The Source. The former features articles that play on socially acceptable views (such as the value of political discourse) in order to compose an American vision of how musical icons ought to appear; whereas the latter offers a distinct and unapologetic representation of an impoverished African-American youth turned ruggedly-handsome hip-hop star. The Source, unfortunately, also seems to deliver messages other than that of perseverance in the face adversity. Its glossy pages carry flashy photographs of celebrities flaunting expensive clothes and diamond-encrusted jewelry, implying that money and fame directly influence happiness. Young men from urban areas might recognize the graffitied walls and brick buildings that often appear as backgrounds. Consequently, they would be more likely to respond to the messages that this publication sends. It also promotes numerous rap and hip-hop artists whose lyrics glamorize rampant drug-dealing, habitual marijuana use and careless sexual misconduct. For example, in his hit Big Dreams, The Game proudly tells his listeners, “Lunchtime I was sellin’ behind the bungalows/Baggin’ up rocks the size of melons.” Rather than encouraging children to hold firmly to their dreams and ambitions, such lyrical content sanctions behavior that would prove detrimental to the health, happiness and personal success of future generations.
This publication’s frequent association of African-Americans with under-developed urban housing, reckless behavior and stereotypical language seems somewhat racist, because it exacerbates the presence of societal prejudices that, unfortunately, continue to linger. It is available nationwide; its sales are not restricted to large cities or predominantly African-American neighborhoods. It appears on newsstands and in stores everywhere, subject to the diverse and critical eye of the public. Citizens who are not a member of the target audience may still encounter this magazine, so their perception of its messages will influence society’s attitude toward minority groups. American society has undergone severe behavioral and judicial evolution over the past century, and personal ethnicity can no longer be attached to certain lifestyles or behaviors. The Source, however, may be aggravating such stereotypes through its one-sided portrayal of urban culture.
Rolling Stone and The Source each target an entirely different audience group. Each magazine, however, placed artists on their cover who chose to ignore others in their search for independence. This implies that both publications place subtle emphasis on the value of personal liberation and self-reliance. When Jayceon Taylor was asked whether he would seek future musical assistance from Dr. Dre, he responded decidedly, “…I am forever in debt to him…But I work alone.” Chris Martin, in a similar comment to Rolling Stone, said with conviction, “The spirit of rock & roll is freedom. It's about following what you believe in and not caring what anyone else says.” Culturally and ethnically different musical icons, it seems, may occasionally find common ground in the values and messages they choose to send.
By Jeff Sholtis
The Source, since its creation in 1988, has been a magazine which carefully documents popular hip-hop artists, industry news, and popular culture surrounding the genre. The magazine was created by two white Harvard students and distributed out of their dorm room as a small concert newsletter. Over the years its production changed hands and grew exponentially; it currently caters to African-American and urban audiences between the ages of eighteen to twenty-five all across the country.
The July 2008 cover features the rugged, tattooed face of twenty-eight year old Jayceon Taylor, who, since his debut in 2002, has gained notoriety as rapper The Game. The picture draws particular attention to his unshaven beard, squinted eyes and anguished expression. Upon opening the magazine, the reader must flip through a full fifty-three pages of captivating article headlines, dazzling shoe and jewelry advertisements and large full-color pictures of rap artists before arriving at the cover page story. Before reaching this story, the reader finds articles which chronicle the lives of newly-discovered rappers, as well as reviews ranking the musical success of both major- and minor-label artists. News articles fill the spaces in between: one describes public outrage at the court results of a highly debated case (an article which delivers the news with a detectable bias toward the defendant), while another describes the level of “real-ness” that certain rappers incorporate into their lyrics and images.
The Source captures the reader with two full spreads of The Game’s startling glare before delving headlong into the article. The author begins by mentioning Jayceon’s astonishing success in the frighteningly unpredictable hip-hop industry. He describes the rapper’s deceptively gruff exterior as contrasting to his apparently kind-hearted personality, reasoning that, in the context of a dramatic and unforgiving life, a positive outlook is surprising. For several paragraphs, the author ponders the high death rate of rap artists and mentions its tie to the persistent drama and feuds within the industry. The remainder of the article covers the details of the rapper’s rocky childhood in Compton, his current feelings on life, and his intended future in music. The Game’s rise to fame is of particular interest to the author. Similar to other articles in The Source, this one emphasizes the rags-to-riches success that brought him his current status. Jayceon Taylor was once like so many other young urban Americans: unfortunate and impoverished, with few realistic hopes of escape. In six short years, he successfully created an entirely new lifestyle built on his rap career. His sudden success might be appropriately compared to the late rap artist Notorious BIG, whose lyrics proclaim, “And [my mom] loves to show me off, of course / Smiles every time my face is up in The Source.” Young readers might find encouragement in this story. It documents the unexpected rise of a once-hopeless kid, and, in a way, it becomes a story of motivation. It is proof to urban youth that dreams can come true, despite the odds against them. In most mainstream magazines, such messages are typically absent.
A comparable publication, Rolling Stone, painted its June 26th, 2008 cover with a different famous face: that of Chris Martin, member of the rock band Coldplay. Rather than portraying him as rough or unkempt, Rolling Stone offers its readers a polished, thoughtful, sandy-haired young Caucasian man who obviously comes from a wildly different socioeconomic background than The Game. The story features an interview with Martin, in which he comes across as straightforward and down-to-earth, opposite of Jayceon Taylor’s powerful bad-boy attitude. His level of education is substantial, evident in his near-perfect English marred only with the occasional obscenity. This stands in contrast to The Game, whose quotations are laced with slang; suggesting to readers that his academic opportunities have been poor. Rolling Stone is a more deeply establish and more widely distributed publication than The Source, and its cover article manifests this. Instead of discussing higher-than-average death rates or other sordid affairs, the author questions Chris Martin about an array of lighter topics, including the intricacies of his new album, his political views, and his musical production process. Ultimately, this presents an image of the musician that a larger number of American citizens will relate to. The author provides an appealing and acceptable documentation of Martin’s feelings regarding his upcoming music, comprising an article which runs parallel with common American ideals.
Evidently, there are several significant differences between Rolling Stone and The Source. The former features articles that play on socially acceptable views (such as the value of political discourse) in order to compose an American vision of how musical icons ought to appear; whereas the latter offers a distinct and unapologetic representation of an impoverished African-American youth turned ruggedly-handsome hip-hop star. The Source, unfortunately, also seems to deliver messages other than that of perseverance in the face adversity. Its glossy pages carry flashy photographs of celebrities flaunting expensive clothes and diamond-encrusted jewelry, implying that money and fame directly influence happiness. Young men from urban areas might recognize the graffitied walls and brick buildings that often appear as backgrounds. Consequently, they would be more likely to respond to the messages that this publication sends. It also promotes numerous rap and hip-hop artists whose lyrics glamorize rampant drug-dealing, habitual marijuana use and careless sexual misconduct. For example, in his hit Big Dreams, The Game proudly tells his listeners, “Lunchtime I was sellin’ behind the bungalows/Baggin’ up rocks the size of melons.” Rather than encouraging children to hold firmly to their dreams and ambitions, such lyrical content sanctions behavior that would prove detrimental to the health, happiness and personal success of future generations.
This publication’s frequent association of African-Americans with under-developed urban housing, reckless behavior and stereotypical language seems somewhat racist, because it exacerbates the presence of societal prejudices that, unfortunately, continue to linger. It is available nationwide; its sales are not restricted to large cities or predominantly African-American neighborhoods. It appears on newsstands and in stores everywhere, subject to the diverse and critical eye of the public. Citizens who are not a member of the target audience may still encounter this magazine, so their perception of its messages will influence society’s attitude toward minority groups. American society has undergone severe behavioral and judicial evolution over the past century, and personal ethnicity can no longer be attached to certain lifestyles or behaviors. The Source, however, may be aggravating such stereotypes through its one-sided portrayal of urban culture.
Rolling Stone and The Source each target an entirely different audience group. Each magazine, however, placed artists on their cover who chose to ignore others in their search for independence. This implies that both publications place subtle emphasis on the value of personal liberation and self-reliance. When Jayceon Taylor was asked whether he would seek future musical assistance from Dr. Dre, he responded decidedly, “…I am forever in debt to him…But I work alone.” Chris Martin, in a similar comment to Rolling Stone, said with conviction, “The spirit of rock & roll is freedom. It's about following what you believe in and not caring what anyone else says.” Culturally and ethnically different musical icons, it seems, may occasionally find common ground in the values and messages they choose to send.
By Jeff Sholtis
South Park-Jake Kaplan
Comedy Centrals hit comedy series South Park, created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, is a show geared toward mature children and young adults that portrays a satirical view on events that are currently going on in the world. A couple of examples of topics the show has used are: the smallpox epidemic, the guitar hero fad, and a parody of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ titled The Passion of the Jew. Although the show has won multiple Emmy Awards it receives a ton of criticism worldwide as you can imagine from the aforementioned topics the series covers. The show rarely shows sympathy for anyone that may have been involved in any of these events. Instead it makes fun of every event; no matter how tragic or serious the event was to the people involved. This is not just every now and then; this is a clear pattern of how the show is written.
Obviously, the reason Parker and Stone do this is because it entertains their viewers in an original and very creative way but at the same time they are corrupting America’s youth. I know this because every week in high school, the morning after whenever a new episode was aired, talk of the content of the show was what everyone was talking about. Even months later you still hear references to quotes from South Park. It is definitely very influential on young people in America today.
As I mentioned earlier there are many adults, mostly parents of children who watch the show, that have complained that the show is inappropriate and inconsiderate and should not be on television. Although, it would take a huge call to action to get this show off the air, every letter that is written to Comedy Central, the FCC, or to Parker and Stone directly probably does help the cause of getting this show off the air or to at least lessen the extent of controversy they stir in the show.
Obviously, the reason Parker and Stone do this is because it entertains their viewers in an original and very creative way but at the same time they are corrupting America’s youth. I know this because every week in high school, the morning after whenever a new episode was aired, talk of the content of the show was what everyone was talking about. Even months later you still hear references to quotes from South Park. It is definitely very influential on young people in America today.
