Does television violence influence behavior in children?

”Hollywood has been blamed for the downfall of the nation's morals and has been a scapegoat for parent's poor parenting skills,” states author Tim Goodman. While sexual images have been banned from television, violence has been shown on a daily basis. Mike Males, an author of several media books, states that there is no proof that children are influenced by what they see on television. He writes that Mothers Against Drunk Driving accuse certain beer commercials featuring frogs for targeting teens and may influence them into drinking. An in depth survey by USA Today found that while teens found these ads amusing, they did not consume alcohol as a result of watching them. Mr. Males writes that youths learn behaviors from their parents, not television. He feels that kids are taking the blame for being violent when it is actually the parents who are at fault. Tim Goodman writes that parents need to "vote with their remote" (Goodman, page 258) and stop ruining television for everyone. Parents have pressured elected officials into taking action and as a result a ratings system is in place as well as V-Chip which shifts parental responsibility to the government, he claims. Mr. Goodman writes that this sort of censoring is a violation of the first amendment right, freedom of speech. Embrace freedom by changing the channel if its not deemed appropriate, he suggests.

There are counterclaims that children who view violent shows on television suffer long term adverse effects. The American Psychological Association gathered data from various psychology research agencies which has shown that there are three major effects on children who view violence on television:

• Children become less sensitive to pain and suffering of others
• Children may become more fearful in the world
  
• Children are more likely to have aggressive tendencies towards others

Pennsylvania State University conducted a survey on one hundred children, some watched cartoons with aggression, some without aggression. The kids who watched the shows with aggression showed aggression towards playmates. The kids who watched the shows without aggression were patient and cooperative. Psychologists Dr. Douglas Gentile, PHd and Dr. Craig Anderson, PHd supports these ideas. Their studies show the effects of violent video game playing by youths. Their research revealed that kids who are exposed to violent video games have stronger, aggressive tendencies and behaviors (www.psychologymatters.org).

Violence sells, according to George Gerbner, a professor and director of media violence research. Violent images are marketable because they need no translation and speak any language, he writes. The media contributes to the growing exposure children have to violence by creating a “Culture of Fear “ states Jonathan Alter, an author and editor for Newsweek. Media focuses on the violent issues in society causing the public to have an exaggerated sense of fear. Millions of youths face real life violence in their homes while the focus is placed on the media according to Mr. Males. The American Psychological Association reminds the reader that parents have a tremendous power to control their children’s exposure to violence. By being aware of what their children watch, talking to them about violent images, allow and encourage them to see alternative shows, or limit their television time altogether they hold the key to molding less aggressive and more productive young adults.

Alter, Jonathan. “Who’s Taking the Kids?”
Goshgarian, Gary.What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 92-93.

Goodman, Tim. "Hate Violence? Turn it Off."
Goshgarian, Gary.What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 257-260.

Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV."
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 267-271.

Gentile and Anderson, 2003 “Violent Video Games-Psychologists Help Protect Children from Harmful Effects.”
World Wide Web

Gerbner, George. “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World.”
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 261-264.

Do the Media Promote a Culture of Fear?

The first answer one would come up with is yes, it appears so. All one has to do is turn on the television to make that belief seem true, yet this may be an incorrect assumption. In order to answer this question we must know who the characters are and what roles they play. In this case the characters would be the media and the population.

In his article “Heads Above the Hype,” Peter Phillips wrote; the media is a corporation. Or at least a conglomerate of a limited number, that can be considered a corporation and thus a business. The business of the media is to inform us, the population. Whether or not they do that in an unbiased way remains to be seen. For example the media is quoted as saying they are” just giving the people what they want.” For starters how do they know what we want and what happened to unbiased journalism, reporting the facts. One way to realize how they “give us what we want” is to think of privacy issues. As stated by David Plotz in his essay published in GQ magazine, that companies know what you want by monitoring your activities, such as credit card purchases and stores visited, allows the big business to cater to your needs specifically. This in turn allows them to advertise to you only the things you may buy. If this is applied to the media then news outlets will be able, as time goes by, to cater their news to suit your tastes. If people continue to watch violence then we will continue to get more violence. In this light it seems easy to see where the media outlets are coming from.

The other character in this game is the population or the people. If you as an individual had only two choices on television: reports of violence or reports of theft which would you watch and why? Most people would probable watch the violence. The answer could be that it is more entertaining or perhaps it makes us feel better knowing it’s them not us. Either way we fall for whatever trap is being set regardless of who’s doing the trapping. For all the excuses about violence on television no one seems to come up with a respectable solution as to why more child violence occurs in violent homes, from violent parents. Or why most children that start smoking or drinking come from addict parents, as summarized from an article written by Mike Males. It should also be noted that Jane Ellen Stevens mentioned a new form of epidemic called violence epidemiology that began taking shape beginning in 1977.Stevens wrote about her involment with this desease in her book entitled “The Violence Reporting Project: A New Approach to Covering Crime.” This idea explains how violence in society is a sickness just like any other ailment that people suffer. This ailment has quantifiable causes and consequences. If violence is really what we don’t want the media to push shouldn’t we indulge ourselves in the possible connection between all of these different events?

Could it be possible that we are stuck in a vicious circle? Are we a victim of mass media or are we a victim of ourselves? The issue of media hype and a fear culture may best be described as opposite sides of the coin not seeing the forest for the trees. If violence is really something that we don’t want the media to push, shouldn’t we indulge ourselves in the possible connection between all of these different events?

Plotz, David. “Privacy is overrated.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 56-62.

Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New Tork: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 267-271.

Phillips, Peter. “Heads Above the Hype.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Long man, 2007. 104-107.

Stevens, Jane Ellen. “The Violence Reporting Project: A New Approach to Covering Crime.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Long man, 2007. 110-114.

The Big Debate

Since mankind began, opposing viewpoints on an infinite number of issues have existed. It cannot be denied that the television industry has become a permanent fixture in contemporary society. Opinions on whether television has been valuable or detrimental to society vary widely. The ongoing debate in recent years is whether or not television directly influences tendencies towards violence in children. There are some who believe that the media has gone too far in it’s display of aggression, leading to government application of censoring. However, challengers of this viewpoint believe that a child’s tendencies, whether positive or negative, are innate traits that can be nurtured or overcome through familial and societal interaction. Although resolution on this subject matter is nowhere near, it remains important that individuals evaluate each side of the debate in order to firmly establish their own beliefs. Each individual must be prepared to confront the unavoidable compromises required of this ongoing issue.


Research in recent decades have revealed that watching television is a large part of daily life for many children. Studies have made claim that violence on television leads to children becoming less sensitive to others anguish, more fearful of their surroundings, and more likely to act in aggressive ways (pp. 249). In essence, the children of the current culture have become desensitized to violence and its impact upon the world at large. Even children who do not show any inherent aggressive qualities are less likely to call attention to violent acts or attempt to stop them (pp. 249). Research scientists are not the only group documenting such findings; parent also provide testimony to the impact of television upon their children. It is for this reason that many guardians look to the government for peace of mind. The rationale is that the government is able to shield society’s adolescents against violence through censorship, channel blocking, and tools like the television rating system (pp 259). However, many see this as a violation of the First Amendment, which provides American citizens with freedom of speech (pp. 265).


The argument provided by groups against censorship is that an individual can easily change channels or turn the television off if they find what a child is watching offensive. Certainly, it is rational to believe parents have a responsibility to monitor the content. Many children gladly take in the variety of entertainment that television offers. Is it unreasonable to believe that perhaps children have been adversely effected by TV violence? Arguably, this does not diminish a child’s responsibility to maintain control over themselves, even at a young age.


With children in modern day society facing violence on a daily basis, it is not unreasonable to expect that violence among children has indeed increased over the years. Violence on television is not simply ‘theatrics’, but a recurring theme in real-life news reports. In light of this fact, it is feasible that television may influence behavior of young viewers as much as the physical environment in which they live. However, it is important to note that much of the research available does not take into account race, sex, or geographic location (pp. 269) These environmental and socio-cultural aspects of a child’s environment may modulate the influence of television.


Aggressive behavior in children may seem to be the most common source of violence in our society, but research shows that domestic violence inflicted by middle age white men is the most prominent kind of violent crime (pp.269). Violence occurs in all age groups, races, genders, religions, lifestyles, and so on. It is not the research itself that is misleading, but rather the context in which it is presented.



The degree to which television may influence children is a legitimate concern. Tools such as channel blocking have given guardians the ability to monitor a child’s television viewing habits. New technologies may help regulate the benefits and detriments of television in the coming years. However, it should not be denied that other important factors contribute to the rise in violence among adolescents. An in depth understanding of both sides of the debate, as well as a necessary look at all factors related to violence among children, will provide a greater awareness that can lead to positive change.



