Reflective papar post...In summary of Media

What did you learn about the media?
I think that what I didn’t realize before that this class has shown me is that there is room for artistic expression in every type of media, even advertising. After seeing the “color like no other” ads, I realized that there are endless ways to find expression in any type of media. I also learned the importance of shared meaning. Something I found really interesting were the media conglomerates and the ability certain companies have to see somebody’s idea become a book, a movie, a TV series, and market a whole bunch of extra products. Although I have never been too trusting of the media, I have become even more skeptical of certain things as a result of the class. It seems that everyone has an agenda to push and even in pure entertainment items there are always added material intended to illicit response from the media viewer.
What were your expectations and were they met?
My expectations for this class were simple. I expected it to be fun. I REALLY enjoy different types of media and I figured a class dedicated to the various types of media couldn’t be too painful. I wasn’t disappointed. I enjoyed the format of the class, and I thought that the lectures were informative and engaging. I think that having a blog for journal entries was a clever way to utilize the learned classroom material in a practical way. I think that I am learning more from the group presentations than all of the other aspects of class combined. Watching movies in a class, listening to classic rock, watching episodes of old TV shows, and watching cool video clips is nothing short of golden for me. I missed one day of this class accidentally and never missed a day other than that because I liked coming. That is probably the best description about how this class has met my expectations that I can give.
How does the world see media compared to how you see the media?
The world views a lot more media as valuable than I do. I believe that there is at least some value in ALL media. That being said, I find VERY LITTLE real value in most media. I love music, I have 40+ gigs on my computer right now and that is only some of my music. However, there is a lot of it that I listen to and ask myself, “why do I even have this?’ Same with DVD’s I have around 400, and I like lots of them, but there are several that don’t contribute much to the values I hold dear. For me, I recognize two separate sets of criteria for evaluating media: morally good or effective in authors intent. Obviously media focusing on sex, violence, and crude humor aren’t morally valuable, but I can step outside of the happy value bubble and see that these types of media are great for effectively conveying what the author desires. I hold things up to a moral light first, and I doubt many in the world today even have a moral system for evaluating media, thus the major difference in our views.
How does all of this fir into the Lord’s plan for us?
Well, if you examine the entire plan of existence, we are currently in the “testing” phase. We are here to learn of and accept eternal truths. We do this by making covenants and “enduring to the end”. This is where the media comes in. I find much value in the media: the internet for example has facilitated family history and temple work in ways previously thought impossible. But on the whole, I view media as the refiner’s fire through which all must pass to gain exaltation. Whereas our ancestors had to cross plains on foot and face persecution and physical hardships, I believe our handcart to be regulating and limiting our media use to being constructive to obtaining eternal life. That is how the media fits into the Lord’s plan, it is just one more trial that we must overcome.

When it's time to change the channel... ADS.

» Select 2 advertisements you consider good and 2 you consider bad. Include the ads (or copies) and explain what makes each a good/bad ad.

This is a tricky assignment? What do we consider "good" here? I mean, there is a divide between a morally good ad or an effective ad. I think that the best ad would be one that is both effective and ethical, but there is a problem with this. A well known and well exploited fact in the advertising world is that SEX SELLS. I would imagine that if you had just glanced at my blog right now, you would only remember the world sex in all caps. So there you have it.

I consider any ad that plays on this base instinct(either blatantly or indirectly)unethical. It's kind of like cheating. That being said, if I were in advertising, I would probably use this technique just like everybody else. For the ads I am looking for then, it is hard to know what to present. What might be a brilliantly effective ad may be immoral, so is it good? I am going to throw up some ads and say accept the traditional moral value of "good". So the "bad" ads are bad because I think that they are immoralish, nothing to do with effectiveness.
BAD ADS first:

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about with the sex sells. The PS3 is (pardon me here) an ugly fat chick, and the Wii is a hott blond chick. They are dressed accordingly, and the points differing the two are presented through innuendo. Especially when teh blond says that she all one has to do is touch her for a good time and that she is "cheap". I call this one effective, but bad.
Another example of a REALLY bad ad that I don't have a copy of(sadly) but that Prof Robinson mentioned in class is the Mr. Sparky's ad. I HATE this ad. It is poorly done, cheesy, and so *#%!ing annoying that I swore that I would NEVER use this service just to spite them. The voice of the lady is terrible, and the attempt at fixing a ceiling fan and the resulting problems were just to cheestastic to take.
Some other bad ads(morally speaking) are these whiskey ads. Avert your eyes if you aren't into looking at scantily clad chicks, and you shouldn't be.


