Advertising

Recently in class we have been talking about advertising, and how much it has become integrated into our lives. Someone mentioned that they though advertising was a hoax so the question was posed, "Is advertising all lies?" I don't think that advertising is lies at all; it is simply an extremely carefully crafted (or perhaps constructed) truth or not the whole truth. My mom is in the marketing business so maybe I have a little more insight on what goes on before the advertisements are exposed to the world, and so I have learned just how much time is put into advertising. Take a magazine for example. Everything from the front cover shot to the last word on the final page has to be carefully examined to make sure it is exactly what the client wants because the companies do not make these magazines themselves. Instead, they send out what they want to a marketing agency, and continue to tweek it until it's exactly the way they want it. Just to put things in perspective, they start working on the Christmas editions at the beginning of the summer or earlier because the process of getting every last detail right takes so long. I don't think companies lie to their prospective customers because they now they could get sued for false advertising. However, companies have used to use words that will entice people in even if they aren't always true. For example, "as low as", "up to", and "approximately" to list just a few. All of these leave room for flexibility on the part of the company, making it unnecessary for them to say exactly what they mean.

What do you think about advertising? How much of it is the truth and how much of it isn't?

"Can talent outweigh size in Hollywood?"

After the Oscars last week, there was much talk about the rising actress, Gabourey Sidibe, and whether her weight will impact her future in the acting world. Some people think that in a town full of super skinny girls and women she will not fit in or be able to find work because there wont be roles that will fit her. Howard Stern asked, "What movie could she play in? You feel bad because everyone pretends that she's part of show business, and she's never going to be in another movie." I thought this was a rather harsh description. Robin Quivers also suggested that she look around at the Oscars and realize that no one there looked like her, but, again, I think this is an overly harsh criticism. I watched an interview of her on the red carpet, and I was blown away by how much energy and personality she brought to the stage in comparison to some of the other stars who looked downright bored. I think her personality will allow her to be cast in some great movies in the future. And I'm not the only one. Casting directors said that she has "irresistible charm, wit and confidence". To top it all off, she's got serious talent. I haven't seen the movie, but from everything I've heard it was downright amazing, and Sidibe had a difficult part. Rachel Tenner, a casting director, insisted that the star power Sidibe showed in Precious will be enough to push her past the presumptions about what type of role she can and cannot play.

I think this debate shows who we are as a nation; we are obsessed with the media, and although we claim to be accepting of diversity, we really aren't. The fact that her future was even questioned because of how she looks is unnerving. Does everyone have to fit in to some sort of mold to be successful?

Prom Cancelled

A friend of mine told me a story today about a school in Mississippi that cancelled its entire prom because I girl wanted to bring her girlfriend to the dance when the school documents said that one's prom date must be of the opposite sex. 18-year-old Constance McMillen tried to convince the school to change their views on the situation and allow her and her girlfriend to attend, but they refused, especially when McMillen requested to wear a tuxedo; the superintendent claimed that only male students were allowed to wear tuxedos to the dance. To top it all off, the superintendent also told McMillen that even if she and her girlfriend were to attend the dance, they could be ejected if others complained about their presence there. The school then proceeded to completely cancel the dance "due to the distractions to the educational process..." But there wouldn't have been a distraction if they allowed the girls to go to prom together.

The school is now facing a lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), that claims that officials at the high school are violating students' First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Constance McMillen just wanted to be able to enjoy her prom like any other student. "This isn't just about me and my rights anymore-- now I'm fighting for the right of all the students at my school to have our prom." She said in an ACLU news release. The school is now trying to paint McMillen as the villain who called everything off, and this isn't true; she is fighting harder than any of the other students to get the prom reinstated.

Do you think this is limiting her freedom of expression? And if so, should the school be allowed to limit these girls' freedom of expression or should they be punished for their actions?

When can free speech be limited?

I recently read a story on CNN that shocked me, and this picture was just the beginning. I will be perfectly honest and say that I do not particularly support the wars that we are fighting at the moment, but never in a million years would I imagine diminishing the brave acts that our troops are performing every day. I could never do what they do and I am thankful that there are people out there who are wiling to put their lives on the line for what they believe in.
This story addresses a small Kansas church that gained national attention when they protested at the funerals of US service members. They did this because they said they felt "That God's promise of love and heaven for those who obey him in this life is counterbalanced by God's wrath and hell for those who do not obey him." They felt it was especially wrong for homosexuals to be fighting in wars and the shirt that the women is wearing just goes to show how strongly they believe these things.
The high court recently accepted an appeal from the father of a US Marine killed in Iraq to keep the members of the church from demonstrating near memorial and burial services. This, of course, would be putting a limitation on their freedom of speech...