American Psychological Association. “Violence on Television - What Do Children Learn? What Can Parents Do?” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters In America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 248-251.

Gerbner, George. Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters In America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 262-265.

Goodman, Tim. “Hate Violence? Turn It Off!” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters In America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 258-260.

Violence On Television Vs. Violence In The Home

People have many different points of view when it comes to the topic of violence in children. The American Psychological Association believes that child are more prone to become violent if they witness acts of violence on television. However others such as Mike Males author of "Stop Blaming Kids and TV" suggests that youth violence comes more from children seeing violence from their parents. When comparing and contrasting children seeing violence on television and children witnessing violence from their parents there are many similarities. However there are also many ways in which these two points have their differences.

The American Psychological Association feels that violence on television has an effect on today's youth. They conclude if you want to change juvenile behavior turn off the television. Psychological research has shown three effects that seeing violence on television can have on children. It states children can become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others. Children could become more fearful to the world around them after seeing violence on TV. Also children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways to others.

Mike Males feels that television is not to blame with youth violence. He believes that children learn violent behavior from their parents. Some say that "if you want to change juvenile behavior change adult behavior". Children that experience such acts as domestic violence,alcoholism or drug addiction from their parents are more likely to follow in those footsteps.

There are some similarities in both these arguments because children are still witnessing violence whether it be on television or in real life. If a child is used to seeing violence as a part of their everyday life, whether it be on television or in the home the child could be more prone to acting violent toward others. This is because that is what they are used to seeing. Another similarity is that a child could become more fearful of the world around them. If a child sees acts of violence on TV such as child abuse the child could become fearful thinking that could happen to them. If a child sees abuse in real life the child could also become fearful of the world and trusting people. Children could also become less sensitive to the pain of others if they witness violence on TV or from their parents. If a child sees domestic abuse on TV they could think that behavior is normal. This is also true with seeing domestic abuse in the home with their parents. The child could think this is normal behavior so when they see it happening out of the home they could be less likely to do anything to stop the situation.

There are also many differences with witnessing violence on TV and from witnessing violence from their parents. If a child sees violence on TV they might be able to distinguish that is is fiction. This would help the child to not become fearful to the world. The child would realize what they are watching is not real. Where as if a child sees violence in real life that could make them fearful because it is reality. Another difference with knowing fiction from reality is that a child would know if a child sees violence on television they know that is fake. The child could then distinguish between right and wrong. If they see a parent acting violent and that is someone they look up to they may feel that behavior is acceptable.

In Conclusion both cases show how influential children are and how violence can have an effect on their lives. Even though both sides argue where children get violence from, they can both agree that either way violence has negative effects on children. Both sides try to blame one another for how children are influenced. However in trying to place the blame and state their differences in the end they actually pointed out many similarities of the two points.

American Psychological Association." Violence on television-What Do Children learn? What Can Parents Do?
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 248-252.

Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New Tork: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 267-271.

Does “Big Media” promote a culture of fear, yes or no?

Some say yes. In today's world, much of the production and distribution of television programming, movies, newspapers, magazines, and publishing are controlled by large media corporations. These corporations, or Big Media, are global in scale. These global operators have learned that programming aimed to touch deep, basic human emotions is very effective at reaching and retaining viewers and readers. People's fear seems to be one of the easier buttons to push.

As with any modern, multi-national industry, the media companies have directed significant resources toward the research and development of effective tools and techniques which they use to deliver their content. Some of these tools are highly technical and have direct application outside of the media-centric world, such as the computer animation techniques of Disney/Pixar. Some of the techniques are obviously aimed at more primitive instincts and behaviors of the viewing public. In "Heads Above the Hype" (Phillips) by Peter Philips, the author identifies the typical content of broadcast television and newspapers as "Washington sex scandals, celebrity exposes, gruesome murders, schoolyard attacks, gangs, crime, [and] corruption." When questioned as to why this content is presented, Big Media responds "we are just giving the public what it wants." By giving the public what it wants, these companies ensure repeat business, meaning that viewers and readers always come back for more. Repeat business is valued by Big Media's advertising sponsors who are the primary source of revenue. In order to deliver the viewers and readers demanded by the advertisers, the media companies rely on titillating the basic human emotions. Fear being the primary emotion, as noted several times by Myrna Blyth in "The Female Fear Factor." (Blyth)

Global media companies have reaped the rewards of their research investments. Their lessons are well learned. Fear and drama draw viewers, viewers draw advertisers, to this end media companies promote fear to sustain and grow their business.

So, producers and distributors of modern media content have been indicted. The offense with which they have been charged is "promotion of a culture of fear." There are numerous plaintiffs, an example being George Gerbner, Professor of Communication at the Anenberg School of Communication, Philadelphia. In an article published in The Ecology of Justice "Television's Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World," (Gerbner) Professor Gerbner states that "the more television people watch, the more they are likely to be afraid to go out on the street in their own community."

The contrarian argument would ask why? Certainly, watching too much television could cause one to be unable to go out onto the street, especially if the viewing is paired with an over-indulgence of Yodels. But citing fear as the reason for not venturing outside is less obvious. Fear is a basic human response that has developed as man has developed from cave dweller to modern times. Some of this response is an instinctive reaction based deep in our nervous system. Modern humans only experience this type of fear infrequently; our life does not include the daily exposure to life and death circumstances that our ancestors experienced. The rest of this response is learned from our environment. For the first 5-10 years of our lives, that environment is dominated by the confines of family and home. Development of unusual reactions to stressful situations would be learned from that environment, not exposure to media content. One interpretation of "Who's Taking the Kids" (Alter) by Jonathan Alter could be that it is in fact parents who may be instilling fear in their children, from parental reaction, or overreaction, to what they see and hear in the media. The article makes the point that simply digging further into the facts behind the hype blaring from the tube might put the statistics into perspective. In "Stop Blaming Kids and TV" (Males) by Mike Males the author also provides many examples showing that one's environment has more influence on behavior than exposure to certain types of media. One of Male's overriding themes is his theory that children mimic not only their parents but other influential adults and fear is certainly contagious.

Big-time media does produce and distribute content that is meant to strike at our deepest emotions; that is the definition of entertainment and the arts. But the indicted media companies have much less control over the development of our emotions, behaviors, and reactions than our family, friends, educators, and civic leaders. These media companies are not promoting fear, it is already out there in spades.

Alter, Jonathon. "Who's Taking the Kids?" Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 93-96.

Blyth, Myrna. "The Female Fear Factor." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 96-102.

Gerbner, George. "Televisions Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alientaed Window on the World." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 261-265.

Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New Tork: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 267-271.

Phillips, Peter. "Heads Above the Hype." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 104-107.

 

Can television violence influence behavior?

"Could the home actually be more responsible for children's violent behavior than television?" Mike Males, author of Stop blaming kids and TV poses this and many other questions. American agencies spend more time and resources on censoring advertising and television than focusing on the real issues in this country that cause violence, the American homes.

"In 1998 the center of disease control lamented that 75% of all teenage smokers come from homes where parents smoke". When questioned about this statistic Kathy Mulvey of Infact stated that "Why make enemies of fifty million adult smokers". This percentage is an overwhelming number, if these agencies would confront this issue it could possibly have positive outcome with teenagers to help with the anti-smoking efforts.

Violence does not souly stem from television and advertising campaigns but from the home as well. "Americas biggest explosion in felony violent crime is not street crime among minorities or teens of any color, but domestic violence among aging, mostly white baby boomers. Is the answer to this problem to censor violent and sexually explicit programming from white middle aged men and women?

Americans need to become proactive with there children, begin monitoring what there watching and discuss what is going on. The real issue is that as a society we want the easy fix. Technology entertains and "babysits" our children so we do not have to deal with it. If parents would limit the amount of time and television shows that there children watch then maybe there would be less violence among children. As the saying goes "Monkey see, Monkey do", parents can not expect these agencies to set an example for our children when we are not even setting the example. Chain smoking a pack of ciggarettes a day in front of a child and telling them not to smoke is not going to stop them from smoking it will increase the probability of them starting to smoke.

Society as a whole must address these issues if we want to see change, we must be willing to make the changes first before we expect our kids to. Talk to them and ask what is going on with them, explain different ways to deal with frustration and tell them what is really going on in the world.