As I mentioned earlier there are many adults, mostly parents of children who watch the show, that have complained that the show is inappropriate and inconsiderate and should not be on television. Although, it would take a huge call to action to get this show off the air, every letter that is written to Comedy Central, the FCC, or to Parker and Stone directly probably does help the cause of getting this show off the air or to at least lessen the extent of controversy they stir in the show.
Mess and Media
Media and mass media are often used when discussing the power of modern communications. The word media is often used to refer to the communication of news. The word includes not only the newspapers, but the term can be extended to include magazines, TV show, internet and everything that can reach and inform large audience. In the Twenty-first century, TV show occupies an important role of media and become the most common way for people to get the information. However, some of the TV shows send the audience totally wrong information. The Comedy Central’s South Park usually exaggerations the issues and lead the audience toward to a wrong idea. South Park, which is created by four elementary main characters, uses the social issue or the privacy of celebrities as a topic to create the dark humor video. South Park is about four young boys growing up in the American Midwest. It sounds harmless enough, but the show is actually full of swearing, violence and gross humor.
The Comedy Central’s South Park performs the four characters in a carton version due to the untruth. Carton version can provide the audience an unreal sense so the audience will not mix the false information and the fact of the real world. Since the overall show is all made by the two Creator and Executive Producer, most of the plots are just jokes. For example, after the hijackers intentionally give the serious and unpredicted attack to both the economy system and the human lives of the U.S, South Park products one video which points that the U.S government is the actual assassin behind the scenes. It mentions that the U.S wanted to gain the support from other countries to assault the Iraq in order to get the benefit form the territory of Iraq. The purpose to do the secret conspiracy was due to the plenty oil and the market development. This show performs totally against to the truth. The creators satirize the government and the celebrities by portraying them as a group of insidious people. The dark humor is full of all the violent action and curing conversation in the carton in order to reflect the problem of society.
Overall, the purpose of the creators to make the film such like the South Park is to grab audience attention. Since the producers realize that everyone is interested in celebrities’ lives, they focus on the privacy of celebrities and make fun of them. By this point, they effetely advertise the show and make people pay attention to it. After the show achieves its first goal, grabbing people’s attention, it stars to develop more and more surprising topics which are focus on the social problem. Even most of the way the show represents is inappropriate, yet it gives the audience an opportunity to think about the problem of our environment. We can not deny all the issue that has shown in the South Park. Like the Exposes the 9/11 Hoax episode of South Park, it is true that the U.S government actually expects the natural resource form the territories of Iraq. It is also true that the U.S is trying to keep the power of the world, yet in an appropriate way. So even though the South Park is not a honor TV show, it actually provides he audience some subject to talk about.
Since the South Park always involves violent trouble and an inappropriate solution to solve the problem, it is definitely an unwelcome TV show for most of young people. Children who see the South Park as an entertainment will somehow imitate the characters. It not only influences the young’s personality but also the entire society indirectly. Also, children are too young to distinguish the truth and the false of the show. They might believe whatever information the South Park had provided to them and being misleading by the show. Parents would rather let their children to see The Simpson than the South Park since there is less violence and curing conversation. Even though the show is designed to reflect the problem of society, yet it also creates social problem at the same time.
South Park has the most extreme evaluation from the audience. Although there are so many inappropriate plots in the show, many people are still attracted by the humor in the show. Since it is impossible to use the political power to forbid the South Park, the associable department should at least move the time of the show to later at night in order to prevent young kids to watch it. Reducing the show time can help preventing kids to watch too. Also, some of the website such like Youtube should have sensor on the video which is inappropriate for younger children. After all children is the foundation of the country, we do not want any kind of inapposite media lead them to a wrong direction. Only if people prevent the inapt show from kids, our society can become a better world.
The Comedy Central’s South Park performs the four characters in a carton version due to the untruth. Carton version can provide the audience an unreal sense so the audience will not mix the false information and the fact of the real world. Since the overall show is all made by the two Creator and Executive Producer, most of the plots are just jokes. For example, after the hijackers intentionally give the serious and unpredicted attack to both the economy system and the human lives of the U.S, South Park products one video which points that the U.S government is the actual assassin behind the scenes. It mentions that the U.S wanted to gain the support from other countries to assault the Iraq in order to get the benefit form the territory of Iraq. The purpose to do the secret conspiracy was due to the plenty oil and the market development. This show performs totally against to the truth. The creators satirize the government and the celebrities by portraying them as a group of insidious people. The dark humor is full of all the violent action and curing conversation in the carton in order to reflect the problem of society.
Overall, the purpose of the creators to make the film such like the South Park is to grab audience attention. Since the producers realize that everyone is interested in celebrities’ lives, they focus on the privacy of celebrities and make fun of them. By this point, they effetely advertise the show and make people pay attention to it. After the show achieves its first goal, grabbing people’s attention, it stars to develop more and more surprising topics which are focus on the social problem. Even most of the way the show represents is inappropriate, yet it gives the audience an opportunity to think about the problem of our environment. We can not deny all the issue that has shown in the South Park. Like the Exposes the 9/11 Hoax episode of South Park, it is true that the U.S government actually expects the natural resource form the territories of Iraq. It is also true that the U.S is trying to keep the power of the world, yet in an appropriate way. So even though the South Park is not a honor TV show, it actually provides he audience some subject to talk about.
Since the South Park always involves violent trouble and an inappropriate solution to solve the problem, it is definitely an unwelcome TV show for most of young people. Children who see the South Park as an entertainment will somehow imitate the characters. It not only influences the young’s personality but also the entire society indirectly. Also, children are too young to distinguish the truth and the false of the show. They might believe whatever information the South Park had provided to them and being misleading by the show. Parents would rather let their children to see The Simpson than the South Park since there is less violence and curing conversation. Even though the show is designed to reflect the problem of society, yet it also creates social problem at the same time.
South Park has the most extreme evaluation from the audience. Although there are so many inappropriate plots in the show, many people are still attracted by the humor in the show. Since it is impossible to use the political power to forbid the South Park, the associable department should at least move the time of the show to later at night in order to prevent young kids to watch it. Reducing the show time can help preventing kids to watch too. Also, some of the website such like Youtube should have sensor on the video which is inappropriate for younger children. After all children is the foundation of the country, we do not want any kind of inapposite media lead them to a wrong direction. Only if people prevent the inapt show from kids, our society can become a better world.
Jerry Springer-Lauri Dafner
The Jerry Springer Show is an entity onto itself. The host, Jerry Springer, delivers an array of downright crude interviews full of obscenities and odd guests. Interviews range from stories about cheaters to full on fights between disgruntled family members. As seen on the “culture as a skyscraper” diagram, shows such as Jerry Springer place in the low class category for viewers. Therefore most interview themes are insignificant to the greater community and full of trivial themes and conflicts. Unlike most talk shows, guests are encouraged to get into physical fights. As mentioned earlier in the chapter, such shows as “Jackass” which was on MTV for a brief amount of time, delivers the same time themes. When looking at both television shows, the response is divided in each. One group of people would say the viewers are being influenced to subject themselves to such activities. Other groups of people would claim that these shows are simply for entertainment purposes.
Most stories are about people who are in the mist of fighting or have hateful feelings for another person. In which case these individuals come to the show to pursue conflict and solve their issues. When watching such a show as this, it is easy to wonder if those that are being interviewed have chosen to be portrayed in such a low class way. Reports have said that the producers of the show have coaxed people into appearing through false claims and promises.
By looking at all facets and goals of this television program, it seems as if the show aims to please viewers while leaving guests looking dumb. Many times guests are also given a false sense of why they are really on the show. This deceptiveness has lead to injury and even death. one significant interview lead to the murder of a guest. A woman was asked to come on the show and reconcile her relationship with her ex-husband, who she had been stalking. Little did she know that the show lied to get her on television. When she got on the show she was informed that her ex-husband had since remarried and wanted nothing to do with her. this conflict ended in tragedy when the ex-husband continued his rage off stage and killed the woman.
In this case the Jerry Springer show had an obligation to its guests to tell the truth. It is important for television networks and more importantly, the producers of shows to recognize and evaluate the condition of their guests. it is one thing to get good ratings, its another to strive to do so while tampering with guests fragile feelings and lives. Many times a line needs to be drawn. Over and over again the Jerry Springer show crosses that line.
Most stories are about people who are in the mist of fighting or have hateful feelings for another person. In which case these individuals come to the show to pursue conflict and solve their issues. When watching such a show as this, it is easy to wonder if those that are being interviewed have chosen to be portrayed in such a low class way. Reports have said that the producers of the show have coaxed people into appearing through false claims and promises.
By looking at all facets and goals of this television program, it seems as if the show aims to please viewers while leaving guests looking dumb. Many times guests are also given a false sense of why they are really on the show. This deceptiveness has lead to injury and even death. one significant interview lead to the murder of a guest. A woman was asked to come on the show and reconcile her relationship with her ex-husband, who she had been stalking. Little did she know that the show lied to get her on television. When she got on the show she was informed that her ex-husband had since remarried and wanted nothing to do with her. this conflict ended in tragedy when the ex-husband continued his rage off stage and killed the woman.
In this case the Jerry Springer show had an obligation to its guests to tell the truth. It is important for television networks and more importantly, the producers of shows to recognize and evaluate the condition of their guests. it is one thing to get good ratings, its another to strive to do so while tampering with guests fragile feelings and lives. Many times a line needs to be drawn. Over and over again the Jerry Springer show crosses that line.
The Maury Show-Emily Shuff
Maury Povich, a respected journalist and the host of his popular TV show Maury, talks to his viewers about compelling issues that impact teens, their parents, and society as a whole. Now in his ninth season, it is clear his viewers believe his topics are tolerable and do not push ethical boundaries.