Now the GOOD ADS:


I don't know about you folks, but I really don't want to smoke now. (not that I ever did). This is a simple, impacting ad. I will remember this one for a long time, and it conveys its message well, smoking hooks you. I call it a good one.



I gotta hand it to these people, they took a subject that relates entirely to sex and marketed it in a humorous and informative way. There were no scanty women or suggestive stuff, just a dude out there without protection in a situation that calls for it. What do condoms do? Protect. There you go. I think this was a good one for those reasons.

Here is a bonus. I just thought this was a sweet ad on a truck. I would look at this and mention it to people, and I suppose that is the real point of advertising. Their product, on my mind.

» Is advertising effective? Why? List some examples of where it did and did not influence one of your buying decision.
Advertising effective??? what an idiotic question. I'm sorry whoever ends up reading this, but it is a multi-BILLION dollar industry, so I am pretty sure there's something to it. Sure there are varying degrees of effectiveness, but that question is lame. I think that an ad becomes effective when it has shared meaning with it's audience. (An ads audience is everybody, but there are those they market to more than others). Lets take IPOD for example. They wish to present a cool, young feel to their products. They wish to present an individuality of each person that can be achieved through color and music.(also ipod type). I'd say that their marketing scheme is an effective one, in which a lot of what they wish the audience to receive is conveyed. Great shared meaning. An example of the ipod ad:

There is color, youth, vibrancy, movement, personality, and the product all in this simple ad. I don't doubt that the ipod ads had some influence in my decision to purchase one when I was shopping for mp3 players. There really isn't any other brand that springs to mind when I think of this type of product, and that is an advertising victory for Apple. Some ads just don't matter to me, like fast food. I have tried a product they push when they have them and I am there, but I go out to eat based on what I last had and what kind of food(mexican, chinese, burger, etc) more than on their ads. It serves a minor role in where I go out. Other things whose ads don't much grab me: housing, law firms, internet services. I just go to the internet or the phone book and pick the top one, I don't really care too much about what their ad looks like. Things where I can be suckered: movies, video games, snowboarding gear. Things of that nature are in my intrests, and whenever I see an ad where I say, "Wow, that's cool", it tends to stick in my mind and influence how I spend my money.

TV [is] for dummies...Like me.

• Track your television viewing for one week. (If you don’t watch television, WATCH SOME!!) What did you learn about yourself? What did you learn about television? What does television provide you (fulfillment of a need -- See Chapter 15)?
I learned that I think TV sucks. That is a bit abrupt, but I have satellite at home and during Thanksgiving break I tried to watch all the TV I could and realized that it just isn't good. TV I actually like. Family Guy, Sports center, Heroes(somewhat), and some discovery/history/national geographic channel. TV is just entertainment, I go to the internet for news and weather, and also education.I think that TV has little real substance in these days, and the shows are getting less and less enjoyable. The so called "reality shows" are the worst and also the competition silliness such as Dancing with the Stars and American Idol. I think it's crap. ALL CRAP. That's why I just check out seasons of shows that interest me and hardly ever view TV except for sports.

• Critiques argue that in trying to “offend no one,” the networks tend to offer TV programs that appeal to the “lowest common-denominator.” Do you agree? Can you name programs that are definitely for the LCD? Can you think of any network (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CW) programs that defy the LCD label? Explain.

