Thursday, July 3, 2008

FREE.....


In today's society there is this large demand for resources and entertainment that is relatively cheap, and even better...for FREE. The word "FREE" is a key word used by many marketing companies to lure in business or popularity of their company. We are a society who feeds on what we can get our hands on with no cost to ourselves. Whether or not we need the item, when its free, you just can't get enough.

I remember as a child asking my dad to buy me some toy that all the other kids at school had and my dad's response was sure, but that I would have to do chores around the house first to earn the money. Frustrated with his response, I would say something to the effect of "why can't you just buy it for me or why can't the company just give me one, don't they have enough money?" and he replied, "sweetheart, nothing in life is free". His whole reasoning on the matter was that somewhere down the line, someone had to pay for it. Even if I essentially got my toy for free, my dad still had to pay for it.

In terms of today's society, the same is true. Even though business such as Cingular or Amazon.com offer incentives or promotional gifts, the "with purchase of" statement is never far to be found. While companies offer free gifts, the reasoning behind it is so that somewhere down the line giving a little in the beginning will result in them getting a lot in the end.

Therefore, the issue of whether or not access to everything should be free including media, is somewhat of a complicated matter. While its good and somewhat healthy for businesses to provide consumers with free resources and entertainment, I do not believe that everything should be provided for free.

I've driven down a residential street once and had seen a "FOR FREE" sign posted on an outdoor bbq grill. The grill had been abandoned by its owner, not because it didn't work, but most likely because it wasn't "good enough"...it was no longer useful or high in quality. Individuals are rarely willing to part with things of value or substantially high quality. Rarely do you see very many car dealers handing out Mercedes Benz vehicles for free. Free things are offered because they are of little worth. If everything is provided for free, the demand for quality in products will progressively decline since the return is substantially less.

Today one of the main issues with the record companies is that people today are less loyal to their music industries. More individuals do not buy cd's because today, only one or two songs on the 15 song cd are good. People indulge in the fact that things are free because in the long run, the free things do not hold a substantial worth to them. The things that are free typically do not amount to quality or physical value. However if something proves to be valuable enough then people would spend the money to own it.

Grey's my favorite color.....


When the distinction between black and white becomes hazy and all becomes gray….. The 1967 film, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", featuring Katherine Hepburn and Sidney Poitier, tells the story of a young couple living in a time of racial prejudice of interracial marriages. As a social commentary on the current controversy involving interracial marriages, the movie attempts to shed an optimistic light and inform the general public of the controversy.

Joanna Drayton, played by Katherine Hepburn, falls in love with Dr. John Wade Prentice, played by Sideney Poiter. As the two venture further into their socially forbidden love, Joanna takes John home to her hometown to present him to her parents. Mr. and Mrs. Drayton, known to be open-minded, non-prejudice individuals are nothing but shocked beyond belief as they abruptly discover the future intentions of their daughter and John.

While some may pass the movie by as just another drama, upon viewing it in its entirety, it is clear that it is a distinct commentary being made on the current societal viewpoints. The movie presents John as an intelligent and logical character who recognizes the problems that his relationship with Joanna poses. Simultaneously enveloped in his love for Joanna, he cautiously prevents himself from fully setting his hopes on their future. Because John is a respectable man he approaches Joanna’s parents and informs them that he will not pursue her if they do not give them their blessing. His timid attitude reflects a parallel with many people in society. Interracial marriages were looked down upon and many couples were badgered by their own race because of it. Tillie, the Drayton family’s cook, scolded John for his relationship with Joanna. She saw it from the viewpoint of many African Americans of that time. That African American people who became involved with the White individuals were in over their heads and taking advantage of those socially above them. As Tillie stated in the movie, “civil rights is one thing…this is something else”.