The Maury Show covers a variety of topics from odd couples to paternity tests, and while some incidents cause for foul language, the language is always cut out of the episode and the mouth is blurred so one cannot make out what the person was trying to say. Unlike Jerry Springer, there is no violence on Maury, and Maury’s goal is to find a solution to the problem, where The Jerry Springer show tends to never find an answer. Also, Maury’s show has never had any known confrontations with outside authorities due to the content in the show, where as The Jerry Springer Show was linked to a murder after the guest was on his show.
Some key patterns on Maury’s show are the way the guests are introduced on the show. Each guest is given a proper introduction, and is given equal airtime as the other guests on the show. The guests then sit beside Maury in the chairs he has set out for them. Also, Maury’s compassion for his guests is a rare find on television talk shows. He always offers more help if anyone needs it, and he is always willing to devote his time to help someone’s life a little easier. Each episode he continues to show his caring nature, which is another pattern shown.
The reasoning behind Maury’s compassion is due to his feelings toward his own show. Without his passion for his guests and viewers, he would not have had nine seasons of a successful show. The way Maury has his guests introduced and has them sit beside him might mean that he wants everyone to feel equal, and not have someone seem favored.
Overall, Maury Povich seems to have a good grasp on what is acceptable to put on TV. Maury brings many different types of people on the show, not focusing on one group of people. He talks about topics that relate to everyone, and treats his guests with respect, as well as his viewers.
Writing a formal e-mail or letter could be one way to let the studio know about the critiques made. Also, contacting the FCC with ideas and critiques can be another way to let them know of one’s findings on the specific topic.
The Maury Show covers a variety of topics from odd couples to paternity tests, and while some incidents cause for foul language, the language is always cut out of the episode and the mouth is blurred so one cannot make out what the person was trying to say. Unlike Jerry Springer, there is no violence on Maury, and Maury’s goal is to find a solution to the problem, where The Jerry Springer show tends to never find an answer. Also, Maury’s show has never had any known confrontations with outside authorities due to the content in the show, where as The Jerry Springer Show was linked to a murder after the guest was on his show.
Some key patterns on Maury’s show are the way the guests are introduced on the show. Each guest is given a proper introduction, and is given equal airtime as the other guests on the show. The guests then sit beside Maury in the chairs he has set out for them. Also, Maury’s compassion for his guests is a rare find on television talk shows. He always offers more help if anyone needs it, and he is always willing to devote his time to help someone’s life a little easier. Each episode he continues to show his caring nature, which is another pattern shown.
The reasoning behind Maury’s compassion is due to his feelings toward his own show. Without his passion for his guests and viewers, he would not have had nine seasons of a successful show. The way Maury has his guests introduced and has them sit beside him might mean that he wants everyone to feel equal, and not have someone seem favored.
Overall, Maury Povich seems to have a good grasp on what is acceptable to put on TV. Maury brings many different types of people on the show, not focusing on one group of people. He talks about topics that relate to everyone, and treats his guests with respect, as well as his viewers.
Writing a formal e-mail or letter could be one way to let the studio know about the critiques made. Also, contacting the FCC with ideas and critiques can be another way to let them know of one’s findings on the specific topic.
Monday, July 14, 2008
South Park Influence
South Park is a television show that is viewed by all different types of people, although they all share one similar interest: comedy. This show’s humor revolves around political controversy and race, constantly mocking political figures and situations. Although South Park may seem like reckless humor, society’s opinion has to ability to be swayed through simple mass media. As “Examining Ethics” states, “Such programs and practices on TV shows raise serious ethical questions. Complicating any discussion of ethics, however, are the competing values that govern how talk and reality shows handle topics and guests” (pg 21). There is controversy revolving around South Park, due to their mockery of serious issues in society. Comedy Central includes multiple different topics in their shows, ranging from movie stars to singers to race to politics. South Park continually taunts the terrorist attack of September 11th, 2001 as well as race and religion. These subjects are extremely serious issues and portraying them as humorous can affect the viewer’s opinion on stereotypes.
The affect of immediate coverage regarding any serious situation also plays an important role in society. As well as immediate coverage, loss of verbal communication also plays an important role, because many people form their own opinions based on their personal experiences. A pattern that has emerged from many episodes in South Park is the mockery of stereotypes and political situations. For example, South Park plays an image from September 11th, and circulates the message that the attack was thoroughly planned by the United States government. The messages that South Park relays regarding the government has the ability to influence viewers to question the motive of the United States. Not only does South Park deride the government, it constantly mocks and stereotypes religions such as Judaism, Catholicism, Christianity and Islam. Many ask, “why mock so many serious topics?” The use of humor is South Park’s method to portray opinion and humor is a way to draw attention to possible viewers. Since humor is a popular motive for people to watch a show, it is a convenient way to present opinion.
South Park’s expression of opinion and mockery of many controversial subjects has a negative affect through mass media. Unfavorable thoughts involving different types of people are depicted as funny, which can affect viewers without even being aware of it. Although South Park is a tendentious television show, there are benefits to its personal perspective. The ability to participate in conversation and debate arises from the expression of personal opinion. South Park’s use of public advocacy through humor and mockery is not a method that is fair to the subject. Although the content is believed to be amusing, it is re-enforcing to the viewer’s that stereotyping people is acceptable, as well as comical.
The affect of immediate coverage regarding any serious situation also plays an important role in society. As well as immediate coverage, loss of verbal communication also plays an important role, because many people form their own opinions based on their personal experiences. A pattern that has emerged from many episodes in South Park is the mockery of stereotypes and political situations. For example, South Park plays an image from September 11th, and circulates the message that the attack was thoroughly planned by the United States government. The messages that South Park relays regarding the government has the ability to influence viewers to question the motive of the United States. Not only does South Park deride the government, it constantly mocks and stereotypes religions such as Judaism, Catholicism, Christianity and Islam. Many ask, “why mock so many serious topics?” The use of humor is South Park’s method to portray opinion and humor is a way to draw attention to possible viewers. Since humor is a popular motive for people to watch a show, it is a convenient way to present opinion.
South Park’s expression of opinion and mockery of many controversial subjects has a negative affect through mass media. Unfavorable thoughts involving different types of people are depicted as funny, which can affect viewers without even being aware of it. Although South Park is a tendentious television show, there are benefits to its personal perspective. The ability to participate in conversation and debate arises from the expression of personal opinion. South Park’s use of public advocacy through humor and mockery is not a method that is fair to the subject. Although the content is believed to be amusing, it is re-enforcing to the viewer’s that stereotyping people is acceptable, as well as comical.
South Park: Should We Kill Kenny....For Good?
John Dempsey
South Park
The infamous Comedy Central program known as South Park centers around four boys (who have remained in fourth grade for ten years) and the events that occur in the town in which they live. Coincidentally, these events often involve celebrities, trends, and hot topics currently in the news. These events are often accompanied by a barrage of swearing, offensive material, violent imagery or any combination of the three.
The show has become known for pushing the envelope as far as it possibly can. The storylines also frequently spark intense debate, prompting people to discuss and contemplate important issues. And for this, it should be heralded rather than condemned.
The show follows a formula in which every adult South Park resident is portrayed as a complete idiot, with Chef being the only notable exception. Trouble is brought to South Park by the boys’ misunderstanding of something, or by a celebrity coming to town. The adults of South Park will take an issue much further than it was ever meant to go, usually destroying the town in the process. These hijinks ultimately lead to the boys saying what they learned, which is often a metaphor for a solution to real-world problems. Unless of course the goal of that particular episode is just to get a laugh, in which case there is just slapstick nonsense.
Celebrities are often ridiculed, bashed, parodied and otherwise treated with little respect. South Park’s goal in doing this is to demonstrate the hypocrisy, radically extreme positions, or general craziness that celebrities exhibit. Often times, these celebrities are in dire need of being taken down a notch. The creators of South Park dare to not only push the envelope, but rip it open and write hateful diatribes on it. This is in stark contrast to the general trend among television shows to cater to celebrities.
Although it can be argued that the show’s creators do occasionally go a little too far, at least they dare to be creative and thought-provoking, Plus, by packaging it in cartoon format, they help soften the impact.
Obviously, this is not a children’s show. However, its prominent position in Comedy Central’s lineup allows it to attract a mass audience. As long as it continues to be Comedy Central’s highest rated program, while at the same time managing to stay within FCC guidelines, it will continue to provide a commentary on the world we live in. In the end, I believe the world needs a South Park to go where others are afraid to go. And in doing so, it manages to provide entertainment while also giving a new perspective on the world’s problems.
South Park
The infamous Comedy Central program known as South Park centers around four boys (who have remained in fourth grade for ten years) and the events that occur in the town in which they live. Coincidentally, these events often involve celebrities, trends, and hot topics currently in the news. These events are often accompanied by a barrage of swearing, offensive material, violent imagery or any combination of the three.
The show has become known for pushing the envelope as far as it possibly can. The storylines also frequently spark intense debate, prompting people to discuss and contemplate important issues. And for this, it should be heralded rather than condemned.
The show follows a formula in which every adult South Park resident is portrayed as a complete idiot, with Chef being the only notable exception. Trouble is brought to South Park by the boys’ misunderstanding of something, or by a celebrity coming to town. The adults of South Park will take an issue much further than it was ever meant to go, usually destroying the town in the process. These hijinks ultimately lead to the boys saying what they learned, which is often a metaphor for a solution to real-world problems. Unless of course the goal of that particular episode is just to get a laugh, in which case there is just slapstick nonsense.
Celebrities are often ridiculed, bashed, parodied and otherwise treated with little respect. South Park’s goal in doing this is to demonstrate the hypocrisy, radically extreme positions, or general craziness that celebrities exhibit. Often times, these celebrities are in dire need of being taken down a notch. The creators of South Park dare to not only push the envelope, but rip it open and write hateful diatribes on it. This is in stark contrast to the general trend among television shows to cater to celebrities.
Although it can be argued that the show’s creators do occasionally go a little too far, at least they dare to be creative and thought-provoking, Plus, by packaging it in cartoon format, they help soften the impact.