Mike Males, Stop Blaming Kids and TV
What Matters in America, Gary Goshgarian
Pearson Education 2007

Effect of Violence on Society Through the Media

One of the major fears in today’s society is the effect violence has had via the media on the human society. It cannot be denied that violence is more prevalent than one might want it to be. It has been a means to preserve species, societies, families, and individuals. There are some who argue that violence is unnecessary. This does not change the fact that violence is a natural part of existence, although not often a very positive one.
Most people have been effected by violence in some way, whether it be physical or verbal. It’s no wonder violence is often referred to and treated as an scourge on humanity by the media (pp.111). It is said that the news is most effective when it reinforces our personal beliefs and individual fears (pp.102). Many of those that fear violence, have experienced it in some way or know someone who has, making it all the more real. The negative connotation that accompanies modern terms like ‘hate crime’ and ‘road rage’ have become part of the daily news.
Citizens of a community trust that when the news reports a brutal crime that the offense truly occurred, but it also must be realized that the story is sensationalized. This is in attempt to keep the viewer interested and help keep them informed about topics that they may have legitimate concerns for. Research done by those in the media industry does run the risk of originating from sources that are unreliable or biased. Generally the intentions behind their investigations and reporting are not malicious in origin (pp. 91).
Throughout the history of mankind violence has been a source of entertainment in one form or another. In recent decades, however, society has treated the media’s portrayal of violence as a plague. In reality, if the media were to exclude all content that is considered aggressive in nature it would deny part of what makes it’s audience human. It should not be viewed in such a negative way, but rather as a valuable source for information that we can use to our advantage if we utilize its correctly (pp.107).

Phillips, Peter. “Heads Above the Hype.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Long man, 2007. 104-107.

Blyth, Myrna. “The Female Fear Factor.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Long man, 2007. 96-102.

Stevens, Jane Ellen. “The Violence Reporting Project: A New Approach to Covering Crime.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Long man, 2007. 110-114.

Stossel, John. “ Extreme Reality: How Media Coverage Exaggerates Risks and Dangers.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Long man, 2007. 88-91.

Extreme Reality: How Media Coverage Exaggerates Risks and Dangers

If you watch television news regularly, you can’t help but think that the world is a very scary place (Stossel 88). The news media falls into the trap of entertaining its audience under the guise of information. Media from many sources, whether it is television, magazines or newspaper, tend to bias their news reports in an attempt to entertain. Lichter said, “Journalists unconsciously train themselves to look for the story that really rivets your attention (Stossel 88).
Media accounts
The year 2001 was labeled “Summer of the Shark”. Amidst the hype of news reports the message of increasing shark attacks seemed to be everywhere. According to the author, the claim that shark attacks were on the rise was not true. While scientists were saying that a person was more likely to be killed by lightning than a shark, the media was creating its own news. This is mirrored in another account of media hype involving a report by the American Automobile Association (AAA) in which it was reported that road rage was up 51 percent in the first half of the 1990s. Unfortunately, this assertion was based on circular logic (Stossel 89). Stefani Faul, a spokesperson for AAA, said “the consumer group based it’s analysis on incidents from news reports.”
Critical thinking
The Media reports on a daily basis and in doing so they must continuously strive to outdo themselves. If the world isn’t in danger of sharks or road rage it is attributed to carjacking or murder. News reports, in an attempt to emit an emotional response, tend to overstate certain facts while understating others. Ultimately it may turn out that life is safer than media reports insist. Replying to his comments on mundane things, Mcrary said, “It doesn’t sell on TV. Sex and violence sells.” Lichter said, “Bad journalism is worse than no journalism, because it leaves people thinking they know something that is, in fact, wrong.”

Stossel, John. “Extreme Reality: How Media Coverage Exaggerates Risks and Dangers.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007.

Can Television Violence Influence Behavior?

In the article "Violence On Television- What Do Children Learn? What Can Parents Do?" the American Psychological Association discusses violence on television. The article provides research that shows three major problems that watching violence on television can cause for children. One problem the article discusses is that children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others. It states that children who see a lot of violence on television are less bothered with it. This makes them less inclined to to get help when they witness acts of violence in real life. This proves very true, the reason behind it being that violence becomes part of the "norm" for children. They are so use to seeing violence on television they do not believe there is anything wrong with it. They do not realize the real life effects that come from violence. The second effect of seeing violence on television is that children may become more fearful of the world around them. Seeing violence in cartoons may seem funny to children, but seeing real life violence such as the news could bring fear to many children. If a child hears about situations such as school shooting or an animal attack they could become very frightened about the world around them. The last piece of research shows that children who watch violence on TV may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways towards others. This also comes from children not realizing the real consequences of their actions. An example would be if a child sees a cartoon character get run over by a car and then the character walks away, unharmed. The child may not realize the effects and consequences if these situations happened in real life.
The article states that parents need to step in and supervise what children are watching. If a child witnesses a violent act on TV it is important to sit down with the child and explain to them why this action was not appropriate. So children will realize the difference between right and wrong and understand fiction from reality. This will help children as the get older. It will encourage child to make the right decisions when they encounter violence.

American Psychological Association." Violence on television-What Do Children learn? What Can Parents Do?.
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 248-252.

Can Television Violence Infuence Behavior?

Blog 5

Hate Violence? Turn it off!

Are Americans becoming just as concerned about violence on television as they are about sex? Author Tim Goodman, a television and media critic for the San Fransisco Chronicle believes this is exactly what is happening. In years past he explains, sexual images have been banned from television while violence has been shown on a daily basis. Mr. Goodman claims that Hollywood has been blamed for the downfall of the nation's morals and a scapegoat for parent's poor parenting skills. Mike Males, an author of several media books, states that there is no
proof that children are influenced by what they see on television. He states that Mothers Against Drunk Driving accuse certain beer commercials featuring frogs are geared towards teens and may influence them into drinking. However, an in depth survey by USA Today found that while teens found these ads amusing, they did not consume alcohol as a result of watching them. Mr. Males writes that youths learn behaviors from their parents, not television. He feels that kids are taking the blame for being violent when it is actually the parents who are at fault. Tim Goodman writes that parents need to "vote with their remote" (Goodman, page 258) and stop ruining television for everyone. Parents have pressured elected officials into taking action and as a result a ratings system is in place as well as V-Chip which shifts parental responsibility to the government he claims. Mr. Goodman writes that this sort of censoring is a violation of the first amendment right, freedom of speech. Embrace freedom by changing the channel if its not deemed appropriate, he suggests.

These writers urge the public to reclaim their first amendment right, the right to free speech. They feel it has been proven in various surveys that television does not influence the young and that parents should be held responsible for setting a good example and monitoring what they watch on television. The term "vote with your remote" means to change the channel or turn the television off. The media and television is often to blame when the behaviors of the parents and elders are overlooked. They make a very compelling point with surveys showing kids model their behaviors after their parents. If television and the media are to blame for violence among teens, then it is the parents who are to blame for not monitoring their viewing. There are many people who enjoy shows that portray violence realistically and do not want censorship to ruin their viewing pleasure. These authors are successful in reminding the reader that the first amendment has gotten lost in todays society.

Goodman, Tim. "Hate Violence? Turn it Off."
Goshgarian, Gary.What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 257-260.

Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV."
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 267-271.

Angst and Paranoia coming at you from the Small Screen

Chapters 3 and 8 of "What Matters in America" (Goshgarian) investigate the effects of print and broadcast media on society. Although a few of the articles do take a global view, the primary focus is on the United States. This focus is further refined by the intense emotions brought to the fore by broadcast television. In reading the articles in these chapters, one could believe that broadcast television has some messianic control over the thought process of the American public.

Americans have been able to relax in front of their television set for over 60 years now. A short time span when taken in context of the several millennia of human existence. Broadcast television's impact on society seems disproportionate to its age. In the articles presented in these chapters of "What Matters in America" broadcast television is accused of:

* using sensational, extremist, and anti-intellectual positions to inform and entertain

* targeting women and children in particular with subversive programming

* being controlled by a global conspiracy with the intent of addicting viewers

There are two articles that offer solutions to those feeling as if they are under attack. One solution presented by Tim Goodman in "Hate Violence? Turn it Off" (Goodman) is as simple as using the remote control to disarm the television. Unfortunately, none of the articles analyze why this solution seems so difficult to achieve. The second solution put forth by Mike Males in "Stop Blaming Kids and TV" (Males) is more rebuttal than solution. In "Stop Blaming Kids and TV", Mike Males attempts to objectively match some of the accusations listed above with empirical reality. Males summarizes that the real world is much more dangerous than the world presented on the small screen.

Broadcast television has enraptured audiences since its introduction in the mid-20th century. The producers and distributors of the television industry's content have learned to craft their product in order to build and expand their businesses. Viewers will need to increase their knowledge of these products; especially how and why they are crafted in these ways, to avoid some of the negative effects cited in these articles. Caveat emptor.