TRUE. Today's TV is REALLY simple. I think that most viewers are working class and likely mid income. (DUH, the demographics of the US, but wait, there's value in stating the obvious). Everybody in the US pretty much has a TV. A lot of people come home after their long and arduous job and have no other desire than to relax. TV will help you escape from reality, but it has to be easily understandable. So sex, violence, crude humor, and simple humor take a forefront. This is the LCD. Everybody can understand, and it has nearly universal appeal. Guilty of this is my own favorite, Family Guy. This should demonstrate nicely:

Full of sex jokes, stabs at famous people or trends, farts and such, it certainly isn't what one would call intellectually stimulating. Any of the competition shows(such as American Idol), or the reality shows, (Survivor), are just watch and be entertained. No thinking, no lessons, just watch. I can't think of any networks that break out of this trend, there may be a show here and there(none spring to mind), but in general, they have to get payed. Profit isn't gained by alienating the bulk of your potential audience.

• Many people would say that television has had a greater impact on society than any other form of media. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Nope, internet takes it by a slide. But if you don't consider the internet, sure. I mean, it devastated magazines, newspapers, and the radio at the same time. I think it's because it tickles more of your senses at the same time: sight AND sound. But hey, that's just my opinion. I think that it did it's greatest damage by tying the family to a magical box in a room (or several rooms) of their house. Along with the TV came the eventual video game and probably the worst result of the pair of them was a time consumer that has limited intellectually enlarging value. Reading books or reading in general, which brings the mind to bear and can at least increase vocabulary, was shoved to the side as TV muscled its way in front of our faces. Bottom line: TV is easy, the secret to it's success. It is so prevalent in our society that it will continue to have a great impact... well, probably forever.

Movies, films, flicks...Whatever

Why is the amount of sex and violence increasing in motion pictures? Is this a case of Hollywood giving society what they want or is it simply society’s acceptance of what we are given?

That's a good question. I think it's the media equivilant of asking which came first, the chicken or the egg? Humans have always had an infactuation with violence and sex. We used to get our kicks from the gladitors killing each other and now we watch movies like Sin City and Saw.




As each medium (movies included) has become more widespread, there is less control over what we view. Public outcry is less now than it used to be because of increased access. I am convinced that there is a trend of having to "out do" the previous generations extremes. What I consider normal and appropriate, my parents abhor,what me parents considered normal, outraged their parents, and so forth. As fas as media is concerned. An example: I find the movie "Boat Trip" to be amusing and not too bad. I watched it with my parents and they thought it was scandalous. My parents tell me that when they were dating, they went to see "Paint your wagon." I think that movie is great, but in comparison to todays standards, it was really reserved. But for my grandparents, they thought it was inappropriate. So whose standard is best? I don't know, but if the trend continues, my kids are likely to be watch 3D porn and thinking nothing of it.

If you were a movie producer, what would you do to make a box office hit in 2008?

I would take something that was a hit from the past, and recreate it and package it to appeal to everyone. This is like Lord of the Rings, Comic book movies (Spiderman, transformers, iron man, Batmen,etc), Old TV shows (Starsky and Hutch, Miami Vice, etc). These movies will always have their core followers, but then a new group of people that think it is interesting. It will become trendy like transformers. The movie I would like to make would be of the 90's animated cartoon show, Gargoyles.

I think that if it was done like the Batman movies with the crisp feel of good epics like Lord of the Rings or Gladiator, it would be SWEET!!! Key would be getting the right combination of big name actors with lesser known people. I think the females would have to be smoking hot and the main female gargoyle (whose name is Demona for those who aren't fans) would have to be scandalously clad for extra sex appeal. (along the vain presented in the above paragraph). It would be a hit, kids would be getting their Gargoyle toys from their fast food joints. Older people would appreciate the action and the cool storyline of Gargoyles which involves a charismatic and wealthy villain. Also, Gargoyles allows for cool scenes to take place in medieval times, but also modern. I know I could make bank with this baby. (preferably a trilogy, as they seem to be all the rave these days.)