Obviously, this is not a children’s show. However, its prominent position in Comedy Central’s lineup allows it to attract a mass audience. As long as it continues to be Comedy Central’s highest rated program, while at the same time managing to stay within FCC guidelines, it will continue to provide a commentary on the world we live in. In the end, I believe the world needs a South Park to go where others are afraid to go. And in doing so, it manages to provide entertainment while also giving a new perspective on the world’s problems.
Sports Illustrate, ESPN the Magazine, the Sporting News, and… Slam? If there is any uncertainty as to what Slam magazine is and what it is meant to accomplish as an entertainment magazine publication, all it takes is a glance at the cover and the central topic of the magazine should be apparent: basketball. With an urban and African-American target audience, Slam magazine has found a comfortable niche in the sports-entertainment print world as an “In Your Face Basketball Magazine,” according to the first issue of Slam magazine, printed in 1994. From the first issues’ NBA star Larry Johnson cover, to the latest July 7th, 2008 cover with USA basketball Olympians LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, and Kobe Bryant, Slam magazine has had some of basketballs’ top stars grace its front page for a decade-and-a-half. Nine issues per year and a modest global circulation of over five hundred thousand readers worldwide, Slam magazine has been a consistently productive publication since 1994 and the PRIMEDIA publication shows no signs of slowing down.
The target audience is an interesting one, for the magazine is actually credited with acting as a catalyst in linking hip-hop culture to the basketball fan nation. This was achieved because the magazine not only included articles, interviews, and editorials about basketball, but also about hip-hop music and urban clothing lines. So the target audience for this magazine breaks down into basketball fans, more specifically urban basketball fans, and even more specifically African-American urban basketball fans.
The way that the magazine attracts its target audience is through covers that are meant to catch the eye of the urban basketball advocate. For example, in Slam’s total one hundred nineteen issues, there has been merely eleven times that a Caucasian basketball player has appeared on the cover of the ninety-or-so page magazine. Now this is by no means a degrading racial action; since the magazine began, there have been tremendous players of numerous races and ethnicities. However, although white NBA players such Jason Kidd, John Stockton, Former NBA MVP Steve Nash, and numerous others were quite popular and unbelievable talented, their popularity pales in comparison with the likes of Carmelo Anthony, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Charles Barkley, Dennis Rodman, Scottie Pippen, Karl Malone, countless others, and the greatest of them all, Michael Jordan (all of whom happen to be African-American). Other than the fact that Slam was attempting to target the African-American audience, the other motivation for so many black basketball stars on the cover page was because the most popular players in the NBA during the last decade of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first century were primarily of African-American descent.
Okay, now that the reader has seen the cover and is intrigued, how does this magazine differ from Sports Illustrated and the other mainstream sports magazines? They both attempt to put the most popular sports stars on their covers concerning Sports Illustrated and Slam’s niches of general interest sport and basketball sport and culture, respectively. However, one of the key components that makes Slam magazine so much different than the mainstream counterparts is the street language and the in-your-face editorial and columnist writing. Here are some examples of the inventive street language straight off of the July 7th, 2008 issue: Ballin’ (cover), Slamadacentury (page 11), “…a similarly disjoined team was sent to rep the USA in Athens…” (page 16), etc. And even though the magazine is geared toward the African-American audience, the magazine (in an extreme fairness and racially unbiased manner) will print stories about any ethnicity regardless the audience and base the selection of stories solely on expected popularity value, as seen in the latest issue (white NBA stars Pau Gasol and Manu Ginobili were both featured in articles in this issue).
The ratio of African-American to white athletes on the cover of the magazine, the selection of stories, and urban street language show a slight slant toward a certain racial ethnic group (also known as the target audience, African-American basketball and hip-hop culture advocates), right? Yes, in the sense that all of those things tend to target the African-American audience, and no, because any race can be a part of the hip-hop culture and Slam merely selects the most popular players to be on their covers. The more suggestive notion of a slant is shown in the advertising within the magazine. It is riddled with fitness apparel, tennis shoe, and hip-hop music advertisements. All races can be lured by those advertisements; this much is true. However, in contrast with all of the other mainstream magazines, most of Slam’s advertisements feature African-American commercial actors.
The target audience is an interesting one, for the magazine is actually credited with acting as a catalyst in linking hip-hop culture to the basketball fan nation. This was achieved because the magazine not only included articles, interviews, and editorials about basketball, but also about hip-hop music and urban clothing lines. So the target audience for this magazine breaks down into basketball fans, more specifically urban basketball fans, and even more specifically African-American urban basketball fans.
The way that the magazine attracts its target audience is through covers that are meant to catch the eye of the urban basketball advocate. For example, in Slam’s total one hundred nineteen issues, there has been merely eleven times that a Caucasian basketball player has appeared on the cover of the ninety-or-so page magazine. Now this is by no means a degrading racial action; since the magazine began, there have been tremendous players of numerous races and ethnicities. However, although white NBA players such Jason Kidd, John Stockton, Former NBA MVP Steve Nash, and numerous others were quite popular and unbelievable talented, their popularity pales in comparison with the likes of Carmelo Anthony, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Charles Barkley, Dennis Rodman, Scottie Pippen, Karl Malone, countless others, and the greatest of them all, Michael Jordan (all of whom happen to be African-American). Other than the fact that Slam was attempting to target the African-American audience, the other motivation for so many black basketball stars on the cover page was because the most popular players in the NBA during the last decade of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first century were primarily of African-American descent.
Okay, now that the reader has seen the cover and is intrigued, how does this magazine differ from Sports Illustrated and the other mainstream sports magazines? They both attempt to put the most popular sports stars on their covers concerning Sports Illustrated and Slam’s niches of general interest sport and basketball sport and culture, respectively. However, one of the key components that makes Slam magazine so much different than the mainstream counterparts is the street language and the in-your-face editorial and columnist writing. Here are some examples of the inventive street language straight off of the July 7th, 2008 issue: Ballin’ (cover), Slamadacentury (page 11), “…a similarly disjoined team was sent to rep the USA in Athens…” (page 16), etc. And even though the magazine is geared toward the African-American audience, the magazine (in an extreme fairness and racially unbiased manner) will print stories about any ethnicity regardless the audience and base the selection of stories solely on expected popularity value, as seen in the latest issue (white NBA stars Pau Gasol and Manu Ginobili were both featured in articles in this issue).
The ratio of African-American to white athletes on the cover of the magazine, the selection of stories, and urban street language show a slight slant toward a certain racial ethnic group (also known as the target audience, African-American basketball and hip-hop culture advocates), right? Yes, in the sense that all of those things tend to target the African-American audience, and no, because any race can be a part of the hip-hop culture and Slam merely selects the most popular players to be on their covers. The more suggestive notion of a slant is shown in the advertising within the magazine. It is riddled with fitness apparel, tennis shoe, and hip-hop music advertisements. All races can be lured by those advertisements; this much is true. However, in contrast with all of the other mainstream magazines, most of Slam’s advertisements feature African-American commercial actors.
Jerry Springer
Description: The Jerry Springer Show is a TV talk show that is supposed to help families and friends work out their problems. Both Jerry Springer and the studio audience try to offer suggestions that will help the relationship between the guests. Typically the topics that are brought up on the shows are: divorce, cheating, racism, adultery, incest, sexuality etc. Because these topics are so controversial, there is security on set to keep the guests under control when constant fights break out.
Analysis: The clear pattern of The Jerry Springer Show is that none of the problems are ever settled calmly; every episode involves fighting, screaming, hostility, and unreasonable actions. All the guests on the show use violence in an attempt to solve their problems, which rarely ever work out.
Interpretation: The people that come on the show are not really looking to solve their problems, but just get it out in the open and gain some attention. Some of the fighting on the show may not even be completely real, but just used to boost viewer’s interest.
Evaluation: I think the show is pointless and accomplishes nothing in any of the situations brought onto the show. The show seems like it promotes fighting to solve any argument, which is not the ideal way to work out a problem. None of the guests seem satisfied or made any progress with their situation after the show. I get the impression that the show is more used for entertainment purposes than to actually help families and friends figure out how to fix their problems.
Engagement: If the guests really want help fixing their relationship with their family member, loved one, or friends, they should go to a private help facility. There, they will be able to offer professional advice in order to benefit the situation.
Anti ProWrestling
The year is 2008 and there are many choices of things to watch on television. Professional wrestling is one of the most popular sporting events in our society. Professional wrestling, as popular as is it is, should not be on air because it portrays stereotypes toward men and women.
Wrestling for entertainment began as early as 3,000 BC. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Japanese wrestled as art forms in their societies. The Greeks popularized it because they started the Ancient Olympic Games. Around 70 AD, the Romans built the Colosseum for gladiatorial contests and public spectacles. The Colosseum drew large crowds who wanted to see animal hunts, reenactments of famous battles, executions and plays of classical mythology. It was one of Italy’s main sources of entertainment until the 6th century. In the late 19th century, wrestling drew crowds when they were sideshows of traveling carnivals. The WWF, otherwise known as the World Wrestling Federation, was then started in 1980.
After changing its name to WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment, the purpose of these fights have completely changed from its origins. It is still of entertainment value towards viewers, but it now portrays certain stereotypes. The fighters who have the most success are very strong men. They look like they never stop working out. Many seem like they have taken steroids. This is a very bad image considering that is it shown to a large audience. Young boys watch this and assume that in order to be popular they have to be huge, muscular men. These wrestling shows also give a stereotype towards women. Each wrestler has a woman, if not more, that introduces them into the ring. They have bleach blonde hair and are tall and skinny with big breasts. This feeds into the whole stereotype that fashion models give girls; that they all need to be a size 0 with long blonde hair and big boobs and about 6’1”. This also relates back to the boy’s stereotype because they see these huge men with these gorgeous girls and they assume that is what they will have to be like in order to get what those wrestlers have.
