Blog # 6- William Campbell
The impact television has had on the culture of man for the past 60 years has certainly been greater than any other force. Television has become the source of almost everything for man. It reports news, entertains the masses, regulates commerce, dictates lifestyles, defines social issues, and captures our attention for close to fifteen percent of our lives. Because of the profound experience that is television, it is often blamed for all our social ills and for the general failings of western civilization. Violence in television and its effects on children has been rigorously studied for decades. There are experts who state with certainty that violent television breeds violent behavior in children in addition to other undesirable behaviors. Conversely, there are experts who feel any tampering with the art of television is in violation of our first amendment rights and is purely a form of censorship. These experts place the responsibility of programming and of what children view squarely on the shoulders of parents.
It has been 20 years since the National Institute of Mental Health informed the public of their field study findings that violent television programs led to violent behavior in children and teenagers. Later research has defined three specific responses to viewing violence. (1) “Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others,” (2) “Children may be more fearful of the world around them,” and (3) “Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.”(American Psychological Association, p.249) Later real-life studies seemed to back up the field studies especially with regards to long term responses. Leonard Eron, Ph.D., and his associates at the University of Illinois, discovered that those who watched a great deal of television violence as children showed more aggressive behavior upon reaching their teens. These same subjects were more likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes as adults.(American Psychological Association, p.250) While there are many reasons why children include violence in their day to day play and dealings, it is known “from both therapeutic and cognitive perspectives, children use play to work out an understanding of experience, including the violence to which they are exposed.”(Levin, p.254) In other words, children are constantly struggling to work out and understand the violence in their lives. One of the outcomes of this effort to understand violence often leaves the child out of control and frightened, and, thus diverted from the positive lessons we want them to learn.(Levin, p.255) Children tend to see bad guys and violent behavior as one dimensional and do not understand what may make them bad in the first place. Good guys, on the other hand, are allowed to do whatever horrible things that need to be done just because they are good.(Levin, p.255) Children tend to want to play the role of the good guy or the superhero and often imitate violent behavior, especially during popular war play. George Gerbner, in his essay, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World,” describes television as being more than simple programming, “…television is a mythology-highly organically connected, repeated every day so that the themes that run through all programming and news have the effect of cultivating conceptions of reality.”(Gerbner, p. 263) He goes on to say that growing up with television violence has three major costs, that when operating together creates what he calls the “mean world syndrome.” Viewed separately, the costs are (1) The programming “reinforces the worst fears and apprehension of people,” (2) The programming “desensitizes viewers to victimization and suffering,” and (3) The programming creates “the pervasive sense of insecurity and vulnerability” and people “are afraid of strangers and meeting other people.”(Gerbner, p.263) These costs closely resemble the three responses to violence the American Psychological Association defined earlier. Gerbner feels television violence is driven by the system of global marketing and in this form acts to censure what writers can write and producers can produce. He cites polls which list 85 percent of the participants as saying they want less violence in television programming. The problem is that the action of violent programming sells well on the world market, and in Gerbner’s opinion, within the marketing system of television “cultural decision making is now out of democratic reach.”(Gerbner, p.264)
While there is often general agreement that violence in television poses a potential threat to children, there are arguments as to how much of a threat it poses and disagreement with the methods of dealing with the threat. In his essay, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV,” Mike Males brings to light the often overlooked connection between children and parents. Males quotes James Baldwin from “Nobody Knows My Name,” “Children have never been very good at listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them.”(Males, p.268) The contention is that violent behavior begins at home. While many point the finger at kids and the television programming that is claimed to corrupt them, federal reports show an increasing problem with alcohol and drug related crimes among adults who are the age group that are the parents of today’s children.(Males, p.271) Children do as parents do and react to violence as their parents react. The resolution of this issue becomes less complicated in theory than the TV violence and children connection. Males writes, “The inescapable conclusion is this: If you want to change juvenile behavior, change adult behavior.” Another school of thought focuses on the responsibility of parents to their children by taking action at home to “vote with the remote” or to simply turn the television off. “Don’t like it? Don’t watch it,”(Goodman, p.259) writes Tim Goodman, a media critic, in his article for the San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 2001. Goodman contends the attack on television programming is wrong, is pure censorship, and blames the media for lax parenting.
