Media Blog Comments

http://crisico.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-taxing-pop-really-solution.html

(taxing pop)

http://kendraalamode.blogspot.com/2010/02/stalker-101.html

(google street view)

http://kaitcruz.blogspot.com/2010/01/are-they-kidding-me.html

(ad's from the 50's and 60's - are they kidding me?)

http://denanabuya.blogspot.com/2010/01/beauty-in-eyes-of-beholder-media.html

(dove and axe campaign)

http://catnippp.blogspot.com/2010/02/is-that-really-you.html

(photo manipulation)

http://arielle-watermelon.blogspot.com/2010/01/did-i-ever-tell-you-im-gamer.html
(the evolution of video games)

10 pounds? Oh Hell Nah.

After watching that video I wanted to swear off pop for life. It honestly made me physically gag. I say, this kind of scare campaign is effective for a short period of time. The video seriously made me want to call off drinking pop for life for the 32 seconds I was watching it, but come tomorrow I am almost positive I will be drinking some sort of soft drink for lunch. The thing about this kind of campaign that makes it so effective is the fact that they show the facts, and not only do they take the fact, but they also apply it to life, and show you what you are doing to your body with out knowing it.

This kind of campaign makes me want to become a healthier person, for the time I'm watching it. But it doesn't scare me enough to make me want to commit myself to actually sticking to a healthy diet - indulgence is my greatest sin. I think obesity, is not a growing epidemic. Everyone has the right to self - control, and everyone has the ability to use it. I think if there is anything to blame, it's either the large proportions that everyone is being served lately, or the fact that some people just don't have enough self - control to watch how much they eat. Even then, we should also be exercising at least once a week. There's no one to blame but yourself if you're obese and contributing to the growing number of that whole statistic.

As for the tax on chips and pop. If it were to migrate over the border into Canada, I would pay extra money for those foods. Obviously I would not have them on a regular basis, and probably not have them as often as I used too, but I would pay the tax for them from time to time, just because - why deprive myself of a good thing just because the price is raised? As long as I watch how much I eat, and exercise once a week, I'm good.

Well would you look at that?

Look at her body. The first image shows her true figure, and the second, her photo shopped figure. There's a reason publishing companies and photographers photo shop celebrities images. We look at them and see perfection. We look at them and we see elite. With out their perfect bodies, perfect faces, and perfect everything - there would be no line between the rich and famous and the normal every day people. Photo shopped images and photo re-touch ups (no mater how crazy and extreme they get) is just the way it is, keeping the world sane. It gives us either something to aspire to be, or to be more self-aware of our images. It just depends on how the person receives the messages being sent through these kinds of ads and images. You can look at it and say, "Hey, she's beautiful, but she's not real" or you can say, "I wish I was just like her, my body sucks." Personally, the everyday consumer needs to realize when viewing these images, that they are as fake as Pam Anderson's boobs, and that they shouldn't be taken seriously.

As for the new trend of featuring "normal" people in fashion shows, and fashion magazines, I'm glad that someone had enough of the fake, and wanted to expose the world to reality. This is a total confidence booster to those who take glammed up ads personally. As nice as this trend is, I figure that it will only last so long. Or remain the minority compared to the majority of photo-shopped perfected images. People buy magazines, watch movies, and look up to celebrities because of their perfection. Not because they resemble real, ordinary, and everyday.

Video Games are art.

Video games have changed - that's clear enough. How much have they changed? Well, take a look at the CGI of the very first Call Of Duty video game for the Play Station systems:

Now compare this image to the more recent Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2:

The details put into the newest version of this game ,and how far it has evolved in CGI is truly amazing. The evolution of the Call Of Duty line is just a small glimpse at the development of video games. We have to realize, that in our day and age technology will become a big part of our daily lives. Video games for example, have stopped being limited to entertainment purposes for kids and teens. Adults enjoy playing Wii Fit games, and even then would very well enjoy playing a Modern Warfare 2 game. Because technology is so grossly involved into our daily lives now, I think it is actually very benefiting that they've created games that help maintain our heath. We live in the 21st century. Who is really going to go for a nice run in the park, when they could do that comfortably at home virtually on a Wii? These new game genres are clever and suit our new technological and fast passed lifestyles.

Female insecurites and the Male ego.

1. How do I feel about the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty? Well, I think it's inspiring. The fact that they are taking a step forward and coming to the realization that the media, is in fact, a very powerful tool when influencing young girls and self image. They throw a positive look onto the perception of beauty and try to spread the message that everyone is beautiful, and to love your body how it is.

2. The Axe Effect Campaign on the other hand, is a whole different story. Even though the message this is conveying is exactly positive, I think it's pretty funny. Any guy, thinking that a smell will lure hundreds of girls his way is obviously living in la-la land - but the ad's do have some truth into them. Girl's don't like bad smelling guys, and (when not sprayed heavily on) I think the Axe scent does have it's perks. Obviously the result won't be as extreme as the commercial says, with girls this way and that flocking your way, but you will turn heads. So, even though it isn't exactly positive, I find it funny and I don't see anything wrong with it. It's obviously an exaggeration (and boost for the male ego).

