February 2008 Archives

Advertising today is alarmingly prevalent in today’s society.  People are being marketed to sometimes without even knowing it.  Product placement is used in popular televisions shows and movies almost hourly.  Companies are constantly discovering new and shocking methods of advertising.  It’s surprising that by now there is any space left to look with out seeing some form of a logo or a motto.

Advertisers often use methods that can be downright dirty in their persuasive techniques.  They can often convince the general population that they can’t get along well unless they buy a product.  A particularly distressing advertisement I found was the classic LifeCall (now LifeAlert) commercial that originally aired in the early 90’s.

This commercial (despite the humor that it often causes in college students’ apartments) can really tug at your heart strings.  LifeAlert is a device that is intended for senior citizens to wear around their next.  With the touch of a button, they can alert an ambulance, their next door neighbor, doctor and family of an emergency.  This specific commercial shows various senior citizens in situations where use of the LifeAlert system is essential.  There is no background music, but they show old person after old person have heart attacks and fall without being able to stand up on their own.

This commercial evokes strong emotions out of their younger and older viewers.  Younger viewers feel guilty about older relatives, and older relatives are scared into wanting to purchase one.  If a LifeAlert necklace saves countless lives, how could you not afford one for your loved ones?

The only people that are represented in the commercial are people who are so old that they can’t appear to take care of themselves.  The slogan that LifeAlert has come to associate itself with is “Help!  I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!”  They also market the fact that if you own one, you will never be alone.  Testimonies state that the device gives the user the confidence to live on their own.

The advertisement quickly shows situation after situation where senior citizens are in distress.  In real life, an elderly person may only use this device every once in a while.  This ad almost guilt-trips family members into purchasing the system for older relatives that are living alone.  I feel that this is a disturbing method of selling a product.

When media was analog-based, quality would decrease with each duplication.  For example, recording a cassette tape over and over again would diminish volume and clarity.  Now, because of the advent of digital media, copies can be duplicated over and over, essentially an infinite amount of times without losing quality. This includes any audio, video, or software-based copies in the form of discs, p2p transfers or downloads from websites. The ease that users can acquire and duplicate media has increased through the usage of cheap personal computers.

According to Pew Research,

92% of 18-29 year olds use the internet.  This means that this large demographic can ultimately access pirated songs.

Due to the popularity of the internet, DRM has become a hot issue today.  It has created a method for authors and artists of copyrighted work to be able to control the distribution of their media by requiring authentication of users.  It can also restrict the amount of times that the media is copied, if it is allowed at all.  Attempting to police the large amount of currently pirated software is costly and ineffective, so DRM is a way to be proactive by disabling the user to illegally copy software in the first place.  $11.2 billion dollars are lost by the US software industry because of illegally copied programs, according to Wired.com.

DRM allows large groups of people to listen to music (universities) without causing a huge detriment to the audio industries income.  DRM provides more money to the recording industry, which will allow more bands to make a living, which encourages artistic integrity.

Lately in class, we have been discussing the impacts of social networking sites (SNS) on our lives.  We have had debates, readings, and presentations which all highlighted a different aspect of these sites.  Although we may take it for granted, SNS have provided us with an endless supply of information and human (eh kinda) interaction.

Two of the biggest SNS are Facebook and MySpace, which also happen to be two of most visited sites on the internet.  Created over the past decade, these sites have had millions and millions of users create profiles using their services.

An interesting debate has been sparked by Danah Boyd, who has written an article entitled Viewing American Class Divisions through Facebook and Myspace, and begs the question: what demographics are using each service?

As it turns out, there may be a correlation between the users of each MySpace and Facebook, and the social status or class that they are in.  After a lot of research and surveys, Boyd explains that "The goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes, or other 'good' kids are now going to Facebook" while "MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens, 'burnouts,' 'alternative kids,' 'art fags,' punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer kids, and other kids who didn't play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm."

I personally enjoy the writing style of the article, which is filled with  unapologetic take-it-or-leave it statements.  The author knows she is going to offend people, and she doesn't seem to mind doing it.  I definitely agree with most of the viewpoints presented in the article.  You could say that I was the stereotypical "Facebook kid" in high school, as the author described.  MySpace never really hit my high school that hard at all, given the fact that it was centered in an upper-middle class, suburban, white-dominated community.

Does this mean that whether using Facebook and MySpace determines your social class?  I would say that there is no causation, but you could find patters to show correlation.

I discovered Dane Cook in eleventh grade, when my buddy would play Dane's first album, Harmful if Swallowed, every day on the ride to school.  I admit it, I liked him.  I really liked him.  This guy put me on the floor laughing.  Every quirky anecdote was something I relate to (or imagine relating to).  My friends and I would recite bits of his material at any social occasion.  We'd get together to either watch his latest DVDs or listen to his latest CDs.
And do you know what the best part was?  Everybody was doing the same thing.  We were living in a blissful, Dane-ruled world.  Or so I thought...

Turns out not everyone is as big an addict as I thought.  Along with the popularity, Dane has stirred up feelings of hatred in many people.  What are some of the complaints?  He's too loud.  He's unoriginal.  He's a dick.  True, he may be loud and a dick, but unoriginal?  That stirred up some feelings of my own.  After a little bit of research (thanks to the impetus of a Digg posting) I began to make a startling discovery.

