“With Friends Like These”
Thesis: Facebook, a.k.a. Big Brother, claims to create meaningful connections, but really just isolates people, while profiting from their personal information through 'narrow-casting' marketing.
Agree:
I agree that Facebook’s use of personal data is disturbing. When you are on Facebook, it seems you've submitted yourself for personalized advertising and are “in the system”. Not only this, but also the CIA can check you out. I haven’t broken any laws nor am I really worried about the ads Facebook might throw at me, but it seems wrong and having your personal data up for sale just doesn’t seem right. I also agree that Facebook is a wonderful, yet deceiving, business idea. Once the program is created, you just let people flock to it, submit their information for advertisers, and they experience the warm fuzzy illusion of connection.
Disagree:
I disagree that everyone should Facebook because Peter Thiel owns 7 percent of the company. He may be a shady character, but what about the other 97 percent of ownership? I’m sure many other very popular companies have many more creepy neocons in their ranks, say perhaps Google. There are many reasons not to support Facebook, but I don’t think this one man should play much of a role in that decision.
I also disagree with the dark tone cast upon Facebook. I think the business is genuine in that it was created to help people connect and still strives to do that (perhaps whether it does is up for each individual to decide). The privacy aspect is simply something that people should be aware of in using the tool. Using our information that we post to market to us is just common sense for any entrepreneur. Facebook isn’t evil, but still, I’m not sure I trust it.
Also: I deactived my Facebook account the other day. I decided it's really not worth anything to me except to waste my time and the privacy stuff weirds me out. The deactivate page had pictures of my "friends" saying "So-and-so will miss you". This encouraged me to deactivate. I will give it a week then probably delete my account, which is possible: http://antisocial.nectareen.com/how-do-i-delete-my-facebook-account/
Killing Us Softly 3
1.Advertising in America has made pornography mainstream. It’s an absurd statement, but a moment’s reflection shows it’s totally accurate.
2.Human qualities are divided in half- masculine and feminine and the feminine traits are devalued. We are all half people. That is the ideal that has been put forth for us, to aspire to become half of a person.
3.The message sent to women is that their body is most important and if they buy they can get it right, but they can never reach the computer generated standard.
4.Advertising sells concepts, such as defining what is normal. I repeat, advertisers have actual control over what is normal. Not okay.
5.Attitude change is needed from ‘aware, active, educated’ citizens (not consumers). At stake is the ability to live an authentic and freely chosen life.
The film made me frustrated by how our culture is forced upon us by advertisers, and we don’t even know it. The past couple years I’ve been thinking about what I want to do with my life and how I can create change through whatever career I find. I had been looking at the political arena- politicians, lobbyists, etc., but maybe advertising and mass media has found an even higher rung on the ladder. They determine our culture, deciding what’s normal, and telling us what to want, and determining our values
Jean Kilbourne uses some propaganda techniques very effectively. She scapegoats the advertising industry for all of these problems. I’m sure they’ve found ways to pass the blame. She definitely appeals to our sense of fear, showing us the disturbing influence of ads. Humor is interjected into her script, which definitely ads to the power of her message as she mocks the ads. I’m sure there were many rhetorical questions. Timing is well played, with offensive ads played after her main points to back them up. Strength is also a big part in that she shows that we have lost our power to determine our own lives and that we need to take it back.
“The Making of a Media Literate Mind”
The first half of the article basically emphasized what we have already learned, punctuated by this line, “For the first time in human history, Gerbner notes, most of the stories about people, life, and values are told not by parents, schools, churches, and others in the community who have something to tell, but by a group of distant conglomerates that have little to tell and everything to sell”. This is a powerful statement and it’s as disturbing as it is true. What I enjoyed about the article was how it transformed the cynicism and discontent it generated into actions. The five actions were certainly a “simple solution”, but even if just those were implemented in every public school it would make such a difference. I think the point of using the media to teach is very important, both for media literacy and just as a way to reach students. According to Rob Williams, solving the “media problem” can be solved by giving the storytelling powers to students. It’s an eye-opening solution, providing freedom from the mass media by creating our own media. In the generation of YouTube and Twitter, that may be possible.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Ad Nauseum, Twitter Changes World, Merchants of Cool
Ad Nauseum 5 & 6
Three things I learned from Ad Nauseum, Parts 5 & 6:
1.Advertisers are desperate to try anything to win over consumers, as illustrated through various attempts at subliminal advertising.
2.Company mascots are designed to be “cute and comforting” simply to help sell products that they have nothing to do with.