These stereotypes given off by wrestling shows have negative consequences. When young boys watch this, they become envious of these strong, powerful men. In turn, they believe that in order to have power and a beautiful girl, they must look and act the same as pro wrestlers. To look the same, they will now have to work out non-stop. If that does not give them the look they want, they may turn to steroids. Steroids are a huge problem in this country, especially in major league sports. Once young boys have the look, they will then want the attitude of a wrestler. Because they want to be tough all the time, they may cause problems and lots of fights. This would then cause them to do badly in school. They would also want to join rough sports such as football, wrestling and lacrosse. Being a wrestler in grade and high school can take another toll on boys. Many need to “make weight,” and in order to do that they throw up. This can become a serious problem and lead to bulimia. Young girls could also turn to bulimia after watching these wrestling shows. They see how pretty these skinny models are, and want to be just like them. They may also dye their hair and get breast implants.
Because Professional Wrestling shown on WWE portrays many stereotypes toward men and women, it should be taken off of cable television. It is one thing for a sport to become competitive and create a billion dollar industry, but it should be a good example to the public. Yes, the NFL is a popular league with big powerful and strong men being cheered on by pretty women in costumes. But the NFL has strict rules and is played to see which team is better through practice. Wrestling is a fight between two men to see which man can hurt the other one more. The WWE channel on T.V., and a one of its programs called “RAW”, is an example of “low culture.” It does not take a college education to understand what is going on during the fights. Therefore, many scholars find wrestling boring because it seems scripted and tacky. WWE and programs like RAW also feed into the “Big Mac” Theory. They feed into the theory because it discriminates taste toward finer fare. Pro Wrestling is also postmodern because it accepts technology by having websites and satellite radio stations and it recycles culture.
The emergence of digital communication allows die hard fans of WWE to watch and keep up with the sport anywhere, not just from television. The internet, radio, and cell phone T.V. are some other ways die hard fans can be in tuned with fights 24-7. Because this popular sport is able to be accessed almost anywhere, there is one major solution that can be done to lessen the effect of the stereotype that is given off from WWE programs. Take if off television. This may be a hard thing to think of by die hard fans, but they would still be able to access it in many different ways. Taking it off the air eliminates the chance that young children will become influenced by the stereotypes given off by the programs. This would work because it would be harder for young children to access the material. People who would be able to access it should be at the age where these stereotypes given off would affect them less.
Professional wrestling, as popular as is it is, should not be on air because it portrays stereotypes toward men and women. Taking it off the air and only allowing it to be seen by people who can access it by another way, would reduce the chances of a child being fed into this stereotype.
Wrestling for entertainment began as early as 3,000 BC. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Japanese wrestled as art forms in their societies. The Greeks popularized it because they started the Ancient Olympic Games. Around 70 AD, the Romans built the Colosseum for gladiatorial contests and public spectacles. The Colosseum drew large crowds who wanted to see animal hunts, reenactments of famous battles, executions and plays of classical mythology. It was one of Italy’s main sources of entertainment until the 6th century. In the late 19th century, wrestling drew crowds when they were sideshows of traveling carnivals. The WWF, otherwise known as the World Wrestling Federation, was then started in 1980.
After changing its name to WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment, the purpose of these fights have completely changed from its origins. It is still of entertainment value towards viewers, but it now portrays certain stereotypes. The fighters who have the most success are very strong men. They look like they never stop working out. Many seem like they have taken steroids. This is a very bad image considering that is it shown to a large audience. Young boys watch this and assume that in order to be popular they have to be huge, muscular men. These wrestling shows also give a stereotype towards women. Each wrestler has a woman, if not more, that introduces them into the ring. They have bleach blonde hair and are tall and skinny with big breasts. This feeds into the whole stereotype that fashion models give girls; that they all need to be a size 0 with long blonde hair and big boobs and about 6’1”. This also relates back to the boy’s stereotype because they see these huge men with these gorgeous girls and they assume that is what they will have to be like in order to get what those wrestlers have.
These stereotypes given off by wrestling shows have negative consequences. When young boys watch this, they become envious of these strong, powerful men. In turn, they believe that in order to have power and a beautiful girl, they must look and act the same as pro wrestlers. To look the same, they will now have to work out non-stop. If that does not give them the look they want, they may turn to steroids. Steroids are a huge problem in this country, especially in major league sports. Once young boys have the look, they will then want the attitude of a wrestler. Because they want to be tough all the time, they may cause problems and lots of fights. This would then cause them to do badly in school. They would also want to join rough sports such as football, wrestling and lacrosse. Being a wrestler in grade and high school can take another toll on boys. Many need to “make weight,” and in order to do that they throw up. This can become a serious problem and lead to bulimia. Young girls could also turn to bulimia after watching these wrestling shows. They see how pretty these skinny models are, and want to be just like them. They may also dye their hair and get breast implants.
Because Professional Wrestling shown on WWE portrays many stereotypes toward men and women, it should be taken off of cable television. It is one thing for a sport to become competitive and create a billion dollar industry, but it should be a good example to the public. Yes, the NFL is a popular league with big powerful and strong men being cheered on by pretty women in costumes. But the NFL has strict rules and is played to see which team is better through practice. Wrestling is a fight between two men to see which man can hurt the other one more. The WWE channel on T.V., and a one of its programs called “RAW”, is an example of “low culture.” It does not take a college education to understand what is going on during the fights. Therefore, many scholars find wrestling boring because it seems scripted and tacky. WWE and programs like RAW also feed into the “Big Mac” Theory. They feed into the theory because it discriminates taste toward finer fare. Pro Wrestling is also postmodern because it accepts technology by having websites and satellite radio stations and it recycles culture.
The emergence of digital communication allows die hard fans of WWE to watch and keep up with the sport anywhere, not just from television. The internet, radio, and cell phone T.V. are some other ways die hard fans can be in tuned with fights 24-7. Because this popular sport is able to be accessed almost anywhere, there is one major solution that can be done to lessen the effect of the stereotype that is given off from WWE programs. Take if off television. This may be a hard thing to think of by die hard fans, but they would still be able to access it in many different ways. Taking it off the air eliminates the chance that young children will become influenced by the stereotypes given off by the programs. This would work because it would be harder for young children to access the material. People who would be able to access it should be at the age where these stereotypes given off would affect them less.
Professional wrestling, as popular as is it is, should not be on air because it portrays stereotypes toward men and women. Taking it off the air and only allowing it to be seen by people who can access it by another way, would reduce the chances of a child being fed into this stereotype.
The O'Reilly Factor
Among the many day time, night time, and prime time news shows out there, the O’Reilly Factor stands out to audiences. While many viewers criticize Bill O’Reilly, I am a personal fan and I defend his broadcast. In order to properly critique this show, I rummaged through my brain for descriptions and watched his shows again to refresh my mind. To help make a critical case, I will follow the five-step critical process which includes description, analysis, interpretation, evaluation, and engagement.
The O’Reilly factor is a new show that relays current events that O’Reilly deems as important to an audience. Generally, there is a schedule and natural order of things. Usually, O’Reilly begins the show with “Talking Points Memo” where he provides his personal view points on a current event or topic. Subsequently, he then transitions to a breaking story and then presents the “impact” which is where he gives important topics more attention than the regular media. Other segments are included for entertaining and educational purposes. Of them, some examples include “pinheads and patriots,” “Factor mail,” and even a body language expert. One thing that can be noticed and commended about this show is both sides are represented in debates and on issues. Additionally, when he reads his “Factor mail,” he reads one in support of him and one opposing him.
To further the critical process, one must analyze her research on the topic. Like most news shows, the camera work is half the effort when appealing to an audience. On the O’Reilly factor, Bill’s hand gestures can be seen and he is allowed to show more passion in his argument whereas the interviewee rarely gets to show any emotion or hand signs due to the camera’s proximity. In addition to the different camera zooms, when in a debate, O’Reilly often uses the split-screen effect. He is always on the left side of the screen while his opponent in the debate is on the right. During the “Pinhead and Patriot” and “Factor mail” segments, Bill always says thank you to the patriots and those in support of him but to the pinheads and those opposing him, he usually has the last word to defend himself. Overall, Bill O’Reilly is patriotic and while he comes off as conservative, he is an Independent. Sometimes he is criticized by the Democratic Party because of this.
So, what does this mean? Well, everything that happens on T.V. and in the media is no accident. Everything from a body gesture to a camera angle can be interpreted in some way which happens to be step three in the critical process. Bill O’Reilly is obviously the man in charge on this operation. Anyone can tell, even just by the camera angle. Because of the distance Bill is from the camera, he can lean in and out to show emotion or carelessness and he is able to show his strong hand gestures to prove a point. The interviewee does not have this luxury. Instead, they have an up-close, portrait shot where the audience is unable to see any hand gestures or body language. This puts them at a disadvantage to Bill. On to our next point, why is Bill O’Reilly always on the left in the split-screen shots? This could be because of coincidence or it could be because humans read left to right and therefore are drawn more to the left side of the screen. Again, this gives Bill dominance. It’s no wonder he is often accused of bullying. However, people still consent to appear on his show. His motivations and tactics are no secret to Americans and surely no secret to his peers and colleagues.
After the interpretation step is the evaluation step where I make an informed judgment or critique based on the previous three steps. Although I am aware of Bill O’Reilly’s bias toward certain opinions, I am also aware that this is not a typical news show. Instead, it should be listed as a commentator show. Because I know this, I can take and appreciate the O’Reilly Factor for what it is. It’s just one way to provide factual (although sometimes biased) news to the public in an entertaining way. Because the Factor is not your standard news show, it has some wiggle room to add and subtract segments based on what the audience wants. One thing the O’Reilly Factor does well is getting a variety of people on board for interviews and paying close and specific attention to topics the regular news casts only touch on. On this show, the public can get opinions and watch heated debates all the time which helps them formulate an opinion of their own. Although this show has some controversy, Bill O’Reilly handles it well.
The fifth and final step to the critical process is engagement. Is this show helping or hurting American media literacy? Does it best serve our democracy? I believe the O’Reilly Factor does support media literacy and serves our American democracy well. Because Bill is patriotic, he sets a fine example for Americans to follow. He invites his viewers to be engaged in the political process most notably by the “Factor mail” and just giving the current events to his audience the way he sees them. There is no beating around the bush with him. This way, people don’t have an excuse to complain about the cut and dry way the news is presented. No longer can people sit back and be cynics about their lives and their fellow citizen’s lives. Bill O’Reilly promotes the idea of being proactively involved in the political process and contributes with his show which is on at a variety of times so people can view when it’s convenient for them.