Goodman, Tim. "Hate Violence? Turn it Off." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 257-260.

Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007.

Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 267-271.

Can Television Violence Influence Behavior? Blog 5

There are two sides or points of view regarding
violence on television and children. The first
show how television can affect children and
teenagers.
Scientists have researched many reasons against
the programs on television. They said that it leads
to aggressive behavior and creates psycholigal
affects on children such as they become less
bathered by violence in general, less sensitive to
pain, suffering of others, and less likely to see
anything wrong with it. It may affect their behavior
at school. Kids tend to show a higher level of aggressive
behavior when they become teenagers. According to
Dr.Eron the ones who have watched a lot of television
are likely to be arrested and prosecuted for criminal
acts as adults.
They also point out how parents have power to influence
that behavior, they believe if parents limit the number of
hours children watch television, it may reduce the amount
of aggression, encourage children to spend their time on
sports, hobbies or friends. Parents also should discuss any
program that they consider to be violent and encourage
their children to watch programs that show people helping,
caring and cooperating.
The second opinion doesn't believe that television has to
be blamed. They believe that parents need to take more
responsability for what their children are watching, also
many adults like violence, and of course others dislike it.
A most important issue is where children are living a house
where there is violence such as beatings, rape or parental
addictions. Television violence has a small effect compared
to the real behavior that they experience in their lives.
There are many cases involving violent kids with dads in
jail for assault, others molested by mom's boyfriend, also
living in a home where there is smoking, alcohol, drugs, and
domestic abuse. Before we blame television or kids behavior,
we need to take look at adults behavior. Millions of children
and teenagers witness real violence in their homes.
Again with all this background television takes the center
stage. Television is not the problem in our society.

Consumerism or capitalism? You decide.

When you venture out into the world to purchase a new bedroom set, or perhaps something fresh to wear, what is it that drives you to the retailers whose very names conjure up a certain style? Some would argue that we have developed a culture of conformance, where cool is in and if you aren't, well then, you are out. Another school of thought would argue that today's mass consumerism is an example of capitalism at its best. Whichever theory is motivating today's consumers, what can not be argued is that mass marketers have used it to their advantage.

In "On Sale at Old Navy: Cool Clothes for Identical Zombies" (Cave), Damien Cave presents his position that mass market retailers are using marketing strategies that portray the image and concept of "cool" to woo the American consumer. He uses the examples of Old Navy and IKEA to illustrate several different strategies employed by these marketers to appeal to the masses. Mr. Cave's argument centers on the idea that consumers are being scammed into believing that the mass conformity these retailers are striving to create is the essence of cool. He quotes Naomi Klein, author of "No Logo", who argues that "stores like Old Navy and IKEA are duping millions, inspiring mass conformity while pretending to deliver high culture to the masses." Cave also quotes John Seabrook, who argues that "the homogenized taste of today's Old Navy and IKEA shoppers proves that Americans either are consciously choosing to look and live alike or are determined not to notice that is what they're doing." The author also points out that according to Christine Rosen this trend has been going on for a while and first appeared in the 1910's. The article continues on to point out some of the whys of this trend including the concept put forth by Packard Jennings that the American consumer is basically lazy. The one stop shopping convenience, enhanced by store layouts and the attempts to commoditize the products, take choice and thought out of the equation, making it easier for the shopper to mass-consume. His final argument is perhaps the most convincing. Cave suggests that retailers attempt to elevate shopping to the same status as a cultural experience by creating retail store environments that resemble theme parks and that this "new cultural experience" comes at the expense of true culture, conversation and human interaction.

Damien Cave leans heavily on the opinion and research of sources with proven anti-consumerism credentials. This is to be expected, as his viewpoint and intentions for this piece are clear. He effectively presents his case that the business strategies of the high-power, brand marketers have some potentially negative social consequences. There are two perspectives that he either did not present, or touched on very lightly. The first is the viewpoint of John & Jane Q. Public - the actual consumer. Are they being swayed by marketing or capitalism? Are they purchasing with their image or their pocketbook as their primary motivation? The second viewpoint that Cave did not address was that of an advocate of the "Commerce lifts all economic boats" school of thought. Professor Reichart (Fordham) did offer one point addressing the availability of quality, cheap "stuff," but this is balanced out by a later comment that the retail environment in question promotes "over-consumption". Curiously, this piece was written eight years ago, which coincides with the first crest of the internet/e-commerce wave. This article was initially published in an on-line forum (salon.com). It would have been highly relevant to address the growing phenomenon of the e-tailer as a lifestyle source. Given the growth of that aspect of consumerism over the past eight years, it would have demonstrated significant foresight.

Mr. Cave puts forth a convincing argument that image is what motivates the consumer. There is other evidence to support this perspective, for example the luxury goods market where consumers will readily overpay for a prestigious logo or symbol. It could be argued that retailers like Old Navy or IKEA do in fact have a logo. It is just expressed through "the look" rather then an actual symbol. In the end each consumer chooses their own definition of cool. To some it is to conform, to some to stand out and yet to a few more to save a few pennies. Marketers will continue to strive to define our image of "cool." Everyday these marketers are presented with newer, faster, and "cooler" mechanisms to deliver their messages. Isn't all of this is made possible by America's unique brand of capitalism?

 

Cave, Damien. "On Sale at Old Navy: Cool Clothes for Identical Zombies." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 25-29.

 

On Sale at Old Navy!

Have we all become brand name zombies? In the article by Damien Cave, “On Sale at Old Navy: Cool Clothes for Identical Zombies!” that very question is investigated. It is often this inquiry that arises when thoughts about the high value society puts on brand names comes to mind. Cave’s main purpose in this article is not to demean those who conform to what companies are trying to ‘sell’. His main intention is to educate the reader and help them be less ignorant of gimmicks in stores like Old Navy and Ikea. By understanding the pressures placed on shoppers through the use of modern analogies, the reader can liberate themselves from the confines of conformity created by the world of consumerism.

The author, Damien Cave, begins his piece by introducing the reader to social critic Thomas Frank and his reaction to the environment of brand name stores like Old Navy. Cave, who clearly takes issue with the negative impact of brand name stores, supports his view point with input from additional professors, writers, and critics. He asserts that offering low prices and a stimulating shopping environment is what makes places like Old Navy and Ikea so popular (pp.26). Brand name companies with a reputation for selling “good stuff cheap” (pp.26) contribute to conformity among the masses. He refers to information regarding the floor plans of Ikea stores and how they affect a shopper’s visit, confirming it through an Ikea ‘insider’ (pp.27). Product quality is also addressed by the author. Cave states that the desire to fit in leads consumers to ignore quality for the sake of a name, even if the brand is considered low-priced. One of the reasons consumers buy into it, he explains, is because when shoppers walk through the stores, seeming more like amusement parks, they are practically forced into spending money. Cave ends his article on an optimistic note, suggesting that our society is capable of removing itself from the cycle of “work and spend” (pp.29). He demonstrates this optimism by referencing a scene in “Fight Club” when Edward Norton watches his Swedish furniture burn, liberating himself from conformity.

Cave draws on several key ideas, many of which are gleaned from the insight of professors and critics to make his point about conformity and materialism. His repeated reference to the brand names Old Navy and Ikea are very effective. They are names with which readers are likely to be familiar. Immediately, the reader can relate to the author’s point that every buyer is part of the consumer cycle. Cave also adds a bit of history regarding brand name marketing in our culture that puts consumerism and materialism in perspective for the reader. Christine Rosen, a business professor from U-C Berkeley, compares a consumer’s response to the atmosphere of places like Old Navy and Ikea to that of Pavlov’s dogs, salivating at the ring of a bell (pp.27). Cave’s decision to include this analogy in his article may offend some readers who don’t want to face the facts of their own materialistic nature. Cave, however, takes a little heat off individual consumers by including a theory of an anti-consumerist, Packard Jennings, that these stores are designed in such a way that customers are compelled to buy, buy, buy (pp.27). The author continues to connect with the reader through use of words such as “you”, “we”, and “masses”. This reminds readers that everyone succumbs to conformity in one way or another. Cave’s tone throughout the article is one of acceptance for “what is”, tempered with the hope that the shackles of consumerism can be cast off from our society.

Caves’ ability to put his own perspective into a setting that the audience relates to is what allows the individual reader to be reminded that they are a part of the economic cycle. The author is not trying to make stores like Old Navy the villain; he is simply trying to remind us of our place in the marketing industry. The more aware consumers are of the market’s pull then the better they are able to resist the allure. He urges the reader to break free from the conformity created by brand names and to no longer be relegated to the role of zombies.