Many of Dane Cook's bits are strikingly similar to bits originally invented by comic Louis C.K., who is actually from the same hometown.  (I am specifically referring to the getting hit by a car bit, the naming your kids bit, and the itchy asshole bit for all of you Daneheads out there.)  If you don't know what I am talking about, this video can clear up some of the confusion.  Honestly, after comparing the two comics, they definitely could be copies of each other.  The important fact is that Louis did his FIRST.  Louis is aware of this, and you can hear some of his insight in this radio interview.  He sounds a little bitter.

A strong point he did make was that any "superstar" such as Dane is going to develop a strong fan base, as well as a group of haters.  Whether they are jealous or truly just don't find Dane that funny, they are going to voice their opinion as loud as possible to go against the crowd.  In my opinion, I say laugh and let laugh.  (Here's a skit making fun of Dane.  It's actually pretty funny and kinda makes you realize that he can turn anything into a joke.  It's all about the delivery).

Okay, so it is time for my first required blog assignment.  I am supposed to find an article in a traditional newspaper (I grabbed a USA Today, a Centre Daily Times, and a New York Times from Penn State's paper bins), and compare it to an online "blog" version of the same article.  I decided to start this post as I am searching, rather than write after I found it.  I am also pretty hungover/drunk after an Everclear induced night, so this will be interesting.

I am first flipping through the Centre Daily, and find a pretty interesting article about how people in Haiti make "cookies" out of mud to eat to cure their hunger pains.  Wow, I really had no idea that it was that bad there.  I then begin to search online for the blog version of the article, and guess what.  Every blog source I find just reposted, word for word, exactly the same article!  This may be a little harder than I thought.  It wouldn't make any sense to compare the same reprinted article, so I decide to keep on searching.  Maybe an article that isn't written by the associated press?  I give up on the CDT because if it isn't an article from the AP, it will probably be only local news and wouldn't get that much attention from blogs online.

I now pick up the times of New York, and notice that there is election coverage on the front page.  Great!  Although I am pretty uninterested in the campaigns, I know that there are many bloggers who are.  After a little Googling (and sorting through "official" newspaper blogs) I find a couple blogs that wrote about the event.

 The NYT article is about how John Edwards (who?) dropped out of the 2008 presidential race.  Although he did not formally endorse either of the remaining Democratic  candidates (Clinton and Obama) he encouraged them to "continue drawing attention to the primary themes of his campaign."

The blog that I chose to compare is The Democratic Daily.  It states the opinion of author Pamela Leavy on the subject.  She feels that although she wasn't a supporter of Edwards, it saddened her to see such a great candidate drop out of the race.  It was also noted that this is the first time a woman or an African-American will be nominated for president by a major political party.  Hey, I may be ignorant, but even I know that this is pretty heavy stuff.

The Comparison

New York Times
Credibility - I mean,  it's the NEW YORK TIMES.  There may be some shady inside misinformation or bent truths, but hey, you got to take it for what it is.  I'm always going to assume that if it's written in one of the most famous newspapers in the country, the article has to have some sort of legitimate support before it goes to print.

Bias - Umm, I am sure that there is some attempt to sway readers to one side or another.  But as a casual reader, I probably wouldn't be aware of it.

Motivation for writing - I'm not really sure how being a journalist works, but I assume that they get to write about subjects that they have interest in?  The author, Elisabeth Bumiller may either be a democrat, or interested in the race for some reason.  She might just be the only writer that has access to the political press conferences.

Audience - Everyone?  The article is available to anyone who has online access to the NYT or can spare $1.25 for the print version.  It will specifically target those who have a vested interest in the campaigns.  Oh and anyone 65 and older that lives in the north eastern part of the country.

Content -  The content means that there will be a two person race for the Democratic national bid for president.  Also, there will be less competition for it.  Although Edwards did not endorse another candidate, the attention will now be focused on Clinton and Obama.

The Democratic Daily
Credibility - The author includes videos, citations and sources, so she seems to know what she is talking about.  Writing in a blog does not imply credibility, as there are many people who like to just ramble without having a clue.  Plus, it is her own opinion, so the matter of credibility does not really even apply.  As long as you know that what you are reading may or may not be 100% accurate, you could still gain some valuable insight.

Bias -  Obviously.  The author is apparently sympathetic for the Democratic party.  She probably wouldn't be writing on this site or "wish the Edwards family well" if she wasn't.  However, Leavy is pretty factual, and doesn't seem to be purposely persuading her audience in one way or another.

Motivation - Leavy is a Democratic sympathizer an may have wanted to express her heart-felt sentiment for the candidate.  Or maybe she just wanted to get her name on a well-read blog.  Either works.

Audience - The audience is anyone who visits the Democratic Daily site.  It is probably those who are part of the Democratic party.  It seems to be a pretty well-trafficked site, especially this year during the election.

Content - The content is mostly a republishing of other sources the author found online.  There are quotes and article clippings in the posting.  She also states her opinion here and there to express her own feelings on the event.

Well there it is.  I personally would trust an in-my-hands newspaper in terms of bias and credibility over a blog any day.  I would rather read a blog posting because I value people's opinions, and find them interesting.  Both ways at least got me to take a second glance at the election, and that leads me to think that someday I might vote in one.