The issue of violence in television will continue to be debated for years to come. The two sides of the debate, without empirical evidence to decide the outcome, will continue to promote their theories. To some, television will always be the demon. Gerbner feels television should not have the power to “drive an entire culture,” and children have “the right to be born into a more diverse, more fair, more sane, more equitable cultural environment.”(Gerbner, p.265) Others feel the issues of violence begin at home. Goodman writes, “Television is not the problem in our society. It may always be the scapegoat, but it’s nothing more than a bastard machine, not half as disturbing as the real thing.”(Goodman, p.260) Still others will straddle the argument and point out that we live in violent and threatening times as witnessed by September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Levin feels any solution should “require adults to create a more peaceful world and limit children’s exposure to media violence…”(Levin, p.256)
Works Cited
American Psychological Association, “Violence on Television-
What Do Children Learn? What can Parents Do?”
www.apa.org/pi/pii/vio&tv.hmtl. Copyright by American Psychological
Association, 2003.
George Gerbner, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World.” The Ecology of
Justice, Context Institute, (IC#38). Spring, 1994.
Diane E. Levin, “Beyond Banning War and Superhero Play:
Meeting Children’s Needs in Violent Times.” Young Children, May, 2003.
Mike Males, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV.” The Progressive,
October, 1997.
Tim Goodman, “Hate Violence? Turn It Off.” San Francisco
Chronicle, April 29, 2001.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Blog#5 WmCampbell
Blog #5-William Campbell
“Teen Missing!” “Huge Meat Recall!” “Road Rage Rampage!”
These frightening headlines scream at us from the front pages of newspapers, from the pages magazines, from the speakers of radios, and from television and computer screens daily. At every turn, we are beaten and influenced by mass media as they attempt to get our attention. Mass media is motivated by a massive marketing system that counts on our ears and eyes to survive. Hype, hooks, bias, and sensationalism are some of the methods used to grab our interest. One simple fact is we as human readers and listeners respond to the horrors of scary reporting. In her essay, “The Female Fear Factor,” Myrna Blythe quoted Los Angeles Times reporter David Shaw, “The media, after all, pays the most attention to those substances, issues, and situations that most frighten their readers and viewers. Thus, most every day, we read and see and hear about a new purported threat to our health and safety.”(Blythe, p.100) Blythe goes on to say, “When it comes to selling fear, television and women’s magazines live by one rule-there’s no such thing as overkill, no pun intended.”(Blythe, p.99) Problems occur when the media rely on hype to sell reporting. John Stossel, in his essay, “Extreme Reality: How Media Coverage Exaggerates Risks and Dangers,” quotes Bob Lichter, president for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, “[The media] stir up problems that really aren’t there…this…poses a real danger to the public.”( Stossel, p.91) Lichter also states, “Bad journalism is worse than no journalism, because it leaves people thinking they know something that is, in fact, wrong.”(Stossel, p.91) We watch, listen to, and read the news to be informed of the world around us, and we are often told that the world is a scary, ruthless, dangerous, and violent place. Often, this interpretation is nowhere near the reality we know. Jane Ellen Stevens, in her essay, “The Violence Reporting project: A New Approach to Covering Crime,” notes that “the media give much less attention and space to common violent incidents, those that involve people who are not famous, or those in which only one person is killed or injured by an acquaintance or relative.”(Stevens, p.113)
When confronted, corporate media responds by saying they are simply giving the public what it wants. Certainly, they feel this is true as we do watch, listen, and read what they present as newsworthy. In the short term we can combat this by looking at the news media in a critical way and try to separate the hype and bias from the reality. We need to resist becoming less sensitive and withdrawn as a method of coping with the horrors of today’s news. We need to turn to alternative and independent news sources and support and expand their healing efforts. Perhaps this can become a strong message to corporate media that we require a change …”to return to covering the important issues of our day and away from sensationalized hype.”(Phillips, p.106)
Works Cited
“Teen Missing!” “Huge Meat Recall!” “Road Rage Rampage!”