Cave, Damien. "On Sale at Old Navy: Cool Clothes for Identical Zombies." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 25-29.

With These Words I Can Sell You Anything

Would you buy a product that was “new and improved?” What does “new and improved” mean? Is it really new and improved? The answer, upon evaluating the work of Mr. Lutz, may change.

The power that words have to communicate meaning to us is illustrated by William Lutz from the Rutgers University. He is the author of several books, including Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four and Doublespeak Defined. In his book Doublespeak, he explains the subtle meaning behind words and how they don’t always say what they seem to imply. Mr. Lutz makes examples of words he labels “weasel words.” These words usually imply something incorrectly, hopefully without the consumer being aware of the slanted language, or say nothing at all. For example, the word “new” is seen all the time in advertising. This word implies better or even improved, but “new” can mean new packaging or a new, but not necessarily better, feature. The meaning behind it is that the old product is no longer good enough or the improvement is worth the extra price. Another well used word is “help,” which is defined as “aiding or assisting.” Unfortunately, this word has been altered into a qualifier for other words such as “help stops, help eliminate, etc.” In essence, our language is being used as a weapon against us. Even when we think we are being savvy consumers, we may be subtly manipulated by advertising and not even be aware of it.

The main point Lutz is trying to make is the fact that advertisers manipulate consumers. This may be the only relevance to his whole argument. This statement alone doesn’t allow use the ability to understand if it is for better or worse. His whole idea is based upon opinion which has merit, when taken superficially. When we try to understand why a company is trying to sell its product, we can assume it is to make money. This still doesn’t explain the deceptiveness unless we take into account the plethora of other companies peddling the same product. Regardless of whether or not the product works, is new, or better than something else, it still needs to be sold. Also, if a product is better, the only way to compete and get consumers to purchase said product is to play the same game as before. Mr. Lutz’s book on doublespeak is a type of advertising in itself. Utilizing a scare tactic, he presents us with the idea that advertizing is evil and up to no good. If this opinion were true, then none of the many products we purchase would do anything. Not to say that some products aren’t as good as we are made to believe but the days of snake oil salesmen are past, at least for the most part.

Taking this new found knowledge into account we can arrive at a clearer understanding of marketing and the techniques that advertisers use. If a produce is “new and improved” it must be in some way and we have the ability to understand why. If the improvement isn’t anything beneficial to us we can know that as well. Ultimately the burden is on the consumer therefore, “let the buyer beware.”

With These Words I Can Sell You Anything

"New and Improved," are the most frequently used words in advertising, according to author William Lutz. Mr. Lutz explains that the product is commonly not new or improved, but changed insiginficanlty to legally use the term. Consumers must be aware of doublespeak, one one of many marketing strategies used to lure unsuspecting consumers into purchasing a product.

Author William Lutz demonstrates how we, the consumer, are misled by sneaky advertising tactics. He introduces the term “weasel words” (named after the weasel who steals egg yolks right from under the nose of the unsuspecting hen), which appear to have meaning, when in fact the opposite is true. One example he quotes is the term “new and improved,”(Lutz, 34) which he claims is the most frequently used term in advertising. He explains that legally, the word “new” is reserved for products under six months old. To lawfully use this word, a product must have undergone a material functional change, he states.
To accomplish this, companies add or change one minor detail about their product,
then can claim the “new and improved” label. Mr. Lutz advises that as consumers, we ask ourselves “What was wrong with the old product? and "Is the old product less expensive?" (Lutz,34) The author reveals several methods of misleading advertising in which the consumer
is being deceived. He demonstrates that by using choice words and shying away from parities,
marketers can get away with making claims that cannot be substantiated. He labels this method of advertising doublespeak. He explains that advertisers use every word in their ads and research the legalities of their wordage, knowing that generalizations will most likely not be challenged. Mr. Lutz lists many “weasel words” that the buyer should be aware of and questions we should ask ourselves when we see ads.


This article was written to raise consumer awareness in the world of advertising. The author states that marketers will use any device, trick, or means legally allowed to push their product. This article is clearly based the author’s opinion. One has to realize that not all marketers use these methods. The author offers no perspective from the marketer, or other consumers, to balance out his theory of deception. Is it the marketer’s responsibility to educate the public in regards to advertising? One could argue that marketers are simply practicing their right to free enterprise within the legal guidelines to sell their product. By pointing out many commonly used words and phrases that are seen on a daily basis by the public, Mr. Lutz guides us through his evaluation of advertisers’ selling techniques. This keeps attention throughout the article. He implies that ad techniques are underhanded and used strategically to trick us into
purchasing a product based on the advertising language used. Mr. Lutz urges the consumer
to be on the defense when shopping by paying attention to advertising and to identify “weasel words” and doublespeak. Mr. Lutz appears to be a consumer advocate and raised valid points throughout his article. The article is accusatory in nature towards the advertising field, and could be insulting to some consumers. Even lawyers could argue his point regarding what terms are allowed to be used legally. Without other perspectives there is no contrast to his theory. To state the basis for his claims would have been compelling.

Through reading this article the reader is made aware of marketing tactics and how ads may be misleading. Mr. Lutz made strong points on marketing strategies that are designed to take advantage of unsuspecting consumers. He offers tips that can be used to assist the buyer in making wise choices and not being taken advantage of when it comes to marketing. By educating the reader about "double speak" the author heightens consumer awareness.

What Matters in America:Reading and Writing about Contemorary Culture.Goshgarian, Gary.
"With These Words I Can Sell You Anything" Lutz, William.
2007 Pearson Longman, 31-39.

The Perfection of Anti-Cool

The article titled “Brand Cool” by Peter Belmonte illustrates how today’s youth are reacting to advertising campaigns, and how marketers find ways to relate to today’s youth in regards to fashion. The Author claims that “rejecting fashion is now considered an attempt at preempt fashion and being cool is a timeless emotional need that we all strive for”. Throughout this article the reader will begin to understand how today’s youth relate and react to this and how today’s advertisers are using this to market to Generation X.

This article states that "cool is something we learn as children in grade school" and that the "inspirational age is 17 years old and is considered to be the perfect cool". According to this article cool is a timeless emotional need that a person may claim is discounted, yet time and time again prove that people strive and survive for it. Cool is considered to be indefinable and teens included in Generation X are extremely resistant to marketers. Marketers had to find new methods to approach this group of potential consumers. They accomplished this through advertising campaigns that were diverse and multicultural and they found ways to relate to teenagers anti cool attitudes. Today's youth are diverse and they are intermingled in multiculture and ethnicity. Peter Belmonte claims that " rejecting fashion is now considered an attempt at preempt fashion, the newest trend will be referencing the unsavory parts of the world and asserting independence and individuality". Belmonte’s view throughout the article seems to be that "cool" almost revolves in various cycles and is always changing and in order to be "cool" a person must be "anti anti cool".

This article is easy for the reader to relate to especially when Belmonte says that “some people chase cool throughout their lives and for some people its a way of life". This is very true many young people usually pretend not to care if they are cool in order to become cool. This article is very effective in showing how today's youth are diverse and intermingled throughout various peer groups. Belmonte made it very clear how marketers were using this in advertising and promotional efforts to gain these consumer bases. All of the information on how the advertisers related to Generation X was very convincing, and the descriptions about how they did so through various icons helped the reader to connect with this article. There was not enough documented factual information to prove and backup the author’s points. Peter Belmonte seemed to be expressing this from his personal opinions and views, rather than the experience or first hand observations of others. However, the article was very well written and effective in getting his purpose and points across. This article demonstrates how many young people that are going through an anti-cool phase actually want to be the cool kid. This article is easy to relate with and it makes the reader believe the information being delivered throughout it.

After reading Peter Belmonte’s article the reader should now have an understanding of why cool is a timeless emotional need. The reader should now know that rejecting fashion is a way today’s youth become the “most fashionable” and by doing so they can become the “perfect cool”. Peter Belmonte evoked the understanding in his readers that the “perfect cool” in actuality is becoming anti-anti-cool.

Peter Belmonte "Brand Cool"What Matters in America;
Gary Goshgarian 2007 Pearson Education

Are retail stores promoting conformity?

Does shopping at certain retail stores promote conformity? Many people including Damien Cave, the author of "On Sale at Old Navy: Cool Clothes for Identical Zombies!" believe that stores like Old Navy and Ikea are trying to conform consumers and diminish individuality. The author believes that these stores use their merchandise to sell the concept of "cool". This causes people to overspend on merchandise that they do not really need and subconsciously forces them to conform with everyone else. This article offers some very valid points, but in the end while retailers can offer suggestions on what they think is "cool", the ultimate decision lies in the hands of the consumer.