Communication has grown since the beginning of time and has gotten more and more complex with age. Although some people accuse the mass media of being heartless and only thinking about money, where would we be without it? Most likely, we’d be back in the Stone Age. The truth is, nothing is perfect and everything has some good and bad to it. Personally, I’m glad to have a prominent media in our culture and society and the O’Reilly Factor is up there with my favorites. Now with a critical point of view, I can say that O’Reilly produces quality news in an entertaining way to appeal to the masses. His spin on things gives our culture more variety and taste. After really divulging myself into the O’Reilly Factor, I can say it is a good show that benefits the citizens of America.
The Maury Show-Erin Booth
The one show that I believe should be removed from cable networks throughout the United States is The Maury Show. This postmodern television show encourages hatred and drama among the guests as well as questions many morals and ethics that are shared by most Americans. After watching this program, it can be concluded that it is certainly at the very bottom of the cultural skyscraper.
The Maury Show is a talk show based in New York City and hosted by Maury Povich. This popular question and answer-based show attempts to solve the problems of individuals going through hard times in life. In each show Maury’s typical interviewees are everyday people who are many times ex-lovers, single mothers, neglected children or troubled teens. There are many reoccurring themes covered in this show, the most common being: infidelity, poor parenting, paternity test results, dysfunctional families and other controversial adult issues.
The Maury Show is comprised of many question and answer sessions that attempt to solve the problems that each guest may be facing. The camera focuses on the individuals and host at a farther distance during regular discussions but then moves closer when something dramatic happens such as a confession or answer to a grueling question. In addition, there is a large video screen in the center of the stage that shows close-ups as well. Along with changing camera angles, The Maury Show has a very active audience. Throughout the show the audience members participate by obnoxiously voicing their opinions by either booing those on stage or shouting outlandish comments. A final trait I have found in this show is the humorous take on extremely serious situations which I believe can be very degrading to some of the viewers.
There are several reasons behind the way The Maury Show is set up to explain the different observations I have found while watching this show in the past. The camera is set the way it is by getting closer up during questions that cause great emotion to the interviewee which creates a more dramatic effect. If the show was shot far away or even at a middle distance the whole time, the viewer would not be able to see how the individual may be feeling by their facial expressions. Also, the large video screen in the center of the stage allows the live audience to see close-ups of the guests as well. An interactive audience is necessary for a successful and entertaining talk show these days; especially one like The Maury Show. Without an obnoxiously loud audience, the show would be boring especially for the home viewers. An interactive audience also enables home viewers to better establish a stance on the issue if they see how the live audience is reacting. This crowd of people on air also inflicts emotion on those guests who are being interviewed whether they become happy that they are being supported or angered when they are being booed.
Ultimately, The Maury Show is the epitome of trash television. The issues that are presented seem as though they are trying to be solved in a caring manner, when in reality it is obvious that these issues are being mocked and made fun of. The situations that these people are going through are many times issues of a vast majority of the American population. Not only is this show offensive to people who may be facing the same hardships; but, children who are victims of the issues that are highlighted on this show will indeed suffer internal damage if coming across The Maury Show. It is absolutely ridiculous to broadcast a show on television addressing problems individuals face all the time and allow American viewers to make judgments about them based on a corrupt television talk show. According to the classical Greek Philosopher, Plato, it is important for media to uplift and instruct rather than bring about evil thoughts and actions. This show doesn’t by any means honor the belief of Plato and is a horrendous show to be presented to nationwide audiences.
There are several things that the American public can do to put an end to this terrible idea of “good television”. First of all, it is our duty as citizens to voice our feelings and opinions to make the world we live in a better place. Therefore, we must begin by encouraging Americans to send e-mails to the producers of The Maury Show and express their feelings towards the show’s content. Also, it would be beneficial to encourage different government agencies involved by organizing protests to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to put an end to this program. By the First Amendment of the Constitution, it is our right as citizens of this country to assemble and petition. Thanks to this amendment, we can gather together and unite against this appalling idea of entertainment.
The Maury Show is a talk show based in New York City and hosted by Maury Povich. This popular question and answer-based show attempts to solve the problems of individuals going through hard times in life. In each show Maury’s typical interviewees are everyday people who are many times ex-lovers, single mothers, neglected children or troubled teens. There are many reoccurring themes covered in this show, the most common being: infidelity, poor parenting, paternity test results, dysfunctional families and other controversial adult issues.
The Maury Show is comprised of many question and answer sessions that attempt to solve the problems that each guest may be facing. The camera focuses on the individuals and host at a farther distance during regular discussions but then moves closer when something dramatic happens such as a confession or answer to a grueling question. In addition, there is a large video screen in the center of the stage that shows close-ups as well. Along with changing camera angles, The Maury Show has a very active audience. Throughout the show the audience members participate by obnoxiously voicing their opinions by either booing those on stage or shouting outlandish comments. A final trait I have found in this show is the humorous take on extremely serious situations which I believe can be very degrading to some of the viewers.
There are several reasons behind the way The Maury Show is set up to explain the different observations I have found while watching this show in the past. The camera is set the way it is by getting closer up during questions that cause great emotion to the interviewee which creates a more dramatic effect. If the show was shot far away or even at a middle distance the whole time, the viewer would not be able to see how the individual may be feeling by their facial expressions. Also, the large video screen in the center of the stage allows the live audience to see close-ups of the guests as well. An interactive audience is necessary for a successful and entertaining talk show these days; especially one like The Maury Show. Without an obnoxiously loud audience, the show would be boring especially for the home viewers. An interactive audience also enables home viewers to better establish a stance on the issue if they see how the live audience is reacting. This crowd of people on air also inflicts emotion on those guests who are being interviewed whether they become happy that they are being supported or angered when they are being booed.
Ultimately, The Maury Show is the epitome of trash television. The issues that are presented seem as though they are trying to be solved in a caring manner, when in reality it is obvious that these issues are being mocked and made fun of. The situations that these people are going through are many times issues of a vast majority of the American population. Not only is this show offensive to people who may be facing the same hardships; but, children who are victims of the issues that are highlighted on this show will indeed suffer internal damage if coming across The Maury Show. It is absolutely ridiculous to broadcast a show on television addressing problems individuals face all the time and allow American viewers to make judgments about them based on a corrupt television talk show. According to the classical Greek Philosopher, Plato, it is important for media to uplift and instruct rather than bring about evil thoughts and actions. This show doesn’t by any means honor the belief of Plato and is a horrendous show to be presented to nationwide audiences.
There are several things that the American public can do to put an end to this terrible idea of “good television”. First of all, it is our duty as citizens to voice our feelings and opinions to make the world we live in a better place. Therefore, we must begin by encouraging Americans to send e-mails to the producers of The Maury Show and express their feelings towards the show’s content. Also, it would be beneficial to encourage different government agencies involved by organizing protests to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to put an end to this program. By the First Amendment of the Constitution, it is our right as citizens of this country to assemble and petition. Thanks to this amendment, we can gather together and unite against this appalling idea of entertainment.
South Park, Friend or Foe?
According to the American Heritage Dictionary satire is, “A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.” Each week when I sit down at my T.V. or computer and watch the latest episode of Comedy Central’s South Park I can expect the latest and greatest controversies to be poked, prodded, and laughed at. No what the subject matter is South Park will, and probably already has, made fun of it. It is almost their place and right to make fun of our culture, because if they don’t who will?
Every year I go to the Central Pennsylvania Arts Festival, and every year I see a caricaturist drawing people sitting in chairs, trying not to move. Perhaps, every once and awhile I’ll pause to see what the artist is drawing. No matter who is sitting there or what race, ethnicity, political background, religion, or style the person is dressed in, the artist always finds little quirks or differences to magnify in the drawing. When South Park makes an episode they take these differences that make us who we are, amplify them to the extreme and joke about how stupid we are for caring about these differences.
When people watch South Park they sometimes use selective exposure and arrive at conclusions that South Park is offending people. What if South Park is trying to offend people; who cares? I think that people who can laugh at themselves make the world a better place. If South Park had only made fun of a few people then I could understand the outcry that it is a terrible show and that the writers are racist or something along those lines, but they don’t limit there scrutiny to only a small portion of people. They make fun of everyone.
I hope South Park continues to portray life in a satirical manner, so that we can continue to laugh at our friends, ourselves, and the rest of the world. As E.E. Cummings said, “The most wasted of all days is one without laughter,” and laughter is what South park aims to bring.
Every year I go to the Central Pennsylvania Arts Festival, and every year I see a caricaturist drawing people sitting in chairs, trying not to move. Perhaps, every once and awhile I’ll pause to see what the artist is drawing. No matter who is sitting there or what race, ethnicity, political background, religion, or style the person is dressed in, the artist always finds little quirks or differences to magnify in the drawing. When South Park makes an episode they take these differences that make us who we are, amplify them to the extreme and joke about how stupid we are for caring about these differences.
When people watch South Park they sometimes use selective exposure and arrive at conclusions that South Park is offending people. What if South Park is trying to offend people; who cares? I think that people who can laugh at themselves make the world a better place. If South Park had only made fun of a few people then I could understand the outcry that it is a terrible show and that the writers are racist or something along those lines, but they don’t limit there scrutiny to only a small portion of people. They make fun of everyone.
I hope South Park continues to portray life in a satirical manner, so that we can continue to laugh at our friends, ourselves, and the rest of the world. As E.E. Cummings said, “The most wasted of all days is one without laughter,” and laughter is what South park aims to bring.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Bradleys anti pro wrestling
Despite the entertainment value that viewers of Professional Wrestling, such as the WWE and the UFC, may receive it is in fact a great example of the lowest of cultures in America.