3.Pranks can lighten the mood from the depressing outlook of advertising and corporate, consumer culture.
Part 5: My question is how can marketers actually believe they “give the people what they want” when all their efforts are put towards manipulating people into buying their products?
Part 6: My question is, pranks may be fun and cause some change, but how do we really change things?
“How Twitter Will Change the World”
Steven Johnson’s thesis: Twitter is a useful tool, allowing open conversations, real-time information, and inspiring innovation.
I agree with Johnson that open conversations through Twitter could improve previously internal discussions. Solving difficult problems can be made much easier drawing from a large variety of people with varying perspectives for input. I also agree that it has a great use in providing immediate information, especially in times of turmoil, such as in Iran and Haiti, to inform the world.
I disagree with Johnson’s minimizing of the distraction factor of Twitter. Though it may have some uses, it seems it’s most often for celebrity stalking and meaningless tweets, adding to the world’s fascination with staring at a screen.
I also disagree with the portrayal of the intimacy of Twitter as positive, when in many ways it is just misleading and creepy; believing you know someone well without ever needing to meet them or even identify yourself to them.
I am not currently using Twitter. I wasn't very interested in it and what I knew about it seemed to show it as a waste of time. After reading Johnson’s article, however, I think I’ll give it a try, mostly because I’ve become curious about it and want to glimpse its potential for myself.
Merchants of Cool
1.Culture spies are out cool hunting, trying to find the trend setters so they can sell the next new thing, allowing the teen-media connection to be a feedback loop of imitation.
2.Marketers study teens anthropologically to get their parents guilt money and give them what marketers want them to have. They even have their peers do the dirty work to better connect with the market.
3.Teen rebellion is just another product marketed and sponsored by the conglomerate media companies. Your parents and teachers are dumb, but the corporation understands you.
4.Marketers create terrible role models through the child-like “mook” and image obsessed “midriff” as well as television obsessed with sex and violence.
5.Cultural expression has just evolved into consumption and a reflection of corporate messages.
Three things I learned from Ad Nauseum, Parts 5 & 6:
1.Advertisers are desperate to try anything to win over consumers, as illustrated through various attempts at subliminal advertising.
2.Company mascots are designed to be “cute and comforting” simply to help sell products that they have nothing to do with.
3.Pranks can lighten the mood from the depressing outlook of advertising and corporate, consumer culture.
Part 5: My question is how can marketers actually believe they “give the people what they want” when all their efforts are put towards manipulating people into buying their products?
Part 6: My question is, pranks may be fun and cause some change, but how do we really change things?
“How Twitter Will Change the World”
Steven Johnson’s thesis: Twitter is a useful tool, allowing open conversations, real-time information, and inspiring innovation.
I agree with Johnson that open conversations through Twitter could improve previously internal discussions. Solving difficult problems can be made much easier drawing from a large variety of people with varying perspectives for input. I also agree that it has a great use in providing immediate information, especially in times of turmoil, such as in Iran and Haiti, to inform the world.
I disagree with Johnson’s minimizing of the distraction factor of Twitter. Though it may have some uses, it seems it’s most often for celebrity stalking and meaningless tweets, adding to the world’s fascination with staring at a screen.
I also disagree with the portrayal of the intimacy of Twitter as positive, when in many ways it is just misleading and creepy; believing you know someone well without ever needing to meet them or even identify yourself to them.
I am not currently using Twitter. I wasn't very interested in it and what I knew about it seemed to show it as a waste of time. After reading Johnson’s article, however, I think I’ll give it a try, mostly because I’ve become curious about it and want to glimpse its potential for myself.
Merchants of Cool
1.Culture spies are out cool hunting, trying to find the trend setters so they can sell the next new thing, allowing the teen-media connection to be a feedback loop of imitation.
2.Marketers study teens anthropologically to get their parents guilt money and give them what marketers want them to have. They even have their peers do the dirty work to better connect with the market.
3.Teen rebellion is just another product marketed and sponsored by the conglomerate media companies. Your parents and teachers are dumb, but the corporation understands you.
4.Marketers create terrible role models through the child-like “mook” and image obsessed “midriff” as well as television obsessed with sex and violence.