These frightening headlines scream at us from the front pages of newspapers, from the pages magazines, from the speakers of radios, and from television and computer screens daily. At every turn, we are beaten and influenced by mass media as they attempt to get our attention. Mass media is motivated by a massive marketing system that counts on our ears and eyes to survive. Hype, hooks, bias, and sensationalism are some of the methods used to grab our interest. One simple fact is we as human readers and listeners respond to the horrors of scary reporting. In her essay, “The Female Fear Factor,” Myrna Blythe quoted Los Angeles Times reporter David Shaw, “The media, after all, pays the most attention to those substances, issues, and situations that most frighten their readers and viewers. Thus, most every day, we read and see and hear about a new purported threat to our health and safety.”(Blythe, p.100) Blythe goes on to say, “When it comes to selling fear, television and women’s magazines live by one rule-there’s no such thing as overkill, no pun intended.”(Blythe, p.99) Problems occur when the media rely on hype to sell reporting. John Stossel, in his essay, “Extreme Reality: How Media Coverage Exaggerates Risks and Dangers,” quotes Bob Lichter, president for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, “[The media] stir up problems that really aren’t there…this…poses a real danger to the public.”( Stossel, p.91) Lichter also states, “Bad journalism is worse than no journalism, because it leaves people thinking they know something that is, in fact, wrong.”(Stossel, p.91) We watch, listen to, and read the news to be informed of the world around us, and we are often told that the world is a scary, ruthless, dangerous, and violent place. Often, this interpretation is nowhere near the reality we know. Jane Ellen Stevens, in her essay, “The Violence Reporting project: A New Approach to Covering Crime,” notes that “the media give much less attention and space to common violent incidents, those that involve people who are not famous, or those in which only one person is killed or injured by an acquaintance or relative.”(Stevens, p.113)
When confronted, corporate media responds by saying they are simply giving the public what it wants. Certainly, they feel this is true as we do watch, listen, and read what they present as newsworthy. In the short term we can combat this by looking at the news media in a critical way and try to separate the hype and bias from the reality. We need to resist becoming less sensitive and withdrawn as a method of coping with the horrors of today’s news. We need to turn to alternative and independent news sources and support and expand their healing efforts. Perhaps this can become a strong message to corporate media that we require a change …”to return to covering the important issues of our day and away from sensationalized hype.”(Phillips, p.106)
Works Cited
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Blog #4 Wm Campbell
Blog #4-Campbell
In his essay, “With these words I can Sell You Anything,” William Lutz analyzes how certain words and combined phrases are used by advertisers to sell their products and ideas to unsuspecting consumers. Lutz has chosen specific examples of words and phrases and calls them “weasel words.” (Lutz, p.31) With many like products on the market in today’s consumer world, advertisers go to great length to show how their products differ from those of the many competitors. Because of existing consumer protection laws, advertisers have to be careful how they word their ads and what claims they make about the target products. To avoid making false claims, certain “weasel words” are used and these words and phrases appear to make bold claims but when analyzed really make no claims at all. Lutz describes the most used “weasel words,” looks at the true dictionary meaning of each, and then shows how they are used connotatively to the advantage of the advertisers. He warns the consumer that each word in an ad is chosen carefully for a specific reason, and while “weasel words” are dangerous, all words must be looked at critically. He points out it is the consumer’s job to figure out what each word is doing in a certain ad.
Mr. Lutz has chosen the several familiar words most commonly used in advertising which mislead and deceive the consumer. These words are “help,” “virtually,” “new,” “improved,” “acts fast,” “like,” “magic,” “better,” “extra,” “fresh,” “clean,” “beautiful,” “free,” “good,” “clean,” “great,” and “light.” He shows in great detail how they “appear to be making a claim for a product when in fact they are making no claim at all.” (Lutz, p. 32) Lutz’s defines these words as “weasel words” which stems from the weasel’s penchant of raiding a hen house, piercing the eggs found there, sucking out the contents, and leaving the empty shells behind. An example of this would be the use of “helps relieve” in an ad. Consumers who read the ad often brush over the simple word “helps” and read the stronger word ”relieves”, and this dramatic word ends up being all that is remembered. Lutz shows that the word “help,” which he describes as the number one “weasel word,” only means to aid and does not promise to end or cure or solve. Likewise, the word “relieve” means only to ease and makes no promise to stop or end. “New and improved” is another example of advertising doublespeak. Lutz explains that while there are certain requirements placed on the manufacturer to have its products classified as “new” or “improved,” these requirements are small and often are never challenged. Because of this, “new and improved” only means slightly different and not necessarily better. It could mean that the product is more expensive, though. So, when translated literally, these ads are not really saying anything and are like the empty egg shells.