Similarly, the movie portrays Joanna’s character as having excessive traits of stubbornness and naivety. She acts as a parallel in characteristics of many other individuals of society in that time. While that part of society may not have been excessively naïve as the movie presents Joanna to be, because interracial marriages was a new and a controversial concept at the time, many people of both races, like Joanna, found it much easier to be blind to the obstacles a relationship as theirs would present. Joanna behaves as if she is living in a world where there is no black or white. As her parents raised her to be, she sees the world as neutral grey where skin color does not make one superior to the other. Consistently, despite the apparent disapproval and snarls thrown at them by the many who encounter them, she stubbornly fails to see any reason why their relationship is a problem.

The movie also presents a viewpoint through Mr. and Mrs. Drayton. Mrs. Drayton stated in the movie, that they raised and always told Joanna to never look down on the blacks…but they never told her not to fall in love with one. Interracial marriage for some was a slow and difficult process of understanding and acceptance. For Mr. and Mrs. Drayton, it was a struggle and learning experience that many people in society were slowly accustoming themselves to at the time. This movie successfully applied itself to all the major sides and standpoints over the controversial interracial marriages. The several viewpoints that the movie included provided for the viewer to question what standpoint they hold with the topic. It effectively allowed the viewer to identify them self with a character(s) in the movie and “place themselves in their shoes”. “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” causes viewers to think. It pushes them to dive in deeper past the cinematic features of the movie and fully engage themselves in the situations. By doing so, a further comprehension of the real message and each viewpoint within the movie could be entirely understood or at least recognized.


Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Satellite radio...essential or luxury?



XM radio, Serius, and other satellite radio stations have been rapidly emerging. These subscription based stations offer paying customers a wide variety of entertainment for any individual with varying tastes and interests. Subscribers are given access to music stations featuring the top 20 songs in the nation, Classical, R & B, Rap, Disco, Rock, Grunge, Hip Hop, Gospel, Christian, Alternative, Pop, Country, Indie, Blues, Jazz, almost any genre imaginable. Should a subscriber need to be updated on traffic or weather conditions, information is at the turn of the knob. For sports lovers, coverage of virtually any sport is offered on the station. As an added plus, entertainment channels such as talk shows and Broadway musicals are provided. Furthermore seasonal music such as Christmas songs have channels entirely devoted to them according to the season.

While the vast and almost endless list of varieties are available at the demands of the subscriber, as a paying customer of these services, I sometimes wonder if paying this monthly fee, is in the end worthwhile. This service typically costs me around $12 a month to have these features available to me, whereas before satellite radio evolved, I paid $0 to listen to the free regular radio in my car. I still listen to the same songs, the same artists and same genres of music that I always have but now I just pay for it. The other day I was at work and we were listening to FM 104.9, and typically like any other radio station, callers call in and talk to the show host on air. This particular conversation involved this woman showing off her dog whose bark resembled the phrase “I love you”. A day later, I jumped in my car, turned on my satellite radio and heard the exact same conversation being broadcasted! I couldn’t believe it! I was paying $12 a month to listen to a re-airing of a free radio station! I have all these options of entertainment and music channels available but rarely do I venture beyond my usual 3 or 4 stations. It seems ludicrous that I knowingly pay for services I do not use and that I listen to broadcasts that are already free.

I must say that it is quite enjoyable to take a road trip and not have to waste time fumbling around trying to find a clear radio station for that area. However, satellite radio also has its weaknesses in signal strength. For example, in parking garages, under overpasses, or in any tunnel, reception is dreadful. I would be listening to my favorite song and boom, no more radio.

While none of these complaints are substantial deal breakers in my eyes, it makes me wonder where exactly our radioscape is headed. Our society has made us consumers of products and technologies that we simply do not need. They appeal to our culture-cultivated consumer desires for luxurious products that supposedly enrich our way of living. I do not need 256 channels of satellite radio. I only listen to about 4 channels on a consistent basis and yet I am very guilty of buying into this excessive need for more. Our culture has taught us to crave unnecessary material objects that ultimately waste our time and money. I think it has to do with the fact that we, specifically Americans, love to indulge ourselves. More is always better and the more options provided to us, the happier we “believe” we will be, until of course something new comes along and then we must have that too. I think that we as Americans love to have options, because it gives us a sense of self-power. It makes us feel as if we have the ability to CHOOSE what we want to hear and the accessibility of all options at our fingertips. Our society, myself included, will blindly hand over money to businesses providing us with such options, because the options gradually become an essential in our daily way of living.

