I apologize, but the internet is being incredibly stupid lately and won't let me embed "D and D Show" episodes into my blog. Sorry, for the inconvenience but you will have to view them on Dylan's blog.
Episode 4 pt 1
http://aninterestingperspective.blogspot.com/2009/05/d-and-d-show-episode-4-part-1.html
Episode 4 pt 2
http://aninterestingperspective.blogspot.com/2009/05/d-and-d-show-episode-4-part-2.html
Episode 5 (Fox/Dixie Chicks/ Jessica Lynch discussion)
http://aninterestingperspective.blogspot.com/2009/06/d-and-d-show-episode-5-foxdixie.html
Episode 6
http://aninterestingperspective.blogspot.com/2009/06/d-and-d-show-episode-6.html
Jun 13, 2009
May 20, 2009
Rihanna did whaaaaaaaaa?!
Not too long ago Rihanna recovered from the alleged "Chris Brown attack" and, in fact, decided to forgive him and even marry him. After that, just in case the world didn't think she was crazy enough, she decided to take some nude pictures of herself--wait, wha?
If there still are some people out there who are a little skeptical of Rihanna's insanity, I've got some further proof that she has truly fallen off her rocker. Recently, she has decided to spend her time hitting the strip club's. That's right, it's been confirmed that Rihanna has been attending "Flash Dancers" which is a gentleman's club on Broadway [1]. It wasn't even a woman's strip club, it was a gentleman's club! According to sources she and her posse were having a good time and tipping the dancers frequently [1]. This doesn't seem like typical Rihanna behaviour to me, but considering the direction she is heading lately, this doesn't surprise me one bit.
One can't deny that Rihanna is a central point of attention in the media lately. Go ahead and google: "Rihanna news" and see how many articles you find. The article I cited above was one I had first read two months ago. Just today I attempted to relocate it and use it in my blog. I quickly found myself lost in page after page of Rihanna news trying to find this one article. I was so surprised that Rihanna had generated so many articles in the past 2 months. There must be at least one article everyday of the week about her.
As I write this I can't help but get a sense of Deja Vu, like I've written about this before...but when? Oh that's right! The Britney Spears blog of course! I find this whole case awfully similar. You know the story: a young teen gets swooped into instant stardom, the world falls in love with her, people begin to idolize her, her life soon becomes a display, it starts to get to her head, slowly her sensibility deteriorates and eventually she goes, basically, crazy. Britney Spears is a walking example of this, as is Lindsay Lohan and many more. Miley Cyrus is another who is slipping and Rihanna is the next in line for crazy train. Is it just a coincidence that almost every female teen idol has a mental disorder? Or is it something developed over time? Should every young aspiring celebrity be warned of the terrible side effects of instant stardom? Is seems to be that this whole wing of the entertainment business is a health hazard.
I'm glad Rihanna is aware of her slight insanity, I'll leave you with a line from her song "Disturbia":
What's wrong with me?
Why do I feel like this?
I'm going crazy now [2]
Haha, I found it humorous too.
References:
[1] Gibson, Cristina., Ashley Fultz, and Claudia Rosenbalim. Rihanna Hits the Strip Club. 20 May 2009. 13 June 2009.
[2] Rihanna, "Disturbia", Good Girl Gone Bad, 2007.
One can't deny that Rihanna is a central point of attention in the media lately. Go ahead and google: "Rihanna news" and see how many articles you find. The article I cited above was one I had first read two months ago. Just today I attempted to relocate it and use it in my blog. I quickly found myself lost in page after page of Rihanna news trying to find this one article. I was so surprised that Rihanna had generated so many articles in the past 2 months. There must be at least one article everyday of the week about her.
As I write this I can't help but get a sense of Deja Vu, like I've written about this before...but when? Oh that's right! The Britney Spears blog of course! I find this whole case awfully similar. You know the story: a young teen gets swooped into instant stardom, the world falls in love with her, people begin to idolize her, her life soon becomes a display, it starts to get to her head, slowly her sensibility deteriorates and eventually she goes, basically, crazy. Britney Spears is a walking example of this, as is Lindsay Lohan and many more. Miley Cyrus is another who is slipping and Rihanna is the next in line for crazy train. Is it just a coincidence that almost every female teen idol has a mental disorder? Or is it something developed over time? Should every young aspiring celebrity be warned of the terrible side effects of instant stardom? Is seems to be that this whole wing of the entertainment business is a health hazard.
I'm glad Rihanna is aware of her slight insanity, I'll leave you with a line from her song "Disturbia":
What's wrong with me?
Why do I feel like this?
I'm going crazy now [2]
Haha, I found it humorous too.
References:
[1] Gibson, Cristina., Ashley Fultz, and Claudia Rosenbalim. Rihanna Hits the Strip Club. 20 May 2009. 13 June 2009
[2] Rihanna, "Disturbia", Good Girl Gone Bad, 2007.
May 3, 2009
D and D show episode 3!!!
In this episode we investigate the swine flu "crisis" and whether or not it is really a crisis?
References:
"2009 swine flu outbreak" Wikipedia.com. 02 May 2009. 02 May 2009
"H1N1 Flu"Cdc.gov/H1N1flu/. 02 May 2009. 02 May 2009
"What is swine flu?"Telegraph.co.uk. 02 May 2009. 02 May 2009
Mulholland, Angela. "Should we be worried about 'swine flu'?"CTV.ca. 02 May 2009. 28 April 2009
"Pig Farmer" 12 June 2007. Online Image. Beeractivist.wordpress.com. 02 May 2009.