Book Survey

Poll 10 people by posing the question “Read any good books lately?” How many have they read in the past 6 months? What types of books have they read? What does this tell you about your sample and society?


Hmmm....

Well, I am not exactly sure how I am supposed to put this info up here. First of all a big thanks to all those who helped out by answering an email survey, you are good people. I am going to tell you all about the books that I have read in the past 6 months, I don't even care if you don't want to know:
I don't knwo how many, maybe 20?
All of the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan again.
(If you should ever read them,-and you should- I suggest you consult this website
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~karlh/wot.html)
All of the Harry Potter series by JK Rowlings

I love science fiction and fantasy. Fav authors of mine: (the above mentioned) JRR Tolkien, David Eddings, R.A. Salvadore, Margetet Wies, Tracy Hickman, Orson Scott Card, Lloyd Alexander, Dan Brown, And many others.
I have read all kinds of stuff, Tom Clancy to Classics such as Little Women. I LOVE to read.
that being said I guess I will answer the real question.

I will treat the whole ten people as one group I guess.
Together they have read 46 books.
Wide range of books: My friend Liberty read the following:
1. Seven Daughters and Seven Sons
2. Walk Two Moons
3. Mere Christianity
4. As a Man Thinketh
5. Sense and Sensibility
6. Counterfeit Bride
7. Pride and Prejudice
8. Finding Faith
9. Saving Grace
10. The Tale of Despereaux
11. A Corner of the Universe
12. Tristan and Iseault
13. The Dark is Rising
14. Missing May

I had to look some of them up, but she likes a bit of everything. Another friend, Joe, just finished two, but reads a lot of biographies and religious books (He got a degree in history-poor sucker)
My Sister read a bunch of books. She reads A LOT. She read some fiction and some romance, but she loves crap like Georgette Heyer, so we won't even think more of it. Overall, I saw lots of Christian novels, and some young science fiction. What does this tell me about my sample? D*** Mormons...heh heh heh. Seriously, if I had more friends who were not members of my religion, things would probably look a lot different. Bout I realized that my friends really enjoy emotional inspiring titles that get the heart pumping. What does this tell me? About my friends it tells me that they read some stuff I never suspected, sentimental suckers. And as for society, it doesn't tell me much because I don't think my sample is representative. First of all, I think that my friends read a lot more than the average college aged group,and second of all, I doubt very much that the majority of people my age across our society are reading 'Mere Christianity'.

Radio, alive and kicking....

Come up with a list of 5 radio stations in the Utah area (choose some FM and some AM stations – music and talk). Write a description of each station including format, advertising, and target audience. What makes each station successful?
Well, that's seems pretty strait forward.

1)94.1 KODJ. super hits of 60's 70's.
This station is probably the one I've listened too most in my life. I don't know why, but my brother (who's is a little slow, but awesome)is obsessed with listening the the "oldies." I really like listening to the Beach Boys and the Temptations now and again so this station is handy. In any event, the station is music (obviously), with news and advertising sprinkled in. The news covers mostly traffic situations in the Salt Lake Valley, and some major headlines. Advertising is varied, but a lot of Utah businesses, such as local dealerships.

2)101 KBER
I like rock music, I like this station. More than rock music though, I like the Bob and Tom Show. I don't listen to it very long, or terrible often, but it is hilarious when I do listen in. My favorite is this phony guy that calls in whose name is Donny Baker. I can't express how funny it is by writing about it, so here is something:

Basically, I think it's funny. Anywho, other than that, the advertising is stuff like Geico and Verizon Wireless. I really don't care about ads, I usually will switch stations at ads time to whatever other station isn't on ads. Audience: mostly younger people I suspect. There are always lots of contests and ads geared towards college aged people.

3)94.3 KXRQ
Basically, in the Uintah Basin (where I hail from), it's the only station where you can get the weekly top 40. It also sucks quite a bit. I usually avoided this station, but it's where I could occasionally catch some Weezer, which is somewhat worth the pain. The audience is the high school kids, which is painfully obvious when they play Michele Branch crap 10 to 15 times an hour. Ads are for local companies, Like Al's Foodtown, the local grocery store. I kind of hate this station, even though everyone listens to it.