Right now radio broadcasting is free for anyone owning a car or a radio in general. At the rate that new technologies are evolving, with the steady rate of the consumer need for more, I see satellite radio taking over as a dominant broadcasting system, not because the services are substantially better than free radio, but because people will always pay for the things that society tells them they need.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Hulu is my hero.....


I am a huge fan of DVR, TiVo or any device that allows me to watch my favorite shows at any given time, wherever I want, for however long as I like. Conceptual design of these devices are ingenious! With the busy lifestyles that we lead, very few of us find the time to sit down and watch an episode much less an entire series on a consistent basis. Things come up, deadlines need to met, and so on. So the ability to watch an entertainment show at your own pace is simply amazing. However one pitfall of recording devices such as DVR is that what happens when you have 3 shows that you love that all are airing at the same time. Well, you could record two and watch one, but what happens if you don't have time to watch any of the three or if the airing times were off and your DVR didn't tape 10 mins after 9pm even though the show was began 10 minutes late? Well luckily a new service is being provided to tv audiences. It is the ability to watch shows online. Big corporations such as FOX, CBS, and ABC post their episodes online so that viewers can watch their favorite tv shows at their own convenience as well as to broaden the viewing audience of their shows.

Today in class I was informed about Hulu. Hulu is an online website that provides viewers with NBC and FOX tv shows along with movies as well. After tinkering with the website and checking out what it has to offer, I cannot help but proclaim that Hulu is my hero. I am so busy with my school and work schedule that watching television shows and movies are last on my priority list. Primarily this website is helpful because it does not require me to go to 4 different websites to watch episodes from different stations. Granted not all tv shows are featured on the site, a large variety is offered to please any individual. Furthermore, another plus with Hulu is that you don’t have to be at home to watch it. With TiVo and DVR you have to sit at home and watch all your episodes. You can’t take it with you and watch it at a coffee shop downtown, whereas with Hulu you can, granted you internet access. I think that with today’s forever increasing busy lifestyles, having entertainment available that is portable is key.

Additionally, the website itself is wonderful because it is easy to navigate and use. Listings are found alphabetically, by season, by networks, and by popularity so its simple enough for anyone to use. While some postings are better than others, most episode listings are easy to follow based on sequence. This is increasingly helpful when trying to catch up on a whole season of episodes!






Sunday, June 22, 2008

the battle of the social classes


A distinct separation between social classes has always existed throughout history. This barrier, which separates the two, often provides those of higher social standing with what is commonly considered a privileged life of superior attention and treatment. Such an inferior treatment of those who are less fortunate than others seems to be an unmerited fate for many both in earlier and modern days. Social classes that developed in both time periods have negative effects on the people associated within each group.

In the novel, Water for Elephants an elderly man reminisces of his earlier days during the depression of life in the circus. Jacob, in his young age as a soon to be Cornell veterinary graduate finds himself running off to work with the circus to escape the sorrows of the death of his parents. In doing so, he finds himself a job as a workingman in the Benzini Brother’s Most Spectacular Show on Earth. However after a few months, he finds himself working as the show’s on call veterinarian. Between his two vocational positions in the circus a distinct difference is shown as he moves up in social class.