"Polar Bear" No Date. Online Image. MP3.com. 02 May 2009.
"Scary Pig" No Date. Online Image. aFunVampire.com. 02 May 2009.
References:
"2009 swine flu outbreak" Wikipedia.com. 02 May 2009. 02 May 2009
"H1N1 Flu"Cdc.gov/H1N1flu/. 02 May 2009. 02 May 2009
"What is swine flu?"Telegraph.co.uk. 02 May 2009. 02 May 2009
Mulholland, Angela. "Should we be worried about 'swine flu'?"CTV.ca. 02 May 2009. 28 April 2009
"Pig Farmer" 12 June 2007. Online Image. Beeractivist.wordpress.com. 02 May 2009.
"Polar Bear" No Date. Online Image. MP3.com. 02 May 2009.
"Scary Pig" No Date. Online Image. aFunVampire.com. 02 May 2009.
Apr 28, 2009
Diversity, Invisibility and Identity on TV
Everyday millions of people tune on their TVs for thousands and thousands of entertainment options, but do they really think about what they are seeing. I mean, we all pay attention to the plot, the jokes, the subject, the special effects and the characters, but are we missing the message behind the show? The possibly unintended message? We never really notice what, or who, is being seen or not seen. These subtle things do influence our everyday lives and we don't even realize it.
As we learned in class, the broadcasters of most things we see on TV are basically middle-aged white guys. The world we see on TV is not the world we live in, it is the world the middle-aged white male has created, filled with their opinions, ideas, concepts and stereotypes. It is impossible for one group to portray another group as accurately as the other group could. We are shown certain groups of people from the wrong perspective. We see Arabs, Asians, Aboriginals and African-Americans from the perspective of Caucasians. We see women from the perspective of men. We see Christians, Jews, Catholics and Buddhists from the perspective of Atheists. Overall, we get the wrong idea of what these things really are. These broadcasters are not Arabic, how can they possible know how to properly portray one? These broadcasters are not Christian, they don't know what it really means, all they know is the stereotypes, what gives them the right to portray Christians with their own opinion? These broadcasters are not Asian or Aboriginal or African-American, nor are they Jewish or Catholic or Buddhist, yet they are the ones portraying these groups to the world. Sure, one could bring freedom of speech into the argument, but is this freedom of speech? Or racism?
Recently, in class, we investigated this subject. We researched statistics and did our own TV viewing to see for ourselves how and if certain groups are being portrayed. Here are some of my groups findings:
The top graph is the 2003 findings of prime time TV, the graph below is our findings.
It's shocking but the representation of "the other" has in fact shrunk over the course of six years. This is surprising because this issue was addressed back in 2003 and yet the broadcasters have done nothing about it, in fact they've done the complete opposite and made matters worse. Our TV is populated with so much white that the other ethnic groups are fading into the background.
Above are statistics of races represented and the role they play (ex: main character, supporting character etc.) Our graph clearly shows that the whites dominate the main character positions. There are few if not any main characters of any other race. In fact there are barely any other races shown in any role except for white. It appears that all the other races only get mere guest appearances or background roles, if they're lucky they just might get one or two supporting roles but that's it. There is clearly a problem here, why aren't all ethnic groups getting fair opportunities? Some cases I can understand, for example in the case of a family based sit-com in which the family is white of course all the main roles will be white. But what's wrong with having some supporting characters of other ethnic groups? I don't understand why this is so. Is it just chance that there is a shortage of acting ability in other races? Or is it just racism?
Above are occupational graphs, the top one representing race and the bottom representing gender. Fortunately we didn't encounter too many racial stereotypes in this study. It was nice to see that Black actually had a higher representation in professional positions instead of the common stereotype of being criminals. Once we reached the gender graph we enter a whole new realm of stereotypes. We see that men dominate all occupations except homemaker. This feeds the old belief that women belong at home while men should be out doing the work. We live in a country that has evolved from those days, today we have plenty of male homemakers and plenty of working females. Why isn't the real world depicted on TV?
Overall we see little to no improvements in depiction of the "other" groups in today's television. It appears to me that this problem can't be solved by keeping the setup the way it is. Like we learned in class, diversity can't occur in front of the camera if diversity isn't occurring behind the camera. I'm not pointing a finger to all broadcasters. I am very happy to say that the show Corner Gas (a Canadian show) has an aboriginal actor as one of the lead roles playing a police officer. Why can't we see this more often? He is an excellent actor and plays the role amazingly. I think everyone could learn a valuable lesson from shows like this.
As we learned in class, the broadcasters of most things we see on TV are basically middle-aged white guys. The world we see on TV is not the world we live in, it is the world the middle-aged white male has created, filled with their opinions, ideas, concepts and stereotypes. It is impossible for one group to portray another group as accurately as the other group could. We are shown certain groups of people from the wrong perspective. We see Arabs, Asians, Aboriginals and African-Americans from the perspective of Caucasians. We see women from the perspective of men. We see Christians, Jews, Catholics and Buddhists from the perspective of Atheists. Overall, we get the wrong idea of what these things really are. These broadcasters are not Arabic, how can they possible know how to properly portray one? These broadcasters are not Christian, they don't know what it really means, all they know is the stereotypes, what gives them the right to portray Christians with their own opinion? These broadcasters are not Asian or Aboriginal or African-American, nor are they Jewish or Catholic or Buddhist, yet they are the ones portraying these groups to the world. Sure, one could bring freedom of speech into the argument, but is this freedom of speech? Or racism?