In the article "On Sale at Old Navy: Cool clothes for identical zombies!" the author Damien Cave tries to convince readers that "Mass-market retail stores" are just trying to promote conformity. The author, Damien Cave states that stores like Old Navy and Ikea are selling us the idea that if you where their clothing or buy their furniture you will be "cool". And that these types of stores are offering cheaper prices but at the cost of good quality. Cave states that this will eventually lead to the end of individualism. Cave also states that stores such as Old Navy have different tactics to make consumers purchase and overspend. He provides different peoples opinions throughout the article that agree with his opinion that these "mass-market retail stores" promote conformity. Naomi Klein, author of “No Logo” offers her opinion in the article saying that “consumers are being scammed by stores such as Old Navy And Ikea” and “you don't notice you are conforming because everything is so colorful”(26). The article also goes on to say that these stores take away from creativity by making the consumer not have to put any thought into what they are buying. Furniture and clothing are pre selected for you in hopes of convincing you to buy into a certain lifestyle, which the stores are promoting.

The author provides an opinion from Packard Jennings, an anti-consumerism activist that states that these types of mass-market stores remove all creativity from purchasing items. Jennings states that "Ikea pre-arranges sets of furniture in it's stores, thereby lessen individual thought"(27). This proves true when a person walks in a store like Ikea where the bedrooms are all set up with matching color drapes and comforters, it does take all the thought out of making purchases. The same goes with manikins in department where the outfits have already been pre selected for the consumer. The article makes a good point when talking about the tactics that retailers use to sway consumers into overspending. Cave suggests these tactics include providing consumer's with oversized bags as they enter the store. Another tactic for over-consumption the retailers use is in the design of the store. People are forced to walk through the entire store before they finally reach the check-out. Although the author offers some very good points on how retail stores take away from individualism and promote mass conformity, the article is very one-sided. He bases most of the article on opinions and hardly supports those opinions with any facts. In one situation Damien Cave implies that these stores do not offer high quality merchandise. Just because these stores offer merchandise at more affordable prices does not mean their quality is sacrificed. One controversial part is when the author also quotes John Seabrook who says "Shopping is a way of putting together you identity"(27). This statement is true because clothes you wear give a slight insight to a persons personality. However John Seabrook as goes on to say that Americans are either choosing to look and live alike or they are just oblivious to what is going on. This is extremely false, where a person chooses to shop has to affect on who they are as a person. Identity is made up of many different parts including personality, beliefs and morals. It is not based solely on how a person dresses or the way their home is decorated. Just because they offer a life a certain type of lifestyle in their products people will always have different likes and dislikes.

Does shopping at certain retail stores promote conformity? The answer to that question is no. Even though marketers can use certain tools that are meant to sway our judgement while making purchases, the decision of what to buy is up to the consumers. In the end retail stores are only offering suggestions to display a persons personality, not trying to end individuality and market conformity.

Cave, Damien. "On sale at Old Navy: Cool Clothes for Identical Zombies" Goshgarian,Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman. 2007. 25-29.

Klein, Naomi. "On sale at Old Navy: Cool Clothes for Identical Zombies":26

Jennings, Packard. "On sale at Old Navy: Cool Clothes for Identical Zombies":27

Seabrook, John."On sale at Old Navy: Cool Clothes for Identical Zombies":27

A Brand By Any Other Name - Douglas Rushkoff redoing post

In the article, A Brand By Any Other Name,the
author, Rushkoff is analyzing how a brand name
can influence people. In his first line, he talks
about meeting a young boy at a sports supersto-
re, noticed how the thirteen year old selected foot-
wear and explained the boy's dilemma, between
"Nike" abd "Airwalk" shoes. The author show how
marketers spend millions trying to identify chil-
dren's predilections, which means he is paralyzed
in the modern youth equivalent of on existential
crisis. He believe the dilemma that a tv show, video
game, other product lines, and computers can create
for children. The author tells the story such as it is,
about a boy who must collect little monsters in order
to develop his own character. However, kids feel they
can't quite identify with the advertissing, and how
much time a children spends on playing games and
the compulsion to buy things that they don't even
want. Also, older kids between ages 15-24 are invol-
ved with brand name clothing because they believe
it promotes a particular image. They admit that the
brand is even cooler than they are, The author points
out how much control the radio have over kids, and
the more they interact with brands,, the more they
brand themselves.

After I read the article I'm in agreement with
the author. For many people unless they have
a brand name they feel less secure about their
lives. The author points out that wanting a brand
name start at the very early age, the young boy
at the sport store was concern which brand was
going to make him a better player. The companies
use the study of anthropology to learn the emotio-
nal needs and behaviors of young people.
Also, Rushkoff made clear that things seem to
have gotten worse, ironically, this is because mar-
keting had gotten so much better.
In my opinion he made strong points that shows
the brand have the power over people to tell who
you are. They know how to manipulate everyone
to make the point for someone to feel better about
themselves by having expensive things.
Moreover kids are being pulled to expensive pur-
chases that us really difficult for families to deal
with. However the weakness of the article is that
the author did not point out that family can influen-
ce strongly children by setting limits on what they
buy or want.

A Brand By Any Other Name - Douglas Rushkoff redoing post

In the article, A Brand By Any Other Name, the author, Rushkoff is analyzing
how a brand name ca influence people. In his first line, he talks about meeting
a young boy at a sports superstore, noticed how the thirteen year old selected
footwear and explained the boy's dilemma, between "Nike" and "Airwalk"shoes.
The author show how marketers spend milllions trying to identify children's
predilections, which means he is paralyzed in the modern youth equivalent of
on existential crisis. He believe the dilemma that a tv show, video game, other
product lines, and computers can create for children. The author tells the story
such as it is, about a boy who must collect little monsters in order to develop his
own character. However, kids feel they can't quite identifiy with the adverstis-
sing , and how much time a children spends on playing games and the compul-
sion to buy things that they don't even want.
Also, older kids between ages 15-24 are involved with brand name clothing be-
cause they believe it promotes a particular image.They admit that the brand is
even cooler than they are. The author points out how much control the radio
have over kids, and the more they interact with brands, the more they brand
themselves.


After, I read the article I'm in agreement with the author. For many people, un-
less they have a brand name they feel less secure about their lives. The author
points out that wanting a brand name start at the very early age, the young boy
at the sport store was concern which brand was going to make him a better pla-
yer. The companies use the study of anthropology to learn the emotional needs
and behaviors of young people. Also, Rushkoff made clear that things seem to ha-
ve gotten worse, ironically, this is because marketing had gotten so much better.
In my opinion he made strong points that shows the brand have the power over
people to tell who you are. They know how to manipulate everyone to make the
point for someone to feel better about themselves by having expensive things.
Moreover kids are being pulled to expensive purchases that is really difficult for
families to deal with . However the weakness of the article is that the author did
not point out that family can influence strongly children by setting limits on what
they buy or want.

To be cool or Not to be cool, that is the question

Peter Belmonte's "Brand Cool" article brings to light the many ways teenagers are influenced by advertising and how in some instances can be taken advantage of. It’s and interesting article in which he explores the idea of being cool and marketing agents using the concept of cool to sell products. Belmonte describes cool as being a comprehensive set of life-guiding concepts, shorthand for social survival: acceptance, popularity, fun and success. Starting in the 90’s “bandmasters began to study teens like an anthropologist would study a foreign culture Teenagers are the target of most marketing campaigns and honestly it is the best way to go. Teenagers usually have jobs and really nothing to spend it on other than buying things for themselves or the person they are dating at the time. So they spend there money on what is "in" or "cool" such as $500 on a Prada hand bag or $200 on a pair of the hottest shoes.

Wanting to be cool or part of the "in" crowd is not a new concept advertisers have been using the idea as long as there has been consumers to by products. Just look at The Marlboro Man or Joe Cool two images used to portray it's cool to smoke. Now a day we use pro athletes and celebrities to sell everything from clothing to furniture. A designer's best way to get there products out there is to give them to hot young Hollywood. They are what we strive to be young, thin, beautiful and of course POPULAR!!! Honestly who doesn't want to be accepted and well liked? Marketers exploit this to get richer from your money. After reading this article you should sit down and think about how advertising effects society and particularly how it affects teenagers. The trend of using the super skinny or "heroin addict" type models in advertising is causing a rise in anorexia and bulimia especially in teens and even preteens. Belmonte is right though the trends of "street wear" or "hip/hop" are coming to and end. In fact sales on hip/hop records as a whole are really coming to a halt. Teens today are smarter and more aware of marketing ploys then they were 20 years ago. Teens think outside the box and like Belmonte said the "no-logo" idea will be the new trend in fashion and marketing campaigns. Teens as well as most people want to be seen for whom they are not what they wear. In conclusion if society as a whole cared more about whom people are instead of what they look like this world would be a much better place.