Lutz identified his subject clearly with the use of many specific examples of “weasel words” and their literal translation, and this helped the essay to be very instructive. His understanding of the world of language and visuals in advertising was presented in a convincing and factual manner. This essay of definition was written somewhat informally in the second person and was directed personally to the reader, often in the form of questions that the reader should ask when looking at an ad. This effectively draws in the reader and asks that as consumers we think about what we see and hear in ads. As any consumers are suspicious and critical of the ways advertisers use “doublespeak” and attempt to dictate values, Lutz suggests, “Only by becoming an active, critical consumer of the doublespeak of advertising will you ever be able to cut through the doublespeak and discover what the ad is really saying.” (Lutz, p.38)
Works Cited
William Lutz, “With These Words I Can Sell You Anything.” Doublespeak, HarperCollins, 1989.
In his essay, “With these words I can Sell You Anything,” William Lutz analyzes how certain words and combined phrases are used by advertisers to sell their products and ideas to unsuspecting consumers. Lutz has chosen specific examples of words and phrases and calls them “weasel words.” (Lutz, p.31) With many like products on the market in today’s consumer world, advertisers go to great length to show how their products differ from those of the many competitors. Because of existing consumer protection laws, advertisers have to be careful how they word their ads and what claims they make about the target products. To avoid making false claims, certain “weasel words” are used and these words and phrases appear to make bold claims but when analyzed really make no claims at all. Lutz describes the most used “weasel words,” looks at the true dictionary meaning of each, and then shows how they are used connotatively to the advantage of the advertisers. He warns the consumer that each word in an ad is chosen carefully for a specific reason, and while “weasel words” are dangerous, all words must be looked at critically. He points out it is the consumer’s job to figure out what each word is doing in a certain ad.
Mr. Lutz has chosen the several familiar words most commonly used in advertising which mislead and deceive the consumer. These words are “help,” “virtually,” “new,” “improved,” “acts fast,” “like,” “magic,” “better,” “extra,” “fresh,” “clean,” “beautiful,” “free,” “good,” “clean,” “great,” and “light.” He shows in great detail how they “appear to be making a claim for a product when in fact they are making no claim at all.” (Lutz, p. 32) Lutz’s defines these words as “weasel words” which stems from the weasel’s penchant of raiding a hen house, piercing the eggs found there, sucking out the contents, and leaving the empty shells behind. An example of this would be the use of “helps relieve” in an ad. Consumers who read the ad often brush over the simple word “helps” and read the stronger word ”relieves”, and this dramatic word ends up being all that is remembered. Lutz shows that the word “help,” which he describes as the number one “weasel word,” only means to aid and does not promise to end or cure or solve. Likewise, the word “relieve” means only to ease and makes no promise to stop or end. “New and improved” is another example of advertising doublespeak. Lutz explains that while there are certain requirements placed on the manufacturer to have its products classified as “new” or “improved,” these requirements are small and often are never challenged. Because of this, “new and improved” only means slightly different and not necessarily better. It could mean that the product is more expensive, though. So, when translated literally, these ads are not really saying anything and are like the empty egg shells.