Recently, in class, we investigated this subject. We researched statistics and did our own TV viewing to see for ourselves how and if certain groups are being portrayed. Here are some of my groups findings:
The top graph is the 2003 findings of prime time TV, the graph below is our findings.
It's shocking but the representation of "the other" has in fact shrunk over the course of six years. This is surprising because this issue was addressed back in 2003 and yet the broadcasters have done nothing about it, in fact they've done the complete opposite and made matters worse. Our TV is populated with so much white that the other ethnic groups are fading into the background.
Above are statistics of races represented and the role they play (ex: main character, supporting character etc.) Our graph clearly shows that the whites dominate the main character positions. There are few if not any main characters of any other race. In fact there are barely any other races shown in any role except for white. It appears that all the other races only get mere guest appearances or background roles, if they're lucky they just might get one or two supporting roles but that's it. There is clearly a problem here, why aren't all ethnic groups getting fair opportunities? Some cases I can understand, for example in the case of a family based sit-com in which the family is white of course all the main roles will be white. But what's wrong with having some supporting characters of other ethnic groups? I don't understand why this is so. Is it just chance that there is a shortage of acting ability in other races? Or is it just racism?
Above are occupational graphs, the top one representing race and the bottom representing gender. Fortunately we didn't encounter too many racial stereotypes in this study. It was nice to see that Black actually had a higher representation in professional positions instead of the common stereotype of being criminals. Once we reached the gender graph we enter a whole new realm of stereotypes. We see that men dominate all occupations except homemaker. This feeds the old belief that women belong at home while men should be out doing the work. We live in a country that has evolved from those days, today we have plenty of male homemakers and plenty of working females. Why isn't the real world depicted on TV?
Overall we see little to no improvements in depiction of the "other" groups in today's television. It appears to me that this problem can't be solved by keeping the setup the way it is. Like we learned in class, diversity can't occur in front of the camera if diversity isn't occurring behind the camera. I'm not pointing a finger to all broadcasters. I am very happy to say that the show Corner Gas (a Canadian show) has an aboriginal actor as one of the lead roles playing a police officer. Why can't we see this more often? He is an excellent actor and plays the role amazingly. I think everyone could learn a valuable lesson from shows like this.
Apr 26, 2009
The world is just waiting for Hannah Montana to fall
(This Blog entry is in response to Part C: Discussion of Media Studies: Representation Test)
Miley Cyrus, or Hannah Montana, is the latest teen pop sensation. The
re's always some one that all the 7-year old girls idolize and right now it's her. She's basically one big marketing campaign, you can buy Hannah Montana Cd's, Hannah Montana movies, Hannah Montana clothes, Hannah Montana dolls, Hannah Montana pillows, Hannah Montana bed sheets, Hannah Montana video games, Hannah Montana bicycles, Hannah Montana cutlery, Hannah Montana just about anything. What I'm trying to say is this: The world loves Hannah Montana/ Miley Cyrus.
Like all great teen sensations she is bound to fall sooner or later, and if history repeats itself, it's only a matter of time until she shaves her head and checks into rehab. So far, Miley hasn't really done anything wrong, and the media is getting anxious. So, they decided to take her every mistake and amplify it ten fold.
Recently ABC News released a photo of her and some friends squinting their eyes, instantly she was accused of "mocking and denigrating individuals of Asian descent." Of course, she countered back saying that she was merely making a "goofy face."
So, the question is: was she really being racist? Or just goofing around?
I find it strange that it was instantly assumed that she was imitating an Asian. Yes, that is a common gesture used to stereotype Asians but, we must keep in mind, that very same gesture is also used to imitate someone who has had a face lift. So, maybe she wasn't imitating an Asian at all, maybe she was imitating someone who had had plastic surgery.
Or maybe she is, in fact, imitating an Asian. As ABC pointed out: the only person in the picture not doing "Asian Eyes" is the actual Asian. Was it some kind of joke? Did they decide "Lets all be Asian in this picture! But Johnny you don't have to do anything cause your already Asian!" I found it funny that the Asian boy's eyes aren't really squinted at all when you compare it to the imitators, it just shows how ridiculous and over-exaggerated the stereotype is.
Another part of the picture that indicates that they were indeed imitating Asian's is the guy in the back. He is holding up the peace sign (two fingers) which is something the Asian's are commonly stereotyped to do. Then again, maybe he is trying to give the guy in front of him "bunny ears" which also another stereotype of Asian's.
After taking a few looks at the photo I now find it hard to believe that she wasn't imitating an Asian.
Why would Miley do a thing like this? Is she trying to make a stab at an ethnic group? Of course not. She is doing exactly what she said she was, goofing off. This is just common teen shenanigans, she never meant to offend anyone, stuff like this happens all the time. But, like she said herself, the only reason this is a big deal is because it is her doing it. If it was just some average Joe no one would care, but because it is Miley Cyrus/ Hannah Montana doing it, suddenly it's important.
This raises another question: knowing that she is a huge role model for young girls everywhere, is it her responsibility to set a good example? Yes, and she shouldn't have done it. Even if she was just having fun and joking around she still shouldn't have done it. This has to considered from different perspectives. What about all the little girls who idolize her and dream to be like her? They love to imitate everything she does, suddenly they're going to get the idea that it is "ok" to imitate minorities. What about the Asian children? They might get the idea that they are "different" and feel separated from others. Of course parents will be concerned about the kind of impression she is leaving on their children.