Differences in classes in earlier days could be specifically seen in the way the individuals were treated. As a workingman, also known as a “roustabout”, Jacob was overlooked. He was a man behind the scenes. Much like in modern days these men did most of the work, which essentially made the show happen, and these men performed these tasks without any recognition or praise. Back then their social class steered far clear from any unnecessary contact with the upper class in order to avoid any altercations that could potentially arise. They were not to mix company, associate or even dine with members of higher status. To attempt to dine with members of higher or lower status than you would be to commit social suicide and would be looked greatly down upon. In one instance of the book Jacob is surprised to see the remarkable difference between dining areas designated for the roustabouts from that set aside for the performers, “kinkers” as they were commonly referred to by the working men. Kinkers were given large wide tables with red and white-checkered tablecloths, silverware and even glass vases with flowers. While workingmen on the other hand, were given the bare essentials: a wooden table with nothing but salt and peppershakers on top. Workingmen in those days were seen as servants whose workload far exceeded the compensation that they received. While both roustabouts and performers were part of the same team in putting the circus together, the fact that they originated from separate social classes distanced themselves from each other. Instead of working as an entire team they worked only for their own group without acknowledging the effort and work of the other.

Additionally individuals of lower social status were often forced to live under harsher conditions. As a workingman, Jacob was given room and board within a horse stock car in which his bed was comprised of a mildew infested horse blanket. Whereas, August, the equestrian director and superintendent of the animals, received a fully furnished and decorated box car for him and his wife Marlena to share as their private dwelling place. Such a substantial difference in social class was not uncommon in earlier days due to the difference in the amount of wealth or social renown the individuals in each class obtained. However social status did not only exist among large populations but also within social societies as well. Within the group of performers a separation between those of higher social standing and lower standing were formed. For example, Walter, who shared living space with Jacob, was a performer. He held higher social standing than that of the roustabouts. However, he held lower status among the performers and found himself living in the horse stock car alone, before Jacob arrived. Partial treatment among the differing social classes easily provided roots for division among the classes.

As Jacob moved up in social status he transitioned into the position as the circus’ veterinarian and obvious changes in treatment and privileges were distinctly seen. Conditions improved as his makeshift bed made from a old horse blanket was traded out for a bedroll, pillow and brightly colored plaid blanket. Furthermore, Jacob found himself treated to lavish private dinner parties where he was given opportunities to indulge in fine food, alcoholic drinks, extravagant clothing and wealthy company. In any circumstance, both past and present, when one individual or groups of people are treated with a higher regard over the other, a sense of jealousy or anger is quickly planted in the minds and hearts of the lesser class.

A sense of social ranking was also present in Jacob’s later days as a resident of the nursing home. Social status was not determined by wealth but rather in terms of coherency and need for medical attention. Residents who were ill or perceived to be mentally ill received specialized treatment whether they wanted it or not. In one instance, the medical staff believed that Jacob was overly aggressive due to being depressed and prescribed him a sedative as well as scheduled him for different meals that would be more suitable for him and his condition. Those who were categorized as being handicap in any regard were limited to the activities they were allowed to participate in. Additionally those individuals were required to have added assistance for simple activities. Where as residents who were categorized as healthier, coherent individuals were allowed to perform and engage in individual tasks on their own. On one occasion Jacob explained his frustration in the fact that simple tasks as taking a shower or walking down the hallway required approval from medical caregivers. He even mentioned how such restrictions made him feel inferior. Social classes negatively affect individuals emotionally. A sense of self worth can be damaged or even diminished when limitations or restrictions are placed on a group of individuals based on social standing.

Another product of social classes is resentment for the prevailing class. Similar to earlier days in Jacob’s life social classes in his days at the nursing home were determined by popularity. Popularity was gained through the amount of intrigue an individual could provide for the other residents. Old Man McGuinty, a senile resident of the nursing home gained his position in his social class by fascinating the other residents with his misguided stories of being a water carrier for the elephants in the circus. Regardless that McGuinty’s stories were untrue, others believed him and found interest in them, gaining him a higher social status over Jacob in his own group of friends. Resentment and bitterness swarmed over Jacob as he now found himself alone in a lower social class.