Lutz identified his subject clearly with the use of many specific examples of “weasel words” and their literal translation, and this helped the essay to be very instructive. His understanding of the world of language and visuals in advertising was presented in a convincing and factual manner. This essay of definition was written somewhat informally in the second person and was directed personally to the reader, often in the form of questions that the reader should ask when looking at an ad. This effectively draws in the reader and asks that as consumers we think about what we see and hear in ads. As any consumers are suspicious and critical of the ways advertisers use “doublespeak” and attempt to dictate values, Lutz suggests, “Only by becoming an active, critical consumer of the doublespeak of advertising will you ever be able to cut through the doublespeak and discover what the ad is really saying.” (Lutz, p.38)
Works Cited
William Lutz, “With These Words I Can Sell You Anything.” Doublespeak, HarperCollins, 1989.
blog 4
Reading Brand Cool by Peter Belmont was a re-affirmation of my beliefs on how our youth is targeted by brand name clothing companies and the music industry. These companies survive solely on the manipulation of the younger generation. Peter Belmont is a marketing executive and could not have explained marketing and ‘brand cool’ any better than he did. I enjoyed reading about the true intentions of the marketing industry. Today marketers want our youth to think that having the best or newest of anything marks us as being cool.
We are all too familiar with branding ourselves as teenagers. Teens like to think that brand name products will announce some kind of membership to a particular group. The brand that is chosen depends on the image that is promoted. Marketing studies show that the perfect target age is seventeen. Having brand name clothing to a teenager means being cool and socially accepted; it shows popularity and success.
Black communities have been the most aggressively pursued by marketing branders. Nike became so focused on targeting black teenagers that they now have their own word for the practice; called ‘bro-ing.’
It is baffling that people can be so easily manipulated by today’s advertising. Marketers pursue our youth because they are an easier target than people who are already accustomed to simple living. A companies’ future depends on our youth.
Jason Sylvester
We are all too familiar with branding ourselves as teenagers. Teens like to think that brand name products will announce some kind of membership to a particular group. The brand that is chosen depends on the image that is promoted. Marketing studies show that the perfect target age is seventeen. Having brand name clothing to a teenager means being cool and socially accepted; it shows popularity and success.
Black communities have been the most aggressively pursued by marketing branders. Nike became so focused on targeting black teenagers that they now have their own word for the practice; called ‘bro-ing.’
It is baffling that people can be so easily manipulated by today’s advertising. Marketers pursue our youth because they are an easier target than people who are already accustomed to simple living. A companies’ future depends on our youth.
Jason Sylvester
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
blog 3 jason sylvester
We are all too familiar with branding ourselves as teenagers. Teens like to think that brand name products will announce some kind of membership to a particular group. The brands that you choose depend on the image that you promote.
Marketing studies show that the perfect target age is seventeen. Having brand name clothing to a teenager means being cool and socially accepted, it means popularity and success. The black communities have been the most aggressively pursued by these marketing branders.
Nike became so focused on targeting black teenagers that they have their own word for the practice, it’s called “bro-ing”. I think that it is completely insane that people can be so easily manipulated by today’s advertising. Marketers are going to continue to target teenagers. A companies’ future depends on our youth.
Reading Brand Cool by Peter Belmont was a re-affirmation of my beliefs on how our youth is targeted by brand name clothing companies and the music industry. These companies survive solely on the Manipulation of the younger generation. Peter Belmont is a marketing executive and could not have explained marketing and “brand cool” any better than he did. I enjoyed reading about the true intentions of the marketing industry. Today marketers want our youth to think that having the best or newest of anything marks them as cool.
Jason Sylvester
Marketing studies show that the perfect target age is seventeen. Having brand name clothing to a teenager means being cool and socially accepted, it means popularity and success. The black communities have been the most aggressively pursued by these marketing branders.
Nike became so focused on targeting black teenagers that they have their own word for the practice, it’s called “bro-ing”. I think that it is completely insane that people can be so easily manipulated by today’s advertising. Marketers are going to continue to target teenagers. A companies’ future depends on our youth.
Reading Brand Cool by Peter Belmont was a re-affirmation of my beliefs on how our youth is targeted by brand name clothing companies and the music industry. These companies survive solely on the Manipulation of the younger generation. Peter Belmont is a marketing executive and could not have explained marketing and “brand cool” any better than he did. I enjoyed reading about the true intentions of the marketing industry. Today marketers want our youth to think that having the best or newest of anything marks them as cool.