This was a mistake on her behalf but I still believe the media is taking advantage of the situation. There are a lot worse things that celebrity role models have done, but the media is just waiting for Miley to mess up so they can be there to publish it. Miley better brace herself, because this is only the beginning.
Miley Cyrus, or Hannah Montana, is the latest teen pop sensation. The
re's always some one that all the 7-year old girls idolize and right now it's her. She's basically one big marketing campaign, you can buy Hannah Montana Cd's, Hannah Montana movies, Hannah Montana clothes, Hannah Montana dolls, Hannah Montana pillows, Hannah Montana bed sheets, Hannah Montana video games, Hannah Montana bicycles, Hannah Montana cutlery, Hannah Montana just about anything. What I'm trying to say is this: The world loves Hannah Montana/ Miley Cyrus.Like all great teen sensations she is bound to fall sooner or later, and if history repeats itself, it's only a matter of time until she shaves her head and checks into rehab. So far, Miley hasn't really done anything wrong, and the media is getting anxious. So, they decided to take her every mistake and amplify it ten fold.
Recently ABC News released a photo of her and some friends squinting their eyes, instantly she was accused of "mocking and denigrating individuals of Asian descent." Of course, she countered back saying that she was merely making a "goofy face."
So, the question is: was she really being racist? Or just goofing around?
I find it strange that it was instantly assumed that she was imitating an Asian. Yes, that is a common gesture used to stereotype Asians but, we must keep in mind, that very same gesture is also used to imitate someone who has had a face lift. So, maybe she wasn't imitating an Asian at all, maybe she was imitating someone who had had plastic surgery.
Or maybe she is, in fact, imitating an Asian. As ABC pointed out: the only person in the picture not doing "Asian Eyes" is the actual Asian. Was it some kind of joke? Did they decide "Lets all be Asian in this picture! But Johnny you don't have to do anything cause your already Asian!" I found it funny that the Asian boy's eyes aren't really squinted at all when you compare it to the imitators, it just shows how ridiculous and over-exaggerated the stereotype is.
Another part of the picture that indicates that they were indeed imitating Asian's is the guy in the back. He is holding up the peace sign (two fingers) which is something the Asian's are commonly stereotyped to do. Then again, maybe he is trying to give the guy in front of him "bunny ears" which also another stereotype of Asian's.
After taking a few looks at the photo I now find it hard to believe that she wasn't imitating an Asian.
Why would Miley do a thing like this? Is she trying to make a stab at an ethnic group? Of course not. She is doing exactly what she said she was, goofing off. This is just common teen shenanigans, she never meant to offend anyone, stuff like this happens all the time. But, like she said herself, the only reason this is a big deal is because it is her doing it. If it was just some average Joe no one would care, but because it is Miley Cyrus/ Hannah Montana doing it, suddenly it's important.
This raises another question: knowing that she is a huge role model for young girls everywhere, is it her responsibility to set a good example? Yes, and she shouldn't have done it. Even if she was just having fun and joking around she still shouldn't have done it. This has to considered from different perspectives. What about all the little girls who idolize her and dream to be like her? They love to imitate everything she does, suddenly they're going to get the idea that it is "ok" to imitate minorities. What about the Asian children? They might get the idea that they are "different" and feel separated from others. Of course parents will be concerned about the kind of impression she is leaving on their children.
This was a mistake on her behalf but I still believe the media is taking advantage of the situation. There are a lot worse things that celebrity role models have done, but the media is just waiting for Miley to mess up so they can be there to publish it. Miley better brace herself, because this is only the beginning.
Apr 18, 2009
D and D show episode 2!!!
It's the second episode of me and Dylan's very own video blog!!
References:
"9/11, New York" 11 September 2001. Online Image. Politicalbase.com. 16 April 2009.
"Terrorist" No Date. Online Image.Causes-of-terrorism.net. 16 April 2009.
"Hijacked Van" No Date. Online Image. Russianspy.org. 16 April 2009.
"Terrorist" 27 March 2009. Online Image. Mr.MillCity.com. 16 April 2009.
"Threatening Melbourne" 12 September 2005. Online Image. theage.com.au. 16 April 2009.
"Child Terrorists" 7 February 2008. Online Image. theage.com.au. 16 April 2009.
"Politician" 25 February 2009. Online Image. EarlyEdCoverage.com. 16 April 2009.
"Chinese Man" No Date. Online Image. Yemyint88.net. 16 April 2009.
"Muslim Man" No Date. Online Image. Muslima.com. 16 April 2009.
"Black Man" No Date. Online Image. BigSoccer.com. 16 April 2009.
"David Duke" No Date. Online Image. Wikipedia.com. 16 April 2009.
References:
"9/11, New York" 11 September 2001. Online Image. Politicalbase.com. 16 April 2009.
"Terrorist" No Date. Online Image.Causes-of-terrorism.net. 16 April 2009.
"Hijacked Van" No Date. Online Image. Russianspy.org. 16 April 2009.
"Terrorist" 27 March 2009. Online Image. Mr.MillCity.com. 16 April 2009.
"Threatening Melbourne" 12 September 2005. Online Image. theage.com.au. 16 April 2009.
"Child Terrorists" 7 February 2008. Online Image. theage.com.au. 16 April 2009.
"Politician" 25 February 2009. Online Image. EarlyEdCoverage.com. 16 April 2009.
"Chinese Man" No Date. Online Image. Yemyint88.net. 16 April 2009.