Paragraphs

The article by Peter Belmonte titled Brand cool states that "cool is something we learn as children in grade school". The "inspirational age is 17 years old and is considered to be the perfect cool" and people of all ages want to achieve it. According to this article cool is a timeless emotional need that someone may claim they discount, yet time and time again prove that they strive and survive for it. Cool is considered to be indefinable and teens that were included in generation x were extremely resistant to marketers. Marketers had to find new methods to approach this group of potential consumers. They accomplished this through advertising campaigns that were diverse and multicultural and they found ways to relate to their anti cool attitudes. Today's youth are diverse and they are mingled in multiculture and ethnicity. Peter Belmonte claims that " rejecting fashion is now considered an attempt at preempt fashion, the newest trend will be referencing the unsavory parts of the world and asserting independence and individuality". Belmontes view through the article seemed to be that "cool" almost revolves in various cycles and is always changing, to be "cool" you must be "anti anti cool".

Peter Belmonte "Brand Cool"
What Matters in America; Gary Goshgarian
2007 Pearson Education

This article made complete sense to me, Belmonte says that " some people chase cool throughout their lives and for some people its a way of life". This is very true, teenagers usually pretend not to care if their cool in order to become cool . Brand cool was very effective in showing how today's youth is diverse and intermingled with various peer groups. Belmonte made it very clear how marketers were using this in advertising and promotional efforts to gain these consumer bases. All of the information on how the advertisers related to Generation x was very convincing, and the descriptions about how they did so through various icons helped you connect with this article. There was not enough documented factual information to prove and backup his points that he was trying to get across. Peter Belmonte seemed to be expressing this from his personal opinions and views, rather than the experience or first hand observations of others. However, the article was very well written and effective in getting his purpose and points across. After reading this article it helped me to remember when I was going through my "anti cool" phase and how in actuality that all I really wanted was to be the "cool kid". This article was easy to relate with and it makes you believe the information being delivered throughout it.

Body Paragraphs 1 + 2

The author, Damien Cave, begins his piece by introducing the reader to social critic Thomas Frank and his reaction to the environment of brand name stores like Old Navy. Cave, who clearly takes issue with the negative impact of brand name stores, supports his view point with input from additional professors, writers, and critics. He asserts that offering low prices and a stimulating shopping environment is what makes places like Old Navy and Ikea so popular (pp.26). Brand name companies with a reputation for selling “good stuff cheap” (pp.26) contribute to conformity among the masses. He refers to information regarding the floor plans of Ikea stores and how they effect a shoppers visit, confirming it through an Ikea ‘insider’ (pp.27). Product quality is also addressed by the author. Cave states that the desire to fit in leads consumers to ignore quality for the sake of a name, even if the brand is considered low-priced. One of the reasons consumers buy into it, he explains, is because when shoppers walk through the stores, seeming more like amusement parks, they are practically forced into spending money. Cave ends his article on an optimistic note, suggesting that our society is capable of removing itself from the cycle of “work and spend” (pp.29). He demonstrates this optimism by referencing a scene in “Fight Club” when Edward Norton watches his Swedish furniture burn, liberating himself from conformity.

Cave draws on several key ideas, many of which are gleaned from the insight of professors and critics to make his point about conformity and materialism. His repeated reference to the brand names Old Navy and Ikea are very effective. They are names with which readers are likely to be familiar. Immediately the reader can relate to the author’s point that every buyer is part of the consumer cycle. Cave also adds a bit of history regarding brand name marketing in our culture that puts consumerism and materialism in perspective for the reader. Christine Rosen, a business professor from U-C Berkeley, compares a consumers response to the atmosphere of places like Old Navy and Ikea to that of Pavlov’s dogs, salivating at the ring of a bell (pp.27). Cave’s decision to include this analogy in his article may offend some readers who don’t want to face the facts of their own materialistic nature. Cave, however, takes a little heat off individual consumers by including a theory of an anti-consumerist, Packard Jennings, that these stores are designed in such a way that customers are compelled to buy, buy, buy (pp.27)! The author continues to connect with the reader through use of words such as “you”, “we”, and “masses”. This reminds readers that everyone succumbs to conformity in one way or another. Cave’s tone throughout the article is one of acceptance for “what is”, tempered with the hope that the shackles of consumerism can be cast off from our society.

Cave, Damien. "On Sale at Old Navy: Cool Clothes for Identical Zombies." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 25-29.

Essay 1 Draft

In the article On Sale at Old Navy: Cool clothes for identical zombies! the author Damien Cave tries to convince readers that "Mass-market retail stores" are just trying to promote conformity. The author states that stores like Old Navy and Ikea are selling us the idea that if you where their clothing or buy their furniture you will be "cool". And that these types of stores are offering cheaper prices but at the cost of good quality. He states that this will eventually lead to the end of individualism. The author states that stores such as Old Navy have different tactics to make consumers purchase and overspend. He provides different peoples opinions throughout the article that agree with his opinion that these "mass-market retail stores" promote conformity. Naomi Klein, author of “No Logo” offers her opinion in the article saying that “consumers are being scammed by stores such as Old Navy And Ikea” and “you don’t notice you are conforming because everything is so colorful.” The article also goes on to say that these stores take away from creativity by making the consumer not have to out any thought into what they are buying. Furniture and clothing are preselected for you in hopes of convincing you to buy into a certain lifestyle, which the stores are promoting.

The author provides an opinion from Packard Jennings, an anti-consumerism activist that states that these types of mass-market stores remove all creativity from purchasing items. Jennings states that " Ikea pre-arranges sets of furniture in it's stores, thereby lessen individual thought." This proves true when you walk in a store like ikea where the bedrooms are all set up with matching color drapes and comforters, it does take all the thought out of making purchases. The same goes with manikins in department where the outfits have already been pre selected for you.The article makes a good point when talking about the tactics that retailers use to sway consumers into overspending. These tactics include providing you with oversized bags as you enter the store. Another tactic for over consumption the retailers use is the way they design there store in a way where you are forced to walk through the entire store before you finally reach the check-out. Although the author offers some very good points on how retail stores take away from individualism and promote mass conformity I feel that the article is very one-sided. He bases most of the article on opinions and hardly supports those opinions with any facts. In one situation the author implies that these stores do not offer high quality merchandise. Just because these stores offer merchandise at more affordable prices does not mean their quality is sacrificed. I feel one controversial part is when the author also quotes John Seabrook who says "Shopping is a way of putting together you identity." I believe that this statement is true in that the clothes you wear give a slight insight to a persons personality. However John Seabrook as goes on to say that Americans are either choosing to look and live alike or they are just oblivious to what is going on. I find this extremely false, where a person chooses to shop has to affect on who they are as a person. Identity is made up of many different parts including personality, beliefs, morals. It is not based solely on how a person dresses or the way their home is decorated. Just because they offer a life a certain type of lifestyle in their products people will always have different likes and dislikes. Therefore retail stores are only offering tools to display a persons personality, not trying to end individuality and market conformity.

False Advertising

From the first few lines, Rushkoff expresses the impressive power of the advertising corporations. After a brief description of the awe that they inspired in one young shopper, the writing moves on to explain the means by which companies make their sales is not through quality or price of the item, but rather, through mass advertising. Rather pessimistically, the writer claims that despite children growing up desensitized to commercials, their pride only serves to make them even more susceptible to new and improved advertising techniques. As a final point Rushkoff attempts to express how we are all doomed because "Even a consumer revolt merely reinforces one's role as consumer".
Unfortunately, reading this article was not at all pleasant for me. Much like an apocalyptic preacher, the author seemed to give the message that we our utterly powerless and thus doomed. The impression given by Rushkoff is that we have no control over what we buy and are at the complete mercy of our overlord corporations. This end-times message is combined with the very smear tactics and information manipulation that the writer dutifully informs us all advertisers make use of, used by the author himself. For example, he refers to company anthropologists as "the same breed of scientists that used to scope out enemy populations before military conquest" in an obvious attempt to try companies in with destruction and war-like tendencies. He also adds in a convenient second character to add validity to his ideas. The conversation between Rushkoff and a teenage boy who expresses all his emotional insecurities to some random adult who was watching him in a shoe store is pure self support and lies. Along with the seeming lack of point the the article, (does he want us to stop buying things?) I see little too be gained from even reading it.