Is it ok to limit these people's freedom of speech? Think carefully because I feel like a lot of people's gut reaction will be to say yes it is ok solely because they do not agree with the particular views of this group of people.

The power of the crowd mentality

Driving home from soccer tonight, something crossed my mind that I had never really stopped to think about before. How does EVERYONE know that green means go and red means stop? Obviously, in the case of driving, we learn when we take driver's ed, but what about in other scenarios? I think it is fair to say that when most people see the color green they think go, even when it's not in the context of driving. How did this happen? How did something become so commonly accepted by society worldwide?

It seems so simple when you don't stop to think, but when you do, you have to wonder how we almost manage to think as a society. To me, the power of society and collaboration is amazing. I also wonder how long it takes for something like this to become ingrained in the minds of not only an entire nation, but practically the entire world. I'm sure there are many more examples of things that we don't even stop to think about anymore because, since we were young kids, we learned from the people around us that these things were true.

What do you think? Can you think of some other things that we just accept? How did it come to be and how long do you think it took to catch on?

Joannie Rochette

Just this past Thursday in Joannie Rochette of Canada won the bronze medal in women's figure skating. Of course, winning a medal is a huge accomplishment, and I don't want to take anything away from what she achieved, but it is certain that she would not have received as much press if her mother had not passed away due a sudden heart attack the previous Sunday. It seems like there always has to be some tragedy or horrible accident in these athlete's lives as if to prove their strength. This also makes her front-page news instead of the girls who won gold and silver.

An article I read on CNN mentioned them briefly, and mentioned quickly that Kim Yu-Na broke the record with her long program and total score, but that was it. I think this is unfair because not only did she break the record, she shattered it; her total was a 228.56 and the record before that was around a 215. To top it off, she had the weight of an entire nation resting on her shoulders. Throughout her performance, the commentators kept saying how anything less than gold would be a disappointment, and when she had come in second at previous competitions she had received emails and letters asking her why she didn't win, rather than congratulating her on a good performance. So why isn't Yu-Na front page news? Probably because her story isn't tragic, and she won't be receiving anymore emails asking why she didn't win. To top it off, Mao Asada, the silver medalist from Japan, was the first women to land two triple axels in a single competition, and I believe the commentators said she was the first person (male or female) to land three. This was not even mentioned in the article.

Why does the media focus on what's going on outside the arena more than the actual performance? And why do you think tragedies get more focus than happy endings?

White Privilege

We recently read in class a piece entitled White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh, written in 1988. The summary of the piece was broken down into fifty points, which the author believed were privileges that she had because she is white and that someone of color would not have. Some of the points seemed more obvious than others, and some made you stop and think; most of the time, I agreed, though there were a few where I wasn't sure I completely agreed. For example, one of the latter points stated "I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race." Maybe it was not true when the article was written, but there are quite a few historically black universities, and it is against the law to deny entry to a college based on race (although I believe this still happens).

However, McIntosh made two very interesting claims, both of which I had never really stopped to think about, but I believe are true. One stated, "I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group." I never realized it, but people of minority groups, I feel, are often asked to state how their entire racial group feels about a certain topic. There is no regard for the fact that people's views can differ within these groups. For example, we read an article about women on college campuses today (women are not numerically a minority, but I feel that they are legally a minority), and many of the interviewees made rather broad generalizations about how women handle certain situations or their behavior. Often, the class did not agree with these statements, and we felt that the author should not have used these broad statements as evidence. The white majority, however, is never asked to represent the views of their entire racial group, but why? Another interesting point stated was, "I can chose blemish cover or bandages in 'flesh' color and have them more or less match my skin." I believe that as part of the white majority, I never stopped to think about, or perhaps I never realized that they were labeled 'flesh' color; the fact that they matched my skin color was one of the things I simply took as the way things worked.

What do you think about academics? And do you think that people purposely single out minority groups or give an advantage to the white majority on purpose? Why?