"Muslim Man" No Date. Online Image. Muslima.com. 16 April 2009.
"Black Man" No Date. Online Image. BigSoccer.com. 16 April 2009.
"David Duke" No Date. Online Image. Wikipedia.com. 16 April 2009.
D and D show episode 1!!!
The debut episode of me and Dylan's video blog!!!
References:
"media." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 08 Apr. 2009. .
Tallim, Jane "What is Media Literacy?"Media Awareness Network.com. 7 April 2009.
References:
"media." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 08 Apr. 2009. .
Tallim, Jane "What is Media Literacy?"Media Awareness Network.com. 7 April 2009.
Mar 31, 2009
Telephone Help-line Opperators Are Human Too...?
So, just today my media studies group and I were working on our "Ethnic Diversity in Television" project for our class. We were snacking on some "Little Debbie's Swiss Snack Rolls" (which are awesome, by the way). We were taking a little break from work and one of the group members (I won't say who) decided to prank call the "Little Debbie's Help-line". So, he called them and a guy picked up.
He asked the operator a stupid question, "I just ate 4 packages of your snack cakes, is that bad for me? Could I overdose?"
The operator responded, "You mean you just shoved them in your mouth?"
"Yeah, would you advise me not to do that?"
"Well, it is not my position to advise you what to do and what not to do."
Of course we all got a good kick out of the call, but it got me thinking: What does he mean "not his position to advise people what to do and what not to do?" I assume that he is referring to his occupational position, but he is still a human, he should be able to give advice on this subject. Obviously it wasn't a serious question but the operator has to keep in mind that there are some different people out there. Plus, it is part of a phone operators job description to advise customers accordingly. [1]
It was a ridiculous question and maybe the guy caught on to the joke, but he still should have given advice. I'm sure 4 packages of snack cakes would get you very sick, and probably wouldn't be too good for your liver either. I just don't understand why he wouldn't offer advice. It would seem like the reasonable thing to do. I mean, is it really something that his boss would get mad at him for? How far does the situation have to go before he can step out of his occupational title and act as a human being to help someone in need? I know this situation isn't a strong example of the problem. It would be very interesting to experiment to see if one could force a Help-line operator out of their occupational status in order to save a life. Though it would probably be unethical...and illegal.
References
[1] CV Library . Ed. CV-Library Inc. . 24/ 03/ 09. Visa. 31/ 03/ 09 <>
He asked the operator a stupid question, "I just ate 4 packages of your snack cakes, is that bad for me? Could I overdose?"
The operator responded, "You mean you just shoved them in your mouth?"
"Yeah, would you advise me not to do that?"
"Well, it is not my position to advise you what to do and what not to do."
Of course we all got a good kick out of the call, but it got me thinking: What does he mean "not his position to advise people what to do and what not to do?" I assume that he is referring to his occupational position, but he is still a human, he should be able to give advice on this subject. Obviously it wasn't a serious question but the operator has to keep in mind that there are some different people out there. Plus, it is part of a phone operators job description to advise customers accordingly. [1]
It was a ridiculous question and maybe the guy caught on to the joke, but he still should have given advice. I'm sure 4 packages of snack cakes would get you very sick, and probably wouldn't be too good for your liver either. I just don't understand why he wouldn't offer advice. It would seem like the reasonable thing to do. I mean, is it really something that his boss would get mad at him for? How far does the situation have to go before he can step out of his occupational title and act as a human being to help someone in need? I know this situation isn't a strong example of the problem. It would be very interesting to experiment to see if one could force a Help-line operator out of their occupational status in order to save a life. Though it would probably be unethical...and illegal.
References
[1] CV Library . Ed. CV-Library Inc. . 24/ 03/ 09. Visa. 31/ 03/ 09 <>
Mar 30, 2009
Are advertisers trying too hard?
Alright, so I got a little story: a few days ago my friends and I went to a show and after the band played we decided to grab a bite to eat. We were in an area of downtown Hamilton, so you can imagine the place was plastered with billboards advertising all sorts of food joints, but only one caught our eyes. It was a scrony little chalkboard leaned up against the wall outside of a bar, all it said was simply this: "18 cent wings". This bargain intrigued us, so we went in and ordered.
This is what advertising is all about, sending us a message through some sort of media medium so that we buy what they are trying to sell. I find it really strange that we were being bombarded by billboards advertising "Pizza Pizza" and "KFC" and yet none of them could convince us, except this one little chalkboard.
These days the cost for one billboard can range between $700 - $2 500 a month [1] depending on location and prices can even go as high as $300 000 [2] for locations like Time Square. Now I wonder: how much money did it cost that bar to put out that little chalkboard? $20? Plus, it's chalk so once they buy the board they can change the ad whenever they want. So, why is it that these companies are putting a fortune into their advertising campaigns but it's the small things that win us over?
Now, maybe the case isn't how the message is being presented but what is being said. These days the neat slogans and catchy jingles aren't catching the audience as well as they once did. What people want are bargains, especially in our state of economic recession. People are penny pinching, and 18 cent wings is a deal that will save them some money.
Anyways, back to the story: it turned out that the wings weren't half bad, not great but definitely worth 18 cents a piece. It certainly wasn't the nicest place I've ever been in but I walked out of there for under $4, and that's including a plate of wings, a drink and a tip. It's things like that that will make me want to go back.
So, are advertisers trying too hard? Maybe, it's not an easy question. I think that they just have to shift direction. They have to realize that high budget advertising campaigns aren't going to win us over right now. What we want are bargains.