5.Cultural expression has just evolved into consumption and a reflection of corporate messages.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Ad Nauseum, "Get Smarter", "The Persuaders"
Ad Nauseum
The section “How Do Kids Read Commericials” was particularly disturbing. Just like “Consuming Kids”, it shows how consumption is ingrained into us as soon as we're born. What’s most bothersome to me is the blindness of people to their manipulation; they think they are making personal statements by buying something, but really they’re just playing into the hands of the advertisers. As it says “…kids unwittingly reciting slogans, believing advertising claims, and misunderstanding commercial motives”. They are doing just what “The Persuaders” want them to do, consuming on impulse, without questioning the motives of sellers. As illustrated in “Consuming Kids”, it shows the needs for regulation on advertising to kids, especially at school!
“Shopping Spies” shows the creepy advertising research that is required for people to get “inside our heads”. It reminds me of “The Persuaders” when the researcher asks the man if he feels lonely when eating white bread. Everything about it just seems wrong. It’s an invasion of privacy and just the definition of creepy, yet that is what the ad industry feeds on. If this work was for something like solving social problems, it would be one thing, but it’s just to figure out the “code” that will lead to ultimate consumption. Not only is it disgusting how marketing tries to get into our minds, its terrifying how its invisibly weaving its way into our lives. Restaurants avoiding selling water, pharmaceutical reps manipulating physicians, and movies that are essentially commercials; we seem to be headed toward total envelopment by advertising.
Get Smarter
“Get Smarter” shows that the adaptation required to modern evolving technology will make us more intelligent, using it to solve the increasingly complex problems that we face.
I agree that younger generations are much more adapted to technological change. Younger kids can figure out Facebook without effort, while older users struggle to comprehend how to use it correctly. This, however, is specifically related to technological change, and other change, such as sudden loss of this advanced technology, would be devastating to younger generations.
I also agree that technology has in some ways allowed us to become “wicked smart”, with access to data, simulation capabilities, and pattern-matching abilities. This external smarts is inarguably helpful in understanding and solving complex problems.
I disagree with his enthusiasm for increasing intellgence artificially. This seems unnecessary since I believe the current intellectual capabilities of human are far from fully utilized. He should look towards improvements in public education for solving our future problems.
I disagree with his idea that change happens slowly, rather it seems changes are coming increasingly quickly, with skeptics raising concerns over the unforeseen impacts. Texting, Facebook, Twitter, iphones, ipods, etc., all of these are extremely new phenomenons. How will the affect learning in school? Obesity? The environment?
The Persuaders
1.Ads are working to find a deep connection with viewers, so it no longer even feels like persuasion.
2.Marketers work to build cultures and experiences around their products.
3.People are unconsciously persuaded to manufacture needs for products and then try to justify these wants.
4.Entertainment and advertising are becoming indistguishable.
5.Politicians can now use narrow-casting to target very specific demographics with what appeals to those voters.
The section “How Do Kids Read Commericials” was particularly disturbing. Just like “Consuming Kids”, it shows how consumption is ingrained into us as soon as we're born. What’s most bothersome to me is the blindness of people to their manipulation; they think they are making personal statements by buying something, but really they’re just playing into the hands of the advertisers. As it says “…kids unwittingly reciting slogans, believing advertising claims, and misunderstanding commercial motives”. They are doing just what “The Persuaders” want them to do, consuming on impulse, without questioning the motives of sellers. As illustrated in “Consuming Kids”, it shows the needs for regulation on advertising to kids, especially at school!
“Shopping Spies” shows the creepy advertising research that is required for people to get “inside our heads”. It reminds me of “The Persuaders” when the researcher asks the man if he feels lonely when eating white bread. Everything about it just seems wrong. It’s an invasion of privacy and just the definition of creepy, yet that is what the ad industry feeds on. If this work was for something like solving social problems, it would be one thing, but it’s just to figure out the “code” that will lead to ultimate consumption. Not only is it disgusting how marketing tries to get into our minds, its terrifying how its invisibly weaving its way into our lives. Restaurants avoiding selling water, pharmaceutical reps manipulating physicians, and movies that are essentially commercials; we seem to be headed toward total envelopment by advertising.
Get Smarter
“Get Smarter” shows that the adaptation required to modern evolving technology will make us more intelligent, using it to solve the increasingly complex problems that we face.
I agree that younger generations are much more adapted to technological change. Younger kids can figure out Facebook without effort, while older users struggle to comprehend how to use it correctly. This, however, is specifically related to technological change, and other change, such as sudden loss of this advanced technology, would be devastating to younger generations.
I also agree that technology has in some ways allowed us to become “wicked smart”, with access to data, simulation capabilities, and pattern-matching abilities. This external smarts is inarguably helpful in understanding and solving complex problems.
