Jennifer

Jennifer

What I found interesting: -I found the historical examples really helpful in demonstrating the points brought up by the author. It made the ideas stick to my mind easier and they were really interesting examples in themselves. I also like how there were extracts from the different reports and analysis mentioned, such as Noam Chomsky's work. -The way the author linked different elements in media back to society was very intriguing and new. It actually made me think and made sense. Examples such as the point on major sport events being bought by privately-owned channels has also happened in Hong Kong, and so I was able to understand more clearly the situation back then. -The chart of arguments for and against media was really good in the sense that it made me think. Some of the arguments brought up were fairly well known but some I had never heard of, eg the concept of global village. However, it also made me realize the countless different types of media, as there were contradictory, yet valid arguments on both sides, showing that different types had different focus.

Questions: -Which do we fear more, ignorance or being ‘unified’ in the sense that we lose our individuality and cultural differences? -Nowadays we have lots of box office hit movies exploring different deep meaningful ideas and concepts. Are these considered high or low culture?

Jennifer, I agree that the examples were helpful. The Noam Chomsky example really helped me to understand what was meant by content analysis. I also really liked the chart and it made me think as well because of the different perspectives and ideas that were brought up. I really like your second question because it brings up a good point. I think that in society today definitions of different types of media are changing and becoming less clear because media is available to such a wide audience. I don't really know what those types of movies would be classified as. Perhaps low culture only because it is available to so many? But at the same time the content can be meaningful and should not be thought of as "low." It's a tough one! -Sana

Halfdan:

1) I am sure we, at a fundamental level, fear unification the most, but this is not something that we are aware of in or everyday lives. There and then we fear the ignorance more. Of course it is hard to set it up like that - it is something individual - it very much differs, I believe. 2) Those movies would definitely not be considered high culture. And, as Sana said, they are available to basically everyone, which makes them "lower culture". Most of them repeat themselves and do only briefly deal with those meaningful ideas. It seems they are often entertainment and to justify watching them, they deal with "deep ideas".

Mia

I really like your first question about fearing unification or ignorance, its a really interesting question. I personally do fear unification, not in the form of the world at peace (of course) but in the form of us all being the same. Its scary for me going to Thailand, Beijing, Buenos Aires and Italy and seeing Starbucks, the Body Shop and McDonals everywhere. What is going to happen to local culture? I agree with the "global village" idea for everyone being aware of news that is happening around the world, but not in the way where we speak the same language, all wear jeans and all eat pizza the same. There will be nothing special about the world then.

Minh's Response

I found that the disadvantages and advantages of media table are very biased to each of their own arguments. I find that the arguments were just opinions without any justification to reason why those comments were said. Nonetheless, even if they are opinions or not, they do raise awareness to the potential beneficial and negative effects that media can have on our world.

In response to your first question, in my own opinion, we cannot simply go on using the quote: “ignorance is bliss” forever. Unifying the world into a global village does not always come to a bad outcome. For example, if the human race becomes a organised collective body through media it does not necessary mean we will not be individuals anymore. If an American box office movie is distributed and played throughout the world, the language does not always have to be English. This can be vice versa as well; an Arabic film is distributed throughout the world, we can experience a new culture because the film includes foreign actors, scenes and stories, therefore exposing us to a variety of individuality.

In my own opinion, box office movies are considered to be low culture as they are easily accessed and deemed informal in the consensus of media. People have access to films and are considered to be informal. High culture is where a cultural product is deemed revered in a culture; especially the arts and we do not see many people going to art galleries as we do than people going to the cinema.

__**﻿The Advertisement I Like Most**__ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojWJ6-XmeQ

The commercial that everyone already knows (and is probably sick of). I first watched this around 2-3 years ago. A friend of mine sent it to me online, telling me that she died laughing when she saw it. I basically had the same reaction as she did. The thing about the commercial that appealed to me was its 'humour'. The story itself was rather funny to begin with, seeing the boy go crazy around a supermarket and the occasional shots of the father's frustration. Then at the very end, the punch line comes out and everything makes sense. For the first week or so after the first time I watched it, I forwarded it to my friends and cousins. I even showed it to my mother, who somewhat evilly nodded in agreement and eyed me meaningfully.

After watching it in class though, it really did change the way I saw it. Hearing other people talk about the way they saw the commercial, it did in a way make me truly understand the significance behind cultural difference and how it changes our perspectives. I remember hearing a few people commenting on what I first thought as humorous to be offensive and rude. I was a little surprised at the huge difference between each person's interpretation of the same thing. It also drew my attention to several of the advertising techniques we had covered in the readings, and how they made the advertisement really stick to my mind easily.

The message the advertisement was trying to get through was actually pretty direct. As said in the only text of the whole clip, 'use condoms'. The target audience is most probably young couples, people who are in a relationship and/or might be thinking of having children. The sight of a kid going on full rampage in a supermarket, while hilarious, does make one think. Almost everyone who watches the clip feels sorry for the father and makes them ponder whether they'd actually be able to deal with such a situation. Most people only think of the happy sides of having a child of their own, ignoring the darker sides of the cute tiny human. The commercial acts as a warning. Those who think they can't handle it will have second thoughts; those who can will at least have an idea of what they should expect.

The advertisers used a couple of things to make the commercial more persuasive. Firstly, there was only one line of text in the entire clip, and the line was very straightforward. It left no room for misinterpretation of any kind and got the message straight out. The blunt, standard delivery of the line also added to the comic effect of the whole commercial and made it much more memorable. What I personally think is very interesting is how the commercial doesn’t reveal what it really is about, not until the very end and the final line is where all the pieces suddenly fall into place. When watching the video, you can’t really tell what it was trying to express. I first thought that it was a commercial on a certain type of candy that was worth all the trouble, or something about a supermarket, but in the end it turned out to be something different all together, yet made sense in the context. It was the type of revelation that made people want to say, “Oh, now I get it!” and the effect of that stunt made the message stick in the audience’s mind.

Aside from the final text, the building-up process wasn’t bad either. As the commercial went on, it showed the child’s tantrum getting steadily worse. As if to highlight how embarrassing the situation was, shots of the father’s face were added. The fact that the father never spoke a word throughout the commercial seemed to stress the silent resolution the father had already come to, and how the audience might one day also come to the same sad situation.

I think that the commercial is successful in the sense that it does make people think, it may be able to deter some people and it does stay on people’s minds. It has been able to reach out to a large number of people, through television, the Internet and word of mouth, accomplishing what most commercials aim to do, spread its message through time and space. However, the audio of the commercial is somewhat annoying and it is understandable that some people think that it is offensive to children.