References
[1] www.gaebler.com. Ed. Ken Gaebler. 26/ 03/ 09. Ads By Google. 30/ 03/ 09 <>
[2] Roffo, Sandra, "The Most Expensive Billboard Is...?" [Weblog entry.] Ugly Doggy. June 12, 2008. (http://www.uglydoggy.com/2008/06/most-expensive-billboards-are.html) March 30, 2009.
This is what advertising is all about, sending us a message through some sort of media medium so that we buy what they are trying to sell. I find it really strange that we were being bombarded by billboards advertising "Pizza Pizza" and "KFC" and yet none of them could convince us, except this one little chalkboard.
These days the cost for one billboard can range between $700 - $2 500 a month [1] depending on location and prices can even go as high as $300 000 [2] for locations like Time Square. Now I wonder: how much money did it cost that bar to put out that little chalkboard? $20? Plus, it's chalk so once they buy the board they can change the ad whenever they want. So, why is it that these companies are putting a fortune into their advertising campaigns but it's the small things that win us over?
Now, maybe the case isn't how the message is being presented but what is being said. These days the neat slogans and catchy jingles aren't catching the audience as well as they once did. What people want are bargains, especially in our state of economic recession. People are penny pinching, and 18 cent wings is a deal that will save them some money.
Anyways, back to the story: it turned out that the wings weren't half bad, not great but definitely worth 18 cents a piece. It certainly wasn't the nicest place I've ever been in but I walked out of there for under $4, and that's including a plate of wings, a drink and a tip. It's things like that that will make me want to go back.
So, are advertisers trying too hard? Maybe, it's not an easy question. I think that they just have to shift direction. They have to realize that high budget advertising campaigns aren't going to win us over right now. What we want are bargains.
References
[1] www.gaebler.com. Ed. Ken Gaebler. 26/ 03/ 09. Ads By Google. 30/ 03/ 09 <>
[2] Roffo, Sandra, "The Most Expensive Billboard Is...?" [Weblog entry.] Ugly Doggy. June 12, 2008. (http://www.uglydoggy.com/2008/06/most-expensive-billboards-are.html) March 30, 2009.
Mar 7, 2009
Wit's All Been Done Before
Alright, so lately copyright infringement has been the topic of discussion and I thought I'd bring up another case, it's a less famous case in fact I'm not even sure you would call it a case, cause it really didn't even happen. I think that this case really outlines what level of sampling in music is considered "okay".
It involves three songs by three different bands: "Pressing On" by Relient k, "Makes no Difference" by Sum 41 and "Dammit" by Blink 182. These three songs have been accused of using very similar guitar riffs. Take a listen to the three songs and pay special attention to the opening guitar riffs.
Now, it's obvious that these three riffs have some very similar properties but the actual songs are quite different. Yet, fans of the bands still let loose with criticisms, saying stuff like "am i the only one who sees a strange similarity in the songs "pressing on" by relient k and "makes no difference" by sum 41?" [1] or "first time i heard it i thought "man way to rip off sum 41 with that"" [2] Matt Thiessen, lead singer/guitarist/songwriter of Relient k, was questioned about their song's similarity to "Dammit" and "Makes no Difference" in an interview with truetunes.com Matt responded saying this: "Yeah, it’s just… everybody uses it. Actually I think I was listening to a lot of Sum 41 at the time." "it’s never going to be exactly the same, we’re never going to rip anyone off on purpose. So we’re just going to do it and if we get compared, so what." [3] It's obvious that if any copying did occur, it was by accident.
It is hard to tell who "copied" who. "Dammit" was released in 1997 while "Makes no Difference" came out in 2000 followed by "Pressing on" in 2001. So, plainly speaking, Relient K borrowed from Sum 41 who borrowed from Blink 182 who probably borrowed from someone else and so on and so forth. But honestly, who cares? The only people to bring it up were the haters who just want to support their favourite band over the other two. There was no professional music analysist who criticized any of the bands, nor did any of the bands blame one another for ripping them off. Why? They didn't care.
That's the way it should be, it's not really copying at all, they are simply expanding on the other artists original idea (in my personal opinion, Relient K put out the better song). Blink 182, Relient K and Sum 41 were all strong staples of the pop-punk genre, and I believe that that one riff stood as an example of what pop-punk was all about, so it's kind of cool that each of them put their own spin on it.
The incident was quite a few years ago and the break up of Blink 182 ended that era of pop-punk. Relient K and Sum 41 moved on and began to change their style a little bit but not before one last word on the whole subject. In response to the whole "copying issue" Relient K released a song called "Wit's all been done before" (It's all been done before) the song talks about how everything has been done before and originality is very rare. The full lyrics are listed below.
[4]
Relient K
"Wit's All Been Done Before"
I wish I could, innovate,
And try to stretch your minds,
Cause often times, when guys like me,
Do that they leave themselves behind,
To clean the mess, or to impress,
A little bit of everyone,
But to innovate, is a mistake,
Cause there's nothing new under the sun.
Cause we're all getting tired of the media,
Cause they tries too hard to make you write something,
Cause we're all getting tired of the media,
Cause creating something new is just recycling,
Wait wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more.
And all my lines are warning signs,
But not all with dead ends,
And im not sure if the clever words,
All sit well with my friends,
I will not just sit and watch,
And me the victim fall,
I'll just have to do,
What my gut tells me to,
And hope that you will buy it all.