Professional Wrestling promotes a culture of violence to the american youth. Similar to shows like Jackass and Jerry Springer, wrestling shows that america is proud of it immature and violent nature. Not only is wrestling similar to Jackass in the fact that it shows stunts that often end in injury and pain, but more importantly that todays youth often repeat these stunts which often end in tragic injuries among today’s youth, despite warnings of “do not attempt” at the beginning of each show. Shows like Jerry Springer a market off the entertainment and enjoyment of fighting in American society. Greatly similar to this because not only does it feature violence depicted for the shear purpose of entertainment, but they both feature dramatic situations that are often farfetched, and often seem like the only resolution is fighting.
Another problem with wrestling is that it hold no educational value, and will often draw viewers away from the news or shows of higher culture. Wrestling is typically targeted toward an uneducated class and is greatly popular among that crowd because it features a simply story line to make the fighting have a greater purpose than just a fight, it also does not feature complex dialogue or anything difficult of that nature. As a result the show comes off as immature, often disgracing women’s physique making men seem stupid and arrogant. More importantly the show airs after prime-time T.V., around ten, often drawing attention away from the news.
Professional wrestling holds no educational, no high-cultural value, is violent and is potentially fake in both it fights and story-lines. Therefore it is not a good form of media and should be watch cautiously.
south park- nick mullin
South Park
Comedy Central’s famous program, South Park, to some is an offensive program focused on four children acting in inappropriate adult manners that can go as far as racism, murder, and war. To others, it is a journey to a tiny town in Colorado where for thirty minutes each day, you can take a look at the world and its problems in a comedic way. South Park stars four eight year old boys who experience more than the average children would for example, on the Nickelodeon network. These boys go on adventures trying to learn how to masturbate, witnessing cripple fights, and going to war with the infamous Canadians.
The most common issue that is found on South Park is that of racism. Whether the boys are only allowing their African American friend Token to play bass in their band, looking at Canadian people who are drawn different than all the other characters, or having a gay teacher who has had a sex change; they experience this in a way that is purposed to be funny and not offensive. America is a place where diversity is accepted with open arms. “The land of the free,” rings in the ears of Americans every time they hear the National Anthem. The show would not have been so popular during its, still standing, eleven year run on Comedy Central without a fan bass consisting of more than just a Caucasian audience.
There are people in the world today who look to everything as a racial slur, or a bad example to children. The show itself was never intended to offend anyone. The show begins with a warning, is played on an adult network, and has a mature rating that gives plenty of notice to any parents whose child may be watching. These are necessary and responsible steps to airing a television show that is not appropriate for younger viewers.
South Park is a show that provides an awry of scenes and situations that can keep you entertained for hours on end. There are no limits to the adventures these boys can go on. They’ve done it all and always ended with a new perspective on something different. South Park sets a nearly unreachable bar for adult cartoons that Family Guy, or Futurama may never reach.
The show is not offensive if you accept it in the way that is meant to be perceived. It is supposed to bring joy and laughter to people of all races. If taken too seriously or out of context, the shows future is most likely nonexistent. If taken in the way that it was meant to be delivered, you will receive a thirty minute escape from the true problems of the world. South Park will continue its run as one of the greatest adult cartoons in the country for years to come, and will hopefully someday win the support of all people of all races, without any controversy.
Comedy Central’s famous program, South Park, to some is an offensive program focused on four children acting in inappropriate adult manners that can go as far as racism, murder, and war. To others, it is a journey to a tiny town in Colorado where for thirty minutes each day, you can take a look at the world and its problems in a comedic way. South Park stars four eight year old boys who experience more than the average children would for example, on the Nickelodeon network. These boys go on adventures trying to learn how to masturbate, witnessing cripple fights, and going to war with the infamous Canadians.
The most common issue that is found on South Park is that of racism. Whether the boys are only allowing their African American friend Token to play bass in their band, looking at Canadian people who are drawn different than all the other characters, or having a gay teacher who has had a sex change; they experience this in a way that is purposed to be funny and not offensive. America is a place where diversity is accepted with open arms. “The land of the free,” rings in the ears of Americans every time they hear the National Anthem. The show would not have been so popular during its, still standing, eleven year run on Comedy Central without a fan bass consisting of more than just a Caucasian audience.
There are people in the world today who look to everything as a racial slur, or a bad example to children. The show itself was never intended to offend anyone. The show begins with a warning, is played on an adult network, and has a mature rating that gives plenty of notice to any parents whose child may be watching. These are necessary and responsible steps to airing a television show that is not appropriate for younger viewers.
South Park is a show that provides an awry of scenes and situations that can keep you entertained for hours on end. There are no limits to the adventures these boys can go on. They’ve done it all and always ended with a new perspective on something different. South Park sets a nearly unreachable bar for adult cartoons that Family Guy, or Futurama may never reach.
The show is not offensive if you accept it in the way that is meant to be perceived. It is supposed to bring joy and laughter to people of all races. If taken too seriously or out of context, the shows future is most likely nonexistent. If taken in the way that it was meant to be delivered, you will receive a thirty minute escape from the true problems of the world. South Park will continue its run as one of the greatest adult cartoons in the country for years to come, and will hopefully someday win the support of all people of all races, without any controversy.
Critical Case on The Oprah Show
While some viewers may view all talk shows as low or middle culture, that can be argued. There are a few talk shows that deserver to hold a higher standing. For example, The Oprah Winfrey Show has the merit to be among the other sources of high culture. It contains all of the necessary factors needed in order to be considered at the top of the “cultural skyscraper”.
Although Oprah has many different topics from day to day, a few of these stand out and form a pattern. There are four main subjects that are repeatedly explored on the show; health, financial issues, family tragedy, and famous persons. A repeated guest on the show is often Dr. Oz. He goes on the talk show regularly and discusses occurring health issues, ways to prevent illness, and also answers any questions the audience might have. Financial advice is often given on the show as well. Normal people who have gambling problems or shopping addictions are told how to get help and get out of debt. Specialists on finance, such as David Bach and Dave Ramsey, advise viewers to organize and budget their bills in order to avoid debt. Another occurring theme in the Oprah show is family tragedy. Whether it is twins separated at birth and reunited, or a devastating car crash, there is always an emotional story to be heard. Lastly, Oprah’s interviewees often consist of celebrities. Everyone from Katherine Heigl to Jon Bon Jovi has been on the show.
All of these reoccurring themes make it a very reputable talk show. Another way to asses this is by looking into how the show is filmed. The shows with newly united families or famous singers are usually shot close up in order to see the emotion on the guest’s face. While the health shows are shot far away using visual aids to help the audience better understand the information being given to them. The camera also cuts to the audience sometime to get a close up on a few faces. Usually, when the audience is taped, the camera shows reactions from people of a few different races. The only person who is consistently shot close up on most episodes is Oprah. This gives her all of the control to conduct the interview and let the audience/viewers know, through her facial expressions, how she feels about the information being given by the guest.
The interpretation of the filming can be viewed in many different ways depending on the interpreter. The easiest way to construe it is through emotion. When someone or something is shot close up, the audience can see their true emotion and sympathies with it. This creates a bond between the viewer and guest. It makes them feel connected, like they are right there having the present conversation with the victim. However, when a person is filmed far away the audience does not see the emotion on their face and does not connect with them as well. Perhaps this is why guests who ruin their family’s lives by doing drugs or gambling are often filmed in full body shot. Maybe the producers do not want the audience to relate to them, but rather distance themselves from them.
Most of the time, the emotion being showed is a good thing. It helps keep people interested and focused. However, if there is too much emotion or opinion added by Oprah, then people tend to get stand offish. This is because no one wants ideas to be pushed on them. Oprah uses this to her advantage and shows her reaction as well as the guests’ and audiences’. Although opinions are added, The Oprah Show also gets all of the facts to each story while at the same time, letting the guest tell his or her side.
Oprah also has many ways to get people engaged outside of the show. After every show the audience stays and has a question and answers session just incase something was over looked. There is a website that contains chat rooms and discussion boards where people can express their opinions, and the after show can be viewed. There is also a book club and a magazine that branches out further than the talk show. Lastly, anyone can get involved with the Angel Network. The Angel network lets people come together and volunteer their services for a better cause, like building underprivileged schools in poor countries.
All if these things make Oprah a very high culture show. It should not be compared with other talk shows such as Jerry Springer. The Oprah Winfrey Shows has much higher values, morals and greater more reputable sources than other talk shows. It deserves to be among sources like the New York Times, at the top of the “cultural skyscraper”.
Although Oprah has many different topics from day to day, a few of these stand out and form a pattern. There are four main subjects that are repeatedly explored on the show; health, financial issues, family tragedy, and famous persons. A repeated guest on the show is often Dr. Oz. He goes on the talk show regularly and discusses occurring health issues, ways to prevent illness, and also answers any questions the audience might have. Financial advice is often given on the show as well. Normal people who have gambling problems or shopping addictions are told how to get help and get out of debt. Specialists on finance, such as David Bach and Dave Ramsey, advise viewers to organize and budget their bills in order to avoid debt. Another occurring theme in the Oprah show is family tragedy. Whether it is twins separated at birth and reunited, or a devastating car crash, there is always an emotional story to be heard. Lastly, Oprah’s interviewees often consist of celebrities. Everyone from Katherine Heigl to Jon Bon Jovi has been on the show.
All of these reoccurring themes make it a very reputable talk show. Another way to asses this is by looking into how the show is filmed. The shows with newly united families or famous singers are usually shot close up in order to see the emotion on the guest’s face. While the health shows are shot far away using visual aids to help the audience better understand the information being given to them. The camera also cuts to the audience sometime to get a close up on a few faces. Usually, when the audience is taped, the camera shows reactions from people of a few different races. The only person who is consistently shot close up on most episodes is Oprah. This gives her all of the control to conduct the interview and let the audience/viewers know, through her facial expressions, how she feels about the information being given by the guest.
The interpretation of the filming can be viewed in many different ways depending on the interpreter. The easiest way to construe it is through emotion. When someone or something is shot close up, the audience can see their true emotion and sympathies with it. This creates a bond between the viewer and guest. It makes them feel connected, like they are right there having the present conversation with the victim. However, when a person is filmed far away the audience does not see the emotion on their face and does not connect with them as well. Perhaps this is why guests who ruin their family’s lives by doing drugs or gambling are often filmed in full body shot. Maybe the producers do not want the audience to relate to them, but rather distance themselves from them.