Social classes exist both in the past and the present. There is no age limit or community that is exempt from such a prevalent occurrence. Social classes cause division and rivalry amongst those in separate classes. It overly magnifies the differences between the two and hinders individuals from taking notice of what they largely share in common. Jacob’s memories of his days in the circus and at the nursing home both reflect how social classes negatively affect communities of people. They divide and demolish rather than unify and create constructive bonds among people who are inherently similar to begin with.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Bare Escentuals is my Lovemark!!!!


"Lovemarks reach your heart as well as your mind, creating an intimate, emotional connection that you just can’t live without. Ever." This idea of "Lovemarks" evolved from dead marketing. Its what some call "the future beyond brands". When hearing this term "Lovemark" I was so confused as much as I was deeply intrigued. This idea of a brand becoming something that has an emotional and almost intimate hold over you, just seemed so ridiculous. I remember distinctly thinking to myself, "What? No, way...I am SO not attached to any of my material objects, much less a BRAND". BUT after going through an extensive list of all the items I possess, I've found my Lovemark.

As strange as this is, my Lovemark is Bare Escentuals. Its sort of a strange brand to call your Lovemark and you must be thinking to yourself, “What?!?! Make-up! That’s her Lovemark?”…but let me explain.

For most women, beauty is something that we internally crave. Whether we admit it or not the idea of achieving the ideal beauty standards is important to us. This societal view of beauty has constantly been drummed into minds of women through use of advertisements, media and just our culture in general. Such a fact should give me more of a reason to dislike this culture created brand, and yet I simply cannot live without it.

I love Bare Escentuals....all of the makeup I own is made by Bare Essentials. I love everything about it: the immense variety of colors. The vast selection of brushes and tools just makes me go crazy. Perhaps my love for makeup is rooted in the fact that I’m an artist and I love everything and anything to do with color and painting. In a sense putting on makeup is an art form. There’s a sense of technique and creativity that is involved in applying makeup. But that doesn’t necessarily explain why Bare Escentuals, specifically is my Lovemark.

Bare Essentials is my Lovemark because they as a brand provide me with tools that enable me to look and feel my best. One of their marketing slogans is "Dare to be Bare". Women would love to feel comfortable in their own skin without external use of makeup. However, the reality of it is that many women are not comfortable with the way they look. This make up brand gives you the “Bare Essentials” to reflect how you truly view yourself. This makeup, unlike any other brand of make up does not add a "cakey-makey" layer of makeup to your face. This brand, made of natural minerals, evens out uneven skintones while preserving the natural look of your face. Its sheer composition goes on so thinly that you forget you are wearing makeup while still providing you with a radiant glow. That may seem somewhat of a shallow statement by saying makeup makes me feel better about myself when I should be content with how I look in the first place. However, when my outer appearance reflects how I think and view myself from the within, the self conscious wall that divides me from the person I really am is torn down and the confident and self-assured individual I truly am is released.


Monday, June 16, 2008

banning books? agree or disagree....


To be honest, I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue. Banning books seems to be a slippery slope. It is understandable that individuals would prefer certain books to be removed from children's or school libraries due to issues of appropriateness. However it seems as if by doing so we are merely taking away opportunities of growth for these children. The reason why many books are banned from schools today is due to content controversies in which the book is considered risqué or crude. Yet the removal of books, I feel, is doing the youth a disservice. It is deciding for them what is inappropriate, rather than allowing them to form their own decisions and stand points. I feel that we should allow books, appropriate or not in schools, given some restrictions. Obviously inappropriate books should not be given to an eight year old, who would not fully comprehend the content of the book, much less the deeper meanings intended to be learned. However, for older children, books that are banned could successfully be used as teaching tools for children to examine the controversies surrounding the book. Therefore the children themselves are able to discern the appropriateness of the book. It allows room for children to engage in critical discussion about the context in which this book was written and why it should be considered appropriate or not. I think that its important that we allow children to figure out issues like this on their own rather than deciding for them. Many times the reason children perceive something as right or wrong is because we tell them it is a certain way. I feel that it is somewhat crippling a child's ability to be dependent on their own reasoning. Children generally have an understanding of what is good or bad and I feel like we overly try to sugar coat things for them in attempts to protect them from what we think to be harmful, when in actuality we are the ones hindering them.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Are you calling me a FAKER?