Cause we're all getting tired of the media,
Cause they tries too hard to make you write something,
Cause we're all getting tired of the media,
Cause creating something new is just recycling,
Wait Wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more,
Wait wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more.
Originality is a ghost town,
And it's oh so hard to get to,
And when you do, then people start to hate you,
Just scream what you believe out loud in a crowd,
People will hate you,
Cause repetition's just so safe,
And repetition is just like prison,
And I prefer to be out of place,
Cause I'm not really into prison.
Wait wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more,
Wait wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more,
Cause we're all getting tired of the media,
Cause they try too hard to make you write something,
Cause we're all getting tired of the media,
Cause creating something new is just recycling,
Wait Wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more,
Wait wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more.
References
[1] Dexter88, "Relient K forum". sputnikmusic.com. Jan 2003
[2] Lechuza47, "Relient K forum". sputnikmusic.com. Jan 2003.
[3] M, Matt. "Reilent k Interview 2002". truetunes.com June 2002: http://truetunes.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/relient-k-interview-june-2002/.
[4] Relient K. "Wit's All Been Done Before.". Gotee Records, 2002.
It involves three songs by three different bands: "Pressing On" by Relient k, "Makes no Difference" by Sum 41 and "Dammit" by Blink 182. These three songs have been accused of using very similar guitar riffs. Take a listen to the three songs and pay special attention to the opening guitar riffs.
Now, it's obvious that these three riffs have some very similar properties but the actual songs are quite different. Yet, fans of the bands still let loose with criticisms, saying stuff like "am i the only one who sees a strange similarity in the songs "pressing on" by relient k and "makes no difference" by sum 41?" [1] or "first time i heard it i thought "man way to rip off sum 41 with that"" [2] Matt Thiessen, lead singer/guitarist/songwriter of Relient k, was questioned about their song's similarity to "Dammit" and "Makes no Difference" in an interview with truetunes.com Matt responded saying this: "Yeah, it’s just… everybody uses it. Actually I think I was listening to a lot of Sum 41 at the time." "it’s never going to be exactly the same, we’re never going to rip anyone off on purpose. So we’re just going to do it and if we get compared, so what." [3] It's obvious that if any copying did occur, it was by accident.
It is hard to tell who "copied" who. "Dammit" was released in 1997 while "Makes no Difference" came out in 2000 followed by "Pressing on" in 2001. So, plainly speaking, Relient K borrowed from Sum 41 who borrowed from Blink 182 who probably borrowed from someone else and so on and so forth. But honestly, who cares? The only people to bring it up were the haters who just want to support their favourite band over the other two. There was no professional music analysist who criticized any of the bands, nor did any of the bands blame one another for ripping them off. Why? They didn't care.
That's the way it should be, it's not really copying at all, they are simply expanding on the other artists original idea (in my personal opinion, Relient K put out the better song). Blink 182, Relient K and Sum 41 were all strong staples of the pop-punk genre, and I believe that that one riff stood as an example of what pop-punk was all about, so it's kind of cool that each of them put their own spin on it.
The incident was quite a few years ago and the break up of Blink 182 ended that era of pop-punk. Relient K and Sum 41 moved on and began to change their style a little bit but not before one last word on the whole subject. In response to the whole "copying issue" Relient K released a song called "Wit's all been done before" (It's all been done before) the song talks about how everything has been done before and originality is very rare. The full lyrics are listed below.
[4]
Relient K
"Wit's All Been Done Before"
I wish I could, innovate,
And try to stretch your minds,
Cause often times, when guys like me,
Do that they leave themselves behind,
To clean the mess, or to impress,
A little bit of everyone,
But to innovate, is a mistake,
Cause there's nothing new under the sun.
Cause we're all getting tired of the media,
Cause they tries too hard to make you write something,
Cause we're all getting tired of the media,
Cause creating something new is just recycling,
Wait wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more.
And all my lines are warning signs,
But not all with dead ends,
And im not sure if the clever words,
All sit well with my friends,
I will not just sit and watch,
And me the victim fall,
I'll just have to do,
What my gut tells me to,
And hope that you will buy it all.
Cause we're all getting tired of the media,
Cause they tries too hard to make you write something,
Cause we're all getting tired of the media,
Cause creating something new is just recycling,
Wait Wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more,
Wait wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more.
Originality is a ghost town,
And it's oh so hard to get to,
And when you do, then people start to hate you,
Just scream what you believe out loud in a crowd,
People will hate you,
Cause repetition's just so safe,
And repetition is just like prison,
And I prefer to be out of place,
Cause I'm not really into prison.
Wait wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more,
Wait wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more,
Cause we're all getting tired of the media,
Cause they try too hard to make you write something,
Cause we're all getting tired of the media,
Cause creating something new is just recycling,
Wait Wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more,
Wait wit's all been done before,
Yeah we do something to death,
Then we dig it up just to do it some more.
References
[1] Dexter88, "Relient K forum". sputnikmusic.com. Jan 2003
[2] Lechuza47, "Relient K forum". sputnikmusic.com. Jan 2003
[3] M, Matt. "Reilent k Interview 2002". truetunes.com June 2002: http://truetunes.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/relient-k-interview-june-2002/.
[4] Relient K. "Wit's All Been Done Before.". Gotee Records, 2002.
Feb 18, 2009
That Britney's Shameless...