4)92.5 KCUA
Classic Rock. That's what this station plays. Pink Floyd, Ted Nugent, Foriegner, Blue Oyster Cult, Led Zepplin, Lynard Skynard. I think this station has kept me alive on my driving heavy job for the past 3 summers that I've worked. Same ads as 94.3. maybe a bit more Oil Field type appealing advertising, and definitely caters to the workers of the area.

5)98.5 the Fox- Todays hits, yesterdays favorite.
This station is kind of a cross between the other 2 FM music stations in the basin (we are discounting Country because I don't consider it really music). It puts out some older stuff that I don't mind and if you listen for a really long time you may even hear a decent newer band. One thing that it does frequently that I HATE is that they play Phil Collins. The audience for this station? Anybodies guess. I think they just want to be loved by all. Since there are only so many businesses in the Basin, they advertise pretty much the same as the other two.

Other stations I occasionally listen to: 1160 KSL, some crazy Spanish stations, and 92.5 hip hop music in the valley. I mostly just catch games on 1160(BYU and Jazz).


Radio is described as “the most personal of the media,” why is that? Why do you think music is an important part in radio programming? Why is talk radio so popular?

I think that the main reason that radio is so personal is that it is what people listen to on the job and to and from work. One feels like they want to be a touch more social when they are trapped away from their normal friends and relationships.
If radio didn't have any music to offer, than I would go nuts and not listen to it. That's just me, but I suppose that others feel that way as well, because that is mostly what it's used for. Talk radio is popular because people like information. Doesn't matter if its political, gardening, travel, etc. Talk gives the people what they want.

Journal Entry-Magazines.

Go to a bookstore (not BYU’s) and look at the different magazines. Select one that appeals to a highly specialized audience (different from one of your own interests). Read through the magazine and based on the magazine’s content (including the advertisements) prepare a description of the magazine’s “typical reader.” Give specific examples to justify your generalization.

Well, as I was perusing (nice word usage?) The shelves of the Borders book store near where I work, I stumbled upon "Field and Stream" I am not really into hunting and I haven't fished for years so I guess it's safe for something that isn't that interesting to me. Flipping through it, I saw some interesting stuff. The focus of this particular issue was how to find and kill that "big buck" that all hunters dream of. Judgeing by the advertisments for camoflauge suits, nice scopes, and other hunting parephanelia, I would guess that the typical reader would be a 15 to 40 year old caucasian male. From the adds in the pictures and the way the articles were written, it was pretty obvious that that is the target audience. Articles such as the best photos of shot deer from the year before and a discussion on whether or not camo is needed in hunting, makes this magazine very specific in who it is targeting.



What impact will/has the electronic media have/had on the magazine industry?
The TV was HUGE in impacting the magazine industry, the internet... not so much. Most magazines you try to look up online have teaser content and are basically grolified ads for the magazine. I suppose if you could easily find full issues of magazines on the internet for free, it would be different. But as it is, people like to have their physical copy to carry around and to check out the pictures. It's nice to place a magazine in a dentists waiting room and in bathrooms as well. Harder to set out laptops...
I don't think that the internet as it is now will change the magazine industry much. Maybe one day our technology will advance such that we will have virtual magazines, but as for now I will still flip through the readers digest waiting for my eye doctor to see me.

About Text books...

Books

Which is better for text books, physical or electronic? Which for personal reading?
For textbooks in class I would certainly perfer textbooks most of the time. I like being able to read and highlight. I also like flipping back and forth quickly between sections of books. However, in certain courses, perhaps something like graphic design, an electronic book would be more helpful. I guess it really depends on the course, but 9 out of 10 times I'd rather have a physical book.
As far as personal books go, I will always be a fan of the physical product. I read everywhere, at the table, in the bathroom, during class, riding in the car, etc. I can because it needs no power source, you don't have to worry too much about damaging it, and it's easier to transport. I realize that there are devices like PDAs and IPHONES that are easy to take everywhere, but I just enjoy turning pages and feeling progress in reading.