As a graphic designer and photographer, Photoshop is a God-send. Photoshop is a software that allows me to create, collage, and design practically anything that I may formulate in my mind. However, Photoshop, as wonderful of tool that it may be, can also be a tool of destruction, costing photojournalists their jobs. Recently, a controversy has appeared over the use of digital manipulation in photojournalism. Photojournalism like most forms of journalism is driven by evidence and fact. However, when it or any portion of the work is questioned,the work as a whole is diminished and looses credibility.

We all know that the models on the front pages of magazines are ridiculously touched up and essentially fake. For example pictures of celebrities such as Kate Winslet or Katie Couric are manipulated to provide an enhanced or idealized look of the individual. Photographers will add or take out items of the photos to ensure that their image looks the way they intended it to look. In the same regard, newspaper photographers’ and advertisers’ use manipulation in the same way. However advertisements are not the issue at hand. In newspapers, photojournalists are using Photoshop to enhance or reinforce their idea. Whether its right or wrong, is the question.


In one instance, the LA Times, had to retract their image from the front page of the paper because the photographer, Brian Walski digitally manipulated his photographs to create a separate image. His manipulations with the photo would have gone unnoticed however, the photographer failed to notice that the same man appeared twice in the manipulated photograph. While I understand that the actual event depicted in the image did not occur, I would still argue that the image is valid and a true depiction of what was going on during that given moment in time. The National Press Photographers Association stated in their “Digital Manipulation Code of Ethics” that "altering the content of a photograph in any way deceives the public…”. While I would not go so far as to say that it Walski was right to alter his photograph. I would still say that it was an accurate depiction of an event in Iraq. In response to the code of ethics, I understand how it may be seen as deceiving the public. However, despite Walski’s large mistake for not posting it as a photo-illustration, I believe that the content and substance of his photograph was not altered and therefore it is an accurate portrayal of true events that occurred in Iraq.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Goodnight and Goodluck.....


To individuals who were around in the 1950’s the phrase, “Goodnight and Good Luck” rings a bell. The CBS reporter, Edward R. Murrow, used the signature phrase. Murrow was a reporter who defied the rules placed on journalism and television broadcasting. He was responsible for the end of McCarthyism by exposing senator McCarthy for his unjust accusations on individuals as communists.

The movie, “Goodnight and Good Luck” was a movie release in 2005. The movie, which accurately portrayed the events that occurred in the 1950’s, leaves us with the question of why now? Why in 2005, did George Clooney decide to write and direct a movie based on events from all the way back in 1950?

I think that one of main reasons is because it’s relevant. In the 1950’s there was a huge commotion about communists and everyone was scared that their next-door neighbor was an involved in a communist group. Today, the scare is that, this person or that person over there is terrorist. Much like the people who lived in the 1950’s, we live in a society of fear. Whether negatively or positively we are driven and swayed by our fear and that is what causes us to question everything and everyone around us. We allow ourselves to overlook vital and even obvious details and jump to conclusions on who someone is based on association or speculation.

Another reason that this movie is relevant is because of the level of censorship that occurred and is occurring both now and today. In the movie, there were several instances where Murrow was “strongly advised” or even told not to report certain details or matters. Today, I feel as if that is happening all around us. With the war going on in Iraq we are only given information and images that are previously approved by government. While it may be in the government’s or news corporations best intentions or even in their interest to select information, it seems to be that there is always someone somewhere high up the chain who gets to decide what common individuals, like you and I get to know.