Ok, so Britney Spears is everywhere I doubt there is one person in the country if not the continent who has never heard the name, "Britney Spears". Well, that's a strong statement but, you get the point. But why? Why is the world so obsessed with her? Is it because she is a celebrity? Yeah, but there are hundreds of other celebrities out there who don't get a fraction of the attention that Britney gets. Why does everyone else only get diddly-crap? Is it because she is better at what she does? Ha! No. I haven't seen her put out one decent song, ever. But, that's my opinion. So, since everyone else is talking about her I might as well too.
So, one thing that pumped Britney up was her "downfall" and her "comeback" nothing gave her more publicity than those two events. Was it intentional? I'd say so. So, the woman tries to rise out of the curdling feces she had become. She decides to "sing" at the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards. Of course, immediately after the event the critics pummeled her with criticisms like "an out-of-shape Spears moved tentatively around the stage, getting totally outgrooved by her backup dancers and badly lip-syncing her way through the song" [1] This is true, she looked like she was going through multiple muscle spasms. Yes, she didn't look as "fit" as she once had, but keep in mind she just had two kids. Now, I'm no fashion junkie but even I can tell you her wardrobe did her no justice. She should know that she can't pull off that kind of outfit, so of course she would get butchered for it, that's society, nothing slips by us. And yes, it wasn't nice of everyone to pick on her but it was still partially fair, she brought it upon herself.
I suppose I should cut her some slack, she is a lot further along from where she was. I mean, she was basically at rock bottom, whether she ended up there accidentally or intentionally is another story. Never the less, she was OUT OF IT. The paparazzi played a huge role in her downfall. I mean, they invade her privacy constantly and follow her wherever she goes. She is never truly alone. They become a part of her life, it's no wonder that she would breakdown like this, it was bound to happen sooner or later. One thing I notice though, is that the paparazzi hassle her more than any other star, but why? She claims to hate the paparazzi like in her song "Piece of me" she says: "I'm Mrs. 'You want a piece of me?' Tryin' and pissin' me off" she is referring to the paparazzi in this song but, she didn't even write the song. So, is she really pissed off at the paparazzi? Or does she actually appreciate them? Because she should, she needs them, she is NOTHING without them. The paparazzi made Britney Spears. And she knows it, "A former Britney Spears employee claims the pop star has been
Now, most other celebrities don't appreciate the paparazzi quite like Britney does. Many celebrities like Cameron Diaz and Justin Timberlake are fighting back at the paprazzi in an attempt to save their privacy. Seriously? Suck it up princess. It's part of the job description. You're a CELEBRITY, your famous, have you forgotten what famous means? Let me help you out: "Famous - Celebrated in fame or public report; renowned; mach talked of; distinguished in story; -- used in either a good or a bad sense, chiefly the former; often followed by" [3] Notice the last line? Often followed by? Of course, you're gonna get followed! It's only natural. But, I believe it's only ok to a certain extent, when laws are broken and people get hurt it's been taken too far. I believe that a line has to be drawn. Paparazzi are becoming violent and brutal, they will do whatever it takes to get that perfect shot, cause they know it will make them rich. They don't care about the damage done, they can pay for it, they don't care about the celebrity, all they want is the money. To draw this line the Britney Law was introduced "Britney Law" -- a 20-yard "safety bubble" around celebs considered to be "paparazzi targets." [4] Of course, this law isn't supposed to put an end to the paparazzi, only put restrictions on them. But seriously, is this really gonna stop them? I mean, driving a van into someones car intentionally isn't legal, but the paparazzi did it anyways. If they don't obey that law, why would they obey this one?
So anywho, 1 year later from her tragic appearance at the 2007 MTV awards she shows up again, at the 2008 MTV music video awards, and what do you know? Everyone loves her again!
"In less than 20 seconds, the troubled pop singer Britney Spears made a successful comeback today when she introduced the 25th MTV video music awards" [5] Well looky-looky she's right back where she started if not better, everyone loves her again and she's normal. Oh joy bliss. It's like she never really left. Bravo, Britney, bravo. I really must applaud you Britney, you put on such a great show. The downfall, the insanity, the failed comeback, the actual comeback. You do it all so well, you got the whole world fooled.
References
[1] Maynard, John. "In VMA Comeback, Britney Makes All The Wrong Moves." Washington Post [Washington] 10 Sep. 2007: page C01
[2] N/A, Castina. "Britney Spears Paparazzi Deal; Britney Spears Tipping Off Photographers, Says Former Employee." www.popcrunch.com 26 sep, 2007: http://www.popcrunch.com/britney-spears-paparazzi-deal-britney-spears-tipping-off-photographers-says-former-employee/.
[3] famous. (n.d.). Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/famous
[4] N/A, Liz. "The \'Britney Law\' -- A Celeb\'s Best Friend?." The Washington Post [Washington] 12 Feb, 2008
[5] Tedmanson, Sophie. "Britney Spears scoops MTV awards and resurrects her career." www.entertainment.timesonline.com 8 sep, 2008: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article4701100.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1.
[2] N/A, Castina. "Britney Spears Paparazzi Deal; Britney Spears Tipping Off Photographers, Says Former Employee." www.popcrunch.com 26 sep, 2007: http://www.popcrunch.com/britney-spears-paparazzi-deal-britney-spears-tipping-off-photographers-says-former-employee/.
[3] famous. (n.d.). Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/famous
[4] N/A, Liz. "The \'Britney Law\' -- A Celeb\'s Best Friend?." The Washington Post [Washington] 12 Feb, 2008
[5] Tedmanson, Sophie. "Britney Spears scoops MTV awards and resurrects her career." www.entertainment.timesonline.com 8 sep, 2008: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article4701100.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