Journal Entry # 2

Do negative stereotypes exist in the media today?

Too easy: YES.
Not a day goes by when I don't see something depicting women or minorities in a less than flattering light. And not just that, it seems that there is an active movement to present "reverse stereo types". Examples> Women as sexual prededors in control of their quarry, or powerful(often violent) minorities. Here's a sexist commercial playing up sexism, but really enforcing the stereotype in the meantime.




Is there really the possiblity of people immersing themeselves too much in the world of mass media? Too the point where they begin to tune out to the real world?
Also, sure.
I for example, listen to music roughly 8-10 hours a day. I can't work out without my IPOD. I also spend a huge amount of time on the internet. I have around 400 dvd's. The funny thing is, I'm not as absorbed as many of my friends. And there are certainly people who take it to the extreme. I had a roommate last semester who worked... and played World of Warcraft. He would do nothing else, he seldom slept, only ate fast or prepared food, and didn't even go to church.(much). At least he worked.
Here's an interesting (if kind of long) clip from an editorial about the World of Warcraft addictees.



So I guess the evidence speaks for itself.

Journal entry # 1

The communication model... Alrighty, so what's basically a textbook term for what happens between a medium of communication (TV, Newspapers, Internet, Radio, etc) and you, the audience. To amaze you all with my in depth knowledge of how this baby works, the senders are the medium. The receiver is you, or the audience. All messages are encoded by the medium, and then decoded by you upon perceiving the medium. How much shared meaning is determined by how much the audience understands the message that was intended by the medium. Between us and the medium, there is always "noise" This can be anything distracting, often other media. So here is how effective I think each media is according to this model:
Newspaper Article:
The medium is newspaper corporations, such as News Cooperation. The medium is the paper, but more specifically the articles. For example, the Christian Science Monitors story by Linda Feldmann about whether or not the media has any impact on the truthfulness of statements made by 08' presidential candidates.http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/18/media-truth-squads-and-the-%e2%80%9908-campaign-any-impact/ This article has a very specific target audience, the American public. The message is, (as far as I can decode) that not really. The message is expressed in text and people can decode them at leisure and there is little danger of the audience not understanding if they desire to because they have all the time they need. However, it is easy to be sidetracked from a newspaper article if something more interesting catches the eye, and (if I'm any indication) few people ever finish reading an article all the way through, limiting effectiveness of articles. Magazine Article:Magazines are sent by publishers to us, the audience. Some magazines have only a narrow, special interest audience. Magazine articles appeal to more senses because they are colorful and heavy with photos. Newspapers also have photos, but are usually less visually appealing than Magazines. The messages of magazines are seemingly easier to convey to the passerby. It is easier and quicker to assimilate a magazine article than a newspaper article.
Radio Program:
A radio program sender is a broadcast company, and this auditory message is easy to decode. The channels are all of the frequencies on our radios, and the messeges are broad. Noise can (in addition to other things) be actual noise in this case.
TV Program:
Shares many of the same strengths and weaknesses as radio. The added visual aspect is greatly impacting making it the most effective means(in my opinion) in entertaining the receivers. It appeals to more senses and more effectively transmits the message.

For informing people, I think that newspapers do the best job. They are widely believed to be credible, and if you take the trouble to read an article, you will usually remember it and believe it. For persuading, I think that radio is the most effective. It is more geared in content to persuading recievers and also people feel a pull when they hear an eloquent speaker laying out well organized points. (I think that most radio broadcasters speak better than thier TV counterparts because of the limitations in thier medium).
So there you have it, all of my thoughts on the communication model.

Good grades.

Well,
This is just a sample post for all of the genius things that will follow...
Really, they will be.
Anywho, I'll throw some good media articles and analyzation on here and hopefully get good grades.