I disagree with his enthusiasm for increasing intellgence artificially. This seems unnecessary since I believe the current intellectual capabilities of human are far from fully utilized. He should look towards improvements in public education for solving our future problems.
I disagree with his idea that change happens slowly, rather it seems changes are coming increasingly quickly, with skeptics raising concerns over the unforeseen impacts. Texting, Facebook, Twitter, iphones, ipods, etc., all of these are extremely new phenomenons. How will the affect learning in school? Obesity? The environment?
The Persuaders
1.Ads are working to find a deep connection with viewers, so it no longer even feels like persuasion.
2.Marketers work to build cultures and experiences around their products.
3.People are unconsciously persuaded to manufacture needs for products and then try to justify these wants.
4.Entertainment and advertising are becoming indistguishable.
5.Politicians can now use narrow-casting to target very specific demographics with what appeals to those voters.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Lack of TV, Excess of Books
Growing up in my family, the television was rarely on. We had one, but unlike everyone I knew, no channels. Despite occasional resentment or embarrassment at my family’s lack of this basic medium, I have come to support their decision. With few exceptions, I see little value in television, but that doesn’t mean I don’t find myself watching it sometimes. Trips to Grandma’s always included the chance to get some time with cable. Though I enjoyed the opportunity to watch TV, there was always a sense of relief to get home and away from its grasp.
I’ve always liked to watch a good movie or show, but I find commercials to be extremely annoying. I sometimes find myself watching the stupid ads, drawn to the screen by a force that seems unavoidable. The stupidity of the commercials that I find myself watching also works to remind me that whatever show I might be watching isn’t worth much either. I remember, however, sometimes feeling out of the loop at school. Kids would quote lines from last night’s show, often a program I had never even seen.
On a quite possibly related note, I’ve always enjoyed reading. I remember one summer in elementary school trying to out-read all the other summer reading participants. I can’t really grasp how someone can make such a sweeping statement, that they “don’t like to read”. On the other hand, I may be a hypocrite for generally saying that I don’t like television. Though you can watch a movie made about a book, reading the books always seems like time better spent. Reading a book is somehow less passive, more involved.
I give books credit for helping me with developing the ability to focus well and give me a huge advantage in school. While many kids get slowed down by their lack of reading skills, my reading experience made school easy. Lack of TV was also a substantial benefit to my education. No shows to watch after a busy day meant there was still time for homework to get done or a chapter to be read. By high school, the lack of television calling me to sit and watch became something I started to appreciate.
I think it’s also important to address my most recent encounters with TV. At college, my roommate has a TV in our room. I find it to be a distraction, but I’m learning how to avoid the draw of the screen. Most of the time if the TV’s on, I just have to go somewhere quiet to get anything accomplished. The TV seems like a good way to relax once in a while, but more often it seems to just waste my time. Usually, there’s something else I’d rather being doing than staring at a screen.
I’ve always liked to watch a good movie or show, but I find commercials to be extremely annoying. I sometimes find myself watching the stupid ads, drawn to the screen by a force that seems unavoidable. The stupidity of the commercials that I find myself watching also works to remind me that whatever show I might be watching isn’t worth much either. I remember, however, sometimes feeling out of the loop at school. Kids would quote lines from last night’s show, often a program I had never even seen.
On a quite possibly related note, I’ve always enjoyed reading. I remember one summer in elementary school trying to out-read all the other summer reading participants. I can’t really grasp how someone can make such a sweeping statement, that they “don’t like to read”. On the other hand, I may be a hypocrite for generally saying that I don’t like television. Though you can watch a movie made about a book, reading the books always seems like time better spent. Reading a book is somehow less passive, more involved.
I give books credit for helping me with developing the ability to focus well and give me a huge advantage in school. While many kids get slowed down by their lack of reading skills, my reading experience made school easy. Lack of TV was also a substantial benefit to my education. No shows to watch after a busy day meant there was still time for homework to get done or a chapter to be read. By high school, the lack of television calling me to sit and watch became something I started to appreciate.
I think it’s also important to address my most recent encounters with TV. At college, my roommate has a TV in our room. I find it to be a distraction, but I’m learning how to avoid the draw of the screen. Most of the time if the TV’s on, I just have to go somewhere quiet to get anything accomplished. The TV seems like a good way to relax once in a while, but more often it seems to just waste my time. Usually, there’s something else I’d rather being doing than staring at a screen.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