Jason Sylvester
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Blog#3-Campbell
Blog #3-Campbell
In his essay, With These Words I Can Sell You Anything, William Lutz analyzes how certain words and combined phrases are used by advertisers to sell their products and ideas to unsuspecting consumers. Lutz has chosen specific examples of words and phrases and calls them “weasel words.” (Doublespeak, 1989) With many like products on the market in today’s consumer world, advertisers go to great length to show how their products differ from those of the many competitors. Because of existing consumer protection laws, advertisers have to be careful how they word their ads and what claims they make about the target products. To avoid making false claims, certain “weasel words” are used and these words and phrases appear to make bold claims but when analyzed really make no claims at all. Lutz describes the most used “weasel words,” looks at the true dictionary meaning of each, and then shows how they are used connotatively to the advantage of the advertisers. He warns the consumer that each word in an ad is chosen carefully for a specific reason, and while “weasel words” are dangerous, all words must be looked at critically. He points out it is the consumer’s job to figure out what each word is doing in a certain ad.
Mr. Lutz has chosen the several familiar words most commonly used in advertising which mislead and deceive the consumer. These words are “help,” “virtually,” “new,” “improved,” “acts fast,” “like,” “magic,” “better,” “extra,” “fresh,” “clean,” “beautiful,” “free,” “good,” “clean,” “great,” and “light.” He shows in great detail how they “appear to be making a claim for a product when in fact they are making no claim at all.” (Doublespeak, 1989) Lutz’s defines these words as “weasel words” which stems from the weasel’s penchant of raiding a hen house, piercing the eggs found there, sucking out the contents, and leaving the empty shells behind. An example of this would be the use of “helps relieve” in an ad. Consumers who read the ad often brush over the simple word “helps” and read the stronger word ”relieves”, and this dramatic word ends up being all that is remembered. Lutz shows that the word “help” only means to aid and does not promise to end or cure or solve. Likewise, the word “relieve” means only to ease and makes no promise to stop or end. Translated literally, the ads are not really saying anything and are like empty egg shells. Lutz’s use of specific examples of “weasel words” and their literal translation was very instructive and effective. His understanding of the world of language and visuals in advertising was presented in a convincing and factual manner. This essay of definition was written somewhat informally in the second person and was directed to a general audience. Many consumers have always been suspicious and critical of the ways advertisers use “doublespeak” and attempt to dictate consumer values. The way Lutz dissects each “weasel word” throughout the essay shows exactly why the consumer is not trusting of advertisers.
Works Cited
William Lutz, “With These Words I Can Sell You Anything.” Doublespeak, HarperCollins, 1989.
In his essay, With These Words I Can Sell You Anything, William Lutz analyzes how certain words and combined phrases are used by advertisers to sell their products and ideas to unsuspecting consumers. Lutz has chosen specific examples of words and phrases and calls them “weasel words.” (Doublespeak, 1989) With many like products on the market in today’s consumer world, advertisers go to great length to show how their products differ from those of the many competitors. Because of existing consumer protection laws, advertisers have to be careful how they word their ads and what claims they make about the target products. To avoid making false claims, certain “weasel words” are used and these words and phrases appear to make bold claims but when analyzed really make no claims at all. Lutz describes the most used “weasel words,” looks at the true dictionary meaning of each, and then shows how they are used connotatively to the advantage of the advertisers. He warns the consumer that each word in an ad is chosen carefully for a specific reason, and while “weasel words” are dangerous, all words must be looked at critically. He points out it is the consumer’s job to figure out what each word is doing in a certain ad.
Mr. Lutz has chosen the several familiar words most commonly used in advertising which mislead and deceive the consumer. These words are “help,” “virtually,” “new,” “improved,” “acts fast,” “like,” “magic,” “better,” “extra,” “fresh,” “clean,” “beautiful,” “free,” “good,” “clean,” “great,” and “light.” He shows in great detail how they “appear to be making a claim for a product when in fact they are making no claim at all.” (Doublespeak, 1989) Lutz’s defines these words as “weasel words” which stems from the weasel’s penchant of raiding a hen house, piercing the eggs found there, sucking out the contents, and leaving the empty shells behind. An example of this would be the use of “helps relieve” in an ad. Consumers who read the ad often brush over the simple word “helps” and read the stronger word ”relieves”, and this dramatic word ends up being all that is remembered. Lutz shows that the word “help” only means to aid and does not promise to end or cure or solve. Likewise, the word “relieve” means only to ease and makes no promise to stop or end. Translated literally, the ads are not really saying anything and are like empty egg shells. Lutz’s use of specific examples of “weasel words” and their literal translation was very instructive and effective. His understanding of the world of language and visuals in advertising was presented in a convincing and factual manner. This essay of definition was written somewhat informally in the second person and was directed to a general audience. Many consumers have always been suspicious and critical of the ways advertisers use “doublespeak” and attempt to dictate consumer values. The way Lutz dissects each “weasel word” throughout the essay shows exactly why the consumer is not trusting of advertisers.