Most of the time, the emotion being showed is a good thing. It helps keep people interested and focused. However, if there is too much emotion or opinion added by Oprah, then people tend to get stand offish. This is because no one wants ideas to be pushed on them. Oprah uses this to her advantage and shows her reaction as well as the guests’ and audiences’. Although opinions are added, The Oprah Show also gets all of the facts to each story while at the same time, letting the guest tell his or her side.
Oprah also has many ways to get people engaged outside of the show. After every show the audience stays and has a question and answers session just incase something was over looked. There is a website that contains chat rooms and discussion boards where people can express their opinions, and the after show can be viewed. There is also a book club and a magazine that branches out further than the talk show. Lastly, anyone can get involved with the Angel Network. The Angel network lets people come together and volunteer their services for a better cause, like building underprivileged schools in poor countries.
All if these things make Oprah a very high culture show. It should not be compared with other talk shows such as Jerry Springer. The Oprah Winfrey Shows has much higher values, morals and greater more reputable sources than other talk shows. It deserves to be among sources like the New York Times, at the top of the “cultural skyscraper”.
The Jerry Springer Show
“Jerry, Jerry, Jerry,” this line from “The Jerry Springer Show” has swept across the nation encouraging fighting, sex, and even death. “The Jerry Springer Show” debuted in 1991 and has brought nothing, but false information and false hope to America. Through the use of lower-class, “redneck” families with uncommon problems such as incest, homosexuality, and sex at age 11, “The Jerry Springer Show” creates the illusion that southern “hick town” lifestyles are primitive and less superior to those of the North. Although the ratings of the show have been at the top of list, the show seems to embarrass the guests on the show and corrupt both northern and southern lifestyles.
“The Jerry Springer Show” can be labeled as “trash” on television. TV.com states “The Jerry Springer Show is probably most known for its foul mouths, excessive fighting, excessive nudity and wacky stories. Nearly every episode, if not all, have at least one bleeped over foul word. Then there are the sound effects. A clanging bell indicates it's time for a fight! Whenever a fat woman shows her boobs, the sound of a cow going "MOO!" is heard.” These “trashy” ideas and actions present the show as danger to television. Television is not supposed to act as a means to embarrass others publicly. HDTV Media Group Corporation in New York City, New York states, “Television has been designed to satisfy the thirst and demand for all kinds of information, education and inspiration, today and tomorrow, for persons of all ages and all races throughout the world.” “The Jerry Springer Show” does not present news or information helpful to society, but rather corrupts the future of society. In the future, people will believe that it is acceptable to behave in a way that is “trashy” and “of bad taste.”
The show focuses on three main areas of interest: sex, drugs, and fighting. Jerry Springer portrays sex as a “joke” and appropriate for all ages. One episode, “My 11 Year Old Daughter Had Sex” shows a girl who has had sex with a man. The girl is paraded around television and acts as an example to young 11 year old girls who may think it is alright to have sex. The fact is that people are influenced very much by what they see on television. Television can influence others through the use of advertisement, shows, and news reports. TV can tell you that the “Big Mac” is the best sandwich in the world and can only be found at McDonald’s, but these are opinions of people and may not always be correct. “The Jerry Springer Show” also acts as an advertisement to easily influenced viewers. For example, Jerry Springer can bring on guests that have taken a certain drug, but are still very handsome or beautiful. Many viewers may think that if they take the same drug, it will enhance them and they will grow to be more attractive. This can be a subtle advertisement that makes children go out and buy drugs. The third aspect of “The Jerry Springer Show” is fighting. Fighting takes place on every show. Whenever one feels the need to “knock someone out” he can do so exactly at the moment he feels. Chairs, Tables, Shoes can be thrown and can injure other guests. On one show, a man actually caused the death of another, not by fighting, but by cheating on his girlfriend with another woman. The girlfriend found the other woman and killed her. These experiences shown live on TV affect viewers because they feel they can lash out, have sex, or smoke “dope” whenever they want. People act the way they are shown to act on TV.
Television Programs across the world can positively affect viewers and create a sense of good in the world. Unfortunately, “The Jerry Springer Show” does not do this. The show corrupts other and brings evil into the world. But why do people watch it? The answer to this question can be easily answered. People watch shows such as “The Jerry Springer Show” for entertainment. Entertainment can be described by Webster’s Dictionary as “any activity that is diverting and that holds the attention of an audience.” Throughout the century, entertainment has transformed into gruesome behavior, deformed images, and illogical answers. “The Jerry Springer Show” captures these mysterious ways and produces entertainment in the world. It is entertainment even though it is the wrong kind of entertainment.
The lifestyles of today are being corrupted by shows such as “The Jerry Springer Show” and need to be corrected to fix society. Although, it may act as a means of entertainment, it still defeats the purpose of providing useful information to the viewers of the program. As Nicholas Johnson states, “All television is educational television. The question is: what is it teaching?”
“The Jerry Springer Show” can be labeled as “trash” on television. TV.com states “The Jerry Springer Show is probably most known for its foul mouths, excessive fighting, excessive nudity and wacky stories. Nearly every episode, if not all, have at least one bleeped over foul word. Then there are the sound effects. A clanging bell indicates it's time for a fight! Whenever a fat woman shows her boobs, the sound of a cow going "MOO!" is heard.” These “trashy” ideas and actions present the show as danger to television. Television is not supposed to act as a means to embarrass others publicly. HDTV Media Group Corporation in New York City, New York states, “Television has been designed to satisfy the thirst and demand for all kinds of information, education and inspiration, today and tomorrow, for persons of all ages and all races throughout the world.” “The Jerry Springer Show” does not present news or information helpful to society, but rather corrupts the future of society. In the future, people will believe that it is acceptable to behave in a way that is “trashy” and “of bad taste.”
The show focuses on three main areas of interest: sex, drugs, and fighting. Jerry Springer portrays sex as a “joke” and appropriate for all ages. One episode, “My 11 Year Old Daughter Had Sex” shows a girl who has had sex with a man. The girl is paraded around television and acts as an example to young 11 year old girls who may think it is alright to have sex. The fact is that people are influenced very much by what they see on television. Television can influence others through the use of advertisement, shows, and news reports. TV can tell you that the “Big Mac” is the best sandwich in the world and can only be found at McDonald’s, but these are opinions of people and may not always be correct. “The Jerry Springer Show” also acts as an advertisement to easily influenced viewers. For example, Jerry Springer can bring on guests that have taken a certain drug, but are still very handsome or beautiful. Many viewers may think that if they take the same drug, it will enhance them and they will grow to be more attractive. This can be a subtle advertisement that makes children go out and buy drugs. The third aspect of “The Jerry Springer Show” is fighting. Fighting takes place on every show. Whenever one feels the need to “knock someone out” he can do so exactly at the moment he feels. Chairs, Tables, Shoes can be thrown and can injure other guests. On one show, a man actually caused the death of another, not by fighting, but by cheating on his girlfriend with another woman. The girlfriend found the other woman and killed her. These experiences shown live on TV affect viewers because they feel they can lash out, have sex, or smoke “dope” whenever they want. People act the way they are shown to act on TV.
Television Programs across the world can positively affect viewers and create a sense of good in the world. Unfortunately, “The Jerry Springer Show” does not do this. The show corrupts other and brings evil into the world. But why do people watch it? The answer to this question can be easily answered. People watch shows such as “The Jerry Springer Show” for entertainment. Entertainment can be described by Webster’s Dictionary as “any activity that is diverting and that holds the attention of an audience.” Throughout the century, entertainment has transformed into gruesome behavior, deformed images, and illogical answers. “The Jerry Springer Show” captures these mysterious ways and produces entertainment in the world. It is entertainment even though it is the wrong kind of entertainment.
The lifestyles of today are being corrupted by shows such as “The Jerry Springer Show” and need to be corrected to fix society. Although, it may act as a means of entertainment, it still defeats the purpose of providing useful information to the viewers of the program. As Nicholas Johnson states, “All television is educational television. The question is: what is it teaching?”
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
South Park: A critical look
Comedy Central's hit animated program "South Park" follows the lives of four young Colorado boys. The show has a unique way of blending current events, for example politics, a social or economic crisis and celebrities, with the everyday lives of these boys. This program makes light of serious situations, and even goes as far as making fun of these cases. There is also an extreme amount of profanity in the show. This type of material is relatively harmless in most cases for mature and educated individuals; however, this program is far too influential on the youth of our society. Greek philosopher Socrates stated "Children exposed to stories without distinction would take into their soul the teaching that are wholly opposite to those we with them to be possessed of when they are grown up." This is completely true due to the fact that youth are the most influential age group, and the experiences they encounter during this stage in their life will mold them into what they are to be in the future.
The only warnings of explicit material on South park is put on the screen for no more than ten seconds. Basically it is easy for kids to view this program on a regular basis. The senders of this program obviously feel that it is okay for to corrupt the minds of millions of young viewers. The message the show is sending is that it is perfectly fine for people to do things like make racial remarks, use explicit language, make humor of poverty and homosexuals and so on.
The media is a wonderful and reliable system in most cases; however, at times i can be negative and "South Park" is a prime example of that. Parents and guardians should know what their children are viewing on a regular basis. They should also know what kinda of message the gatekeepers are allowing to enter the traffic flow of the media. The media has shown numerous cases that it can produce violence, e en murder in the cases of "The Jerry Springer Show" and "Jenny Jones." Who is to say "South Park" is not next?
On personal note, I have watched "South Park" before and i did find some parts comical and other parts repulsive. I was not influenced by the show because i was seventeen, but i do feel that a child watching the show would get a negative influence. Based on the Skyscraper theory, "South Park" is a low culture program, but the ratings are high which means more money for advertisements during the show. The show will continue its negative influence for as long as the ratings stay high.
Posted by Jared Manley
Posted by Jared Manley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