3. I don't believe that the 'parent' company of these two products have the responsibility to uphold the same beliefs and values for all their different sectors. The main point of each of these campaigns are to advertise the product and sell it however way they can. The campaign for real beauty focuses on the real beauty of woman, and targets woman who are self-conscience about their body image as well as those who believe that a perfect body image is completely stupid and are tired of being bombarded with shiny, plastic perceptions of beauty - and rather, want to see something real being shown for a change. The Axe Effect campaign plays on the male ego, or the male-dream of being flocked with woman. Obviously it's a little extreme, but the product does have it's benefits. Overall, I think that the 'parent' company isn't responsible for upholding the same beliefs and values for all it's different sectors. It all depends on the product, the best way to advertise it, and catching the consumers eye.

Tape worms are sexy, smokes get you girls & lard makes you happy.

FAT! FAT! FAT! & ALWAYS STAY THIN! - AD / This ad certainly makes me question the sanity of humans at the time this was published. The message this advertisement gives off to the public (in my opinion) is: "HEY! DON'T BE FAT. IT'S UGLY, BE SKINNY. IT'S SEXY! PUT A TAPE WORM IN YOUR STOMACH, SO YOU CAN EAT ALL YOU WANT AND NOT GAIN A THING! WHO CARE'S IF IT CAN KILL YOU? ATLEAST YOU'LL DIE SEXY!" / How... stupid. This ad honestly makes me embarrassed. The way beauty is being interpreted and how vain and obsessed people can get over their looks makes me believe that during the time this was published many consumers were obsessed with their looks to the point of willing to do anything to claim themselves as beautiful. As extreme as this ad is, and the inference I can make about their perception of beauty, the least I can say is that present-day perceptions of beauty have changed (even if only just a little). We still do believe slim is the "right" body size, but we have also come to realize that everyone has different body types, and we have accepted that. An example of an ad that accepts all body types would be this: LOVEYOURBODYGIRLS

BlOW IN HER FACE, AND SHE'LL FOLLOW YOU ANYWHERE - AD / Stupid. First word that comes to mind is, stupid. Blow in her face, and she'll follow you anywhere? If someone blew smoke in my face, I would raise hell. Honestly, I don't understand what people in this day and age were thinking. I understand the sexism, and the way the ad seems to imply that men are supposed to chase the women, and the women is supposed to be woo'ed. But by smoke being blown into her face? C'mon, ladies of the late 50's please - show a little more class. I guess, at the time smoking was " hot " but honestly. I'm glad that now, in 2010 we have come to realize how "un-hot" smoking really is. We've realized it to the point that most ads for cigarettes have been banned or aren't running anymore and corner stores aren't even allowed to show the cigarette packs when selling them. I applaud how far we have come from then to now.

MORE DOCTORS SMOKE CAMELS... - AD / Since when.. do doctors smoke? And promote lung cancer? Oh the 1940's - 60's. How odd your ads were, and how many must have died from smoking and tape worms.

THEY'RE HAPPY BECAUSE THEY EAT LARD - AD /HAHAHAH. WHAT?! Okay. First, you talk about tape worms, and now lard? Talk about promoting all types of cancers and diseases. Heart stroke is obviously how you will die from this one. Oh dear, clogged arteries and all.

--------------------------

Clearly, from looking and analyzing these ads - time's have changed. The messages being conveyed in all ads are certainly not positive. Most ads here, don't realize the consequences of promoting products with so much negative impact on the body. Each ad has it's own little disease or life threatening potential. During the time period these ads were published, it seems that consumers were more concerned about their outer look and social status rather than their health and what was skin deep. More recently, ads have started to realize that the media plays a huge part in affecting consumers. The messages conveyed are very influential, and they are trying to spread positive messages. The dove campaign for real beauty takes a new view on the perceptions of beauty, and how it lies skin deep more than anything. Not only does it focus on the outside, and accepting the fact that everyone has a different body type but it also tries to convey the message that it's more inside what counts, and if you shine on the inside, you'll glow on the out. Cigarette ads and the like are no more. They are no where to be seen, in news papers, magazines, or bus ads. Even when being sold in a store, they are hidden by black covers. The packs include all the negative impacts smoking can cause to someones health and includes a picture of what happens from smoking too much. And food ads are all about staying healthy and staying away from fatty and sugary foods. We've come a long way from our past and have come to realize the media mistakes we've made. Applause all around, congratulations generation of the 2000's.

Sorry, you're blurry.

Since we're on the topic of "privacy matters" and how Google is prosing a potential threat to our private lives, I decided to search up my elementary school. To check if any of my old classmates, teachers, or even my little brother had been photographed with out permission.

As you can see from the picture beside, they have not.

I strongly dissagree with the thought that Google is violating our privacy rights, by taking photographs of people with out permission. What's the difference between seeing someone on the street in real life, or seeing someone's photograph on the street virtually? Even then, Google says to have blurred out their faces so only their likeness appears to show, not their true face. In my opinion, any one who is very concerned about this whole "Google Stalker Map" technology, is paranoid and should get out more. Google is clearly respecting your privacy, by blurring out your face, and if don't wish to be photographed by their crazy cool sattelite technology, then stay inside your house.

And on a side note, Google Maps with Street View, is pretty cool. I can take a walk through New York and go sight seeing with out blowing a couple bills on transportation. :) Holla. If anything, this new technology has more advantages than disadvantages.