Works Cited
William Lutz, “With These Words I Can Sell You Anything.” Doublespeak, HarperCollins, 1989.
Monday, February 4, 2008
blog 2
J. Sylvester:
One of the most influential factors in a young persons' life I believe, is their music of choice. In this day and age teenagers are very impressionable, they think that by taking on the lifestyle that a musician pretends to have, will help them be accepted. This lifestyle that musicians portray can be extremely enticing to a teenager, but kids fail to recognize that musicians are also actors who portray an image to entice the younger generation to buy their music so that they can boost their album sales.
I believe that the record labels selling music are well aware of the impact that music has on younger people. If you take away the image of a musician then it would be very hard to sell albums that are based on image. Gangster rappers need to act like gangsters and death metal rockers need to have a hard core, bad to the bone image or teenagers will not be as easily influenced by their image and record sales would plummet.
To me it is sad to see all of these younger children who dress in dark clothing, makeup, and earrings all over them and other groups dressing in big clothes and acting like they are from the ghetto because they think they will fit in. Kids need to be made aware of the fact that the lifestyle that these musicians portray are only to help sell albums, not to be confused with reality.
One of the most influential factors in a young persons' life I believe, is their music of choice. In this day and age teenagers are very impressionable, they think that by taking on the lifestyle that a musician pretends to have, will help them be accepted. This lifestyle that musicians portray can be extremely enticing to a teenager, but kids fail to recognize that musicians are also actors who portray an image to entice the younger generation to buy their music so that they can boost their album sales.
I believe that the record labels selling music are well aware of the impact that music has on younger people. If you take away the image of a musician then it would be very hard to sell albums that are based on image. Gangster rappers need to act like gangsters and death metal rockers need to have a hard core, bad to the bone image or teenagers will not be as easily influenced by their image and record sales would plummet.
To me it is sad to see all of these younger children who dress in dark clothing, makeup, and earrings all over them and other groups dressing in big clothes and acting like they are from the ghetto because they think they will fit in. Kids need to be made aware of the fact that the lifestyle that these musicians portray are only to help sell albums, not to be confused with reality.
Blog 2#
Blog 2- William Campbell
The most influential factor in a young person’s life is his relationship with parents, mentors and friends. These are his teachers, his resource for how to live his life. As humans, we learn more quickly in the moment, and the immediate feedback one gets from his parents, mentors and friends drives the point home. Through our early relationships, we learn what is important to those people in our lives. We are taught their beliefs, shown their loves, warned of their worries and fears, and granted their best advice. The people in our lives share their core personalities by choice and by action. They are sharing and teaching even when they might think they are not. At all times these important people influence a young person development of his own core beliefs and way of living. The wisdom of parents, mentors and friends and how they handle the good and bad in their lives, allows the young person a life plan that he can learn to rely on throughout his life. Wm Campbell 2/4/08
The most influential factor in a young person’s life is his relationship with parents, mentors and friends. These are his teachers, his resource for how to live his life. As humans, we learn more quickly in the moment, and the immediate feedback one gets from his parents, mentors and friends drives the point home. Through our early relationships, we learn what is important to those people in our lives. We are taught their beliefs, shown their loves, warned of their worries and fears, and granted their best advice. The people in our lives share their core personalities by choice and by action. They are sharing and teaching even when they might think they are not. At all times these important people influence a young person development of his own core beliefs and way of living. The wisdom of parents, mentors and friends and how they handle the good and bad in their lives, allows the young person a life plan that he can learn to rely on throughout his life. Wm Campbell 2/4/08
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)