Friday, June 6, 2008

Millennials on the Rise




(click to enlarge comic)


I am without a doubt a “Millennial”. There are many factors and characteristics of being a millennial and while many are applicable there are some that I would have to say do not apply to myself. As a millennial, I consider myself an efficient, multi-tasking, tech savvy individual, as George Rodman described our generation in his book, Mass Media in a Changing World. I, like many of my other peers thrive on our ability to constantly be connected to our family, friends and external community at the touch of a button. Often times when I forget to bring my cell phone to school or work, I automatically feel this anxiety and almost nauseating withdrawal from this separation with my phone. While such a reaction to a moment, God-forbid an entire day, without my prized technological possession may seem absurd, it fully demonstrates just how much of a technology dependent millennial I am.

An article entitled, “Tomorrow’s Consumers”, suggests how we are a mom-dependent generation who believes that if things do not go our way, mommy dearest will fix everything. Such a generalization bothers me. While there is a good amount of individuals who obtain the “mommy can fix it” mentality, I believe that there is a substantial group of people who are independent and are capable of being responsible for themselves. On the same note, it seems to be that it is more of a reflection on the parents who raised the individuals with the "mommy can fix it mentality" than it is on the children themselves. The CBS story entitled “The ‘Millennials’ Are Coming”, described us as a generation hungry for praise and yet at the same time a generation who’s laid back work style lacks effort. Once again, these comments which characterize us as a whole, versus as individuals, frustrates me. Not all parents sugar-coat or try to erase failure. My parents used failure as a teaching tool. They allowed me to fail so that I would learn how to avoid finding myself in the same daunting situation and that is why I do not feel that perception of millennials is accurate. Furthermore, in response to the comment that was made about students having their mother's approach their teachers about grades, I have never once or never will resort to such measures. I have never thought to myself, I deserve an A because I'm paying for it. To achieve greatness you must work hard and be diligent under all circumstances. It has always been to my understanding since a young age that praise and recognition is not something that is readily attainable. It is something that must be worked for and earned and I feel that many of us millennials do just that. While I feel that many of us fit into the characteristics that make us millennials, I feel that is undeserved that many of us are to be referred to or classified as an obstinate, self serving, or lazy.

We are a very social oriented generation and we respond effectively to relational guidance and friendship over dictatorship. In the article "
Make a Connection With Tech-Savvy Millennials" it states how we can bridge the gap between our generations. As millennials, we have a lot to offer older generations as do they have to teach us. Instead of getting on each other's cases we should be focusing on what we have to offer the other.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Stop it Copy Cats!



When reflecting on the effects of mass ownership of all media, the decline of original thought these days is absolutely on its way. As media conglomerates become larger through the buy outs of smaller corporations, the likelihood of a decline in original thought in media is eminent. Media conglomerates such as News Corp., Time Warner, General Electric, and Disney are prime examples. These large corporations are competing to become the "top dog" in their arena. Because of this competitive drive to be number one, I believe that all media will eventually be under one corporation, which therefore means that all media will be produced by that one company.

Even today there is little trace of original thought. The post modernist idea of no original works or thoughts has swept over the media spectrum. Corporations fight to be the highest power based on the responses they receive from their audience. The more interest an audience shows in a corporation, the more power they hold. When fellow corporations see a great response, they mimic the same success tactics while adding an additional twist expecting greater success. There are prime examples of this on television all the time. I have chose crime dramas as a chief example. When you turn on the TV, one can find: CSI (a couple different versions), NCSI, Law & Order, and Shark, etc. I use this example to demonstrate that corporations leech off of one another's success and are in battle to outdo one another. However, I believe these corporations fail to realize is that the reason why a certain type of show flourishes is the fact that it is different and unique – not a copycat of another show. People are drawn to individuality. Corporations should stop mimicking one another and come up with something new and inventive. Corporations need to focus more on producing quality media of substance rather than focusing only on numbers. I believe true power comes when a corporation alters their approach from solely caring about outdoing the competition to creating quality media that will draw in the masses.