Essay draft #1

With These Words I Can Sell You Anything





Author William Lutz demonstrates how we, the consumer are misled by
sneaky advertising tactics. He introduces the term “weasel words”
(named after the weasel who steals egg yolks right from under the nose of the unsuspecting hen), which appear to have meaning, when in fact the
opposite is true. One example, he quotes, is the term “New and Improved”
which he claims is the most frequently used term in advertising. He explains
that legally, the word “new” is reserved for products under six months old. To lawfully
use this word, a product must have undergone a material functional change, he states. To accomplish this, he writes, companies add or change one minor detail about their product, then can claim the “new and improved” label. He advises that as consumers, we ask ourselves “What was wrong with the old product?” and also “ Is the old product less expensive?”. The author reveals several methods of misleading advertising in which the consumer is being deceived. He demonstrates that by using choice words and shying away from parities they can get away with making claims that cannot be substantiated. He labels this method of advertising “doublespeak”. He explains that advertisers use every word in their ads and research the legalities of their wordage, knowing that generalizations will most likely not be challenged. Mr. Lutz lists many “weasel words” that the buyer should be aware of, and questions we should ask ourselves when we see ads.


This article was written to raise consumer awareness in the world of advertising. The author accuses marketers of using “any device trick, or means legally allowed” to push their product. This article is clearly based the author’s opinion. One has to realize that not all marketers use these methods. The author offers no perspective from the marketer, or other consumers, to balance out his theory of deception. Is it the marketer’s responsibility to educate the public in regards to advertising? One could argue that marketers are simply practicing their right to free enterprise within the legal guidelines to sell their product. By pointing out many commonly used words and phrases that are seen on a daily basis by the public, Mr. Lutz guides us through his evaluation of advertisers’ selling techniques. This keeps your attention throughout the article. He implies that ad techniques are underhanded and used strategically to trick us into purchasing a product based on the advertising language used. Mr. Lutz urges the consumer to be on the defense when shopping by paying attention to advertising and to identify “weasel words” and doublespeak. Mr. Lutz appears to be a consumer advocate and raised valid points throughout his article. The article is accusatory in nature towards the advertising field, and could be insulting to some consumers. Even lawyers could argue his point regarding what terms are allowed to be used legally. Without other perspectives there is no contrast to his theory. To state the basis for his claims of “most popular advertising words” or “a study some time ago” would have been compelling.

Voting - Influential factor i a young life - Global warning

Voting is a freedom of choice to select person most qualified to
maintain free democratic society, who is ellected it will determi-
ne the benefits or suffer to all of us. Also, it allows us to express
our own opinion, give us that opportunity to participate in our
government by helping as a volunteer, we can answer phones,
address envelopes, call voters, campaigns need lots of help. We
have the rights that permits to hire or fire who we choose from
a political party , it could be the Democrats, Republicans, Green
party, the America first party, libertarions to name just a few to
represent our nation.
The most influential factor in a young person's life is a family,
with male and female role model, what we could say a microcosm
of society, so as to survive throughout future years. The environ-
ment, friends, socialization, participation in the community, and
his own ambition it is important too.
Today America does not take global warming serious enough, it is
disrupting millions of delicately balanced ecological relationships
among species, creating a damage storms, cause an increase of
health problems, the age old rhythm of the Earth's seasons summer,
fall, winter, and spring is also changing as some parts of the world
heat up more rapidly than others. Continuous with a warmer wea-
ther that grounds for insects, and has been melting the arctic ice cap
so quickly as the water warms up, it puts even more melting pressu-
re on the edge of the ice.
A universal agreement amongs an industrial nations to address use,
and abuse of pollutants and measures to minimize effects of global
warning. Everyone should be aware and finding alternative fuels.

Hello Everyone

My name is Soraya and this is my second semester at Cape
Cod Community College. I've been live on Cape Cod for over
8 years, and I'm an Usa citizen came from Brazil I was born
in Brasilia the capital of Brazil.
I'm currently working as a Bilingual Medical Secretary, also
I manage my home, family, a dog, and my career. My goals
are to provide my english, and finish my prerequisities to
apply for nursing or x ray technician program.
I've heard a lot of nice things about Ms.Allen, and because my
difficult schedule I decided to get Ms.Allen online class. I'm
very interested to learn new things all the time, I worked long
time ago as an Accounting, and after I came to Usa I found
myself on healthcare career.
I'm looking forward to working with all of you and Ms.Allen.

Blog#3 summary

The power that words have to communicate meaning to us is illustrated by William Lutz from the Rutgers University. He is the author of several books including “Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four” and “Doublespeak Defined”. In his book “Doublespeak” he explains the subtle meaning behind words and how they don’t always say what they seem to imply. Mr. Lutz makes examples of words he labels “weasel words”. These words usually imply something incorrectly, hopefully without the consumer being aware of the slanted language, or say nothing at all. For example, the word “new” is seen all the time in advertising. This word implies better or even improved but “new” can mean new packaging or a new but not necessarily better feature. The meaning behind it is that the old product is no longer good enough or the improvement is worth the extra price. Another useful word is “help” which is defined as aiding or assisting. Unfortunately, this word has been altered into a qualifier for other words; such as “help stops, help eliminate, etc. In essence, our language is being used as a weapon against us. Even when we think we are being savvy consumers we may be subtly manipulated by advertising and not even be aware of it.


The main point Lutz is trying to make is the fact that advertisers manipulate consumers. This may be the only fact to his whole argument. This statement alone doesn’t allow use the ability to understand if it for better or worse. His whole idea is based upon opinion which has merit, when taken superficially. When we try to understand why a company is trying to sell it’s product we can assume it is to make money. Bearing in mind the fact that if a company doesn’t make money it won’t remain lucrative. This still doesn’t explain the deceptiveness unless we take into account the plethora of other company’s peddling the same product. Regardless of whether or not the product works, is new, or better than something else it still needs to be sold. Also, if a product is better, the only way to compete and get consumers to purchase said product is to play the same game as before. Therfore, I would tend to think that Mr. Lutz’s book on “doublespeak” is a type of advertising itself. Utilizing a scare tactic, he presents use with the idea that advertizing is evil and up to no good. If this opinion were true then none of the many products we purchase would do anything. Not to say that some products are as good as we are made to believe but I think the days of snake oil salesmen is past, at least for the most part. To make my point in a colorful and manipulative way, that makes you think your savvy and well informed, I present the old adage “let the buyer beware”.

Essay 1 Draft

In On Sale at Old Navy: Cool Clothes for Identical Zombies (Cave), Damien Cave presents his argument that mass market retailers are using marketing strategies that portray the image and concept of "cool" to woo the American consumer. He uses the examples of Old Navy and IKEA to illustrate several different strategies employed by these marketers to appeal to the masses. Mr. Cave's argument centers on the idea that consumers are being scammed; believing that the mass conformity that these retailers are striving to create is the essence of cool. He quotes Naomi Klein, author of "No Logo", who argues that "stores like Old Navy and IKEA are duping millions, inspiring mass conformity while pretending to deliver high culture to the masses". Cave also quotes John Seabrook, who argues that "the homogenized taste of today's Old Navy and IKEA shoppers proves that Americans either are consciously choosing to look and live alike or are determined not to notice that is what they're doing". The author also points out that according to Christine Rosen; this trend has been going on for a while and first appeared in the 1910's. The article continues on to point out some of the whys in this trend including the concept put forth by Packard Jennings that the American consumer is basically lazy. The one stop shopping convenience, enhanced by store layouts and the attempts to commoditize the products, take choice and thought out of the equation making it easier for the shopper to mass-consume. His final argument is perhaps the most convincing. Cave suggests that retailers attempt to elevate shopping to the same status as a cultural experience by creating retail store environments that resemble theme parks and that this "new cultural experience" comes at the expense of true culture, conversation and human interaction.

Damien Cave leans heavily on the opinion and research of sources with proven anti-consumerism credentials. This is to be expected, as his viewpoint and intentions for this piece are clear. He effectively presents his case that the business strategies of the high-power, brand marketers have some potentially negative social consequences. There are two perspectives that he either did not present, or touched on very lightly. The first is the viewpoint of John & Jane Q. Public - the actual consumer. Are they being swayed by marketing or capitalism? Are they purchasing with their image or their pocketbook as their primary motivation? The second viewpoint that Cave did not address was that of an advocate of the "Commerce lifts all economic boats" school of thought. Professor Reichart (Fordham) did offer one point addressing the availability of quality, cheap "stuff", but this is balanced out by a later comment that the retail environment in question promotes "over-consumption". Curiously, this piece was written eight years ago which coincides with the first crest of the internet e-commerce wave. This article was initially published in an on-line forum (salon.com), it would have been highly relevant to address the growing phenomenon of the e-tailer as a lifestyle source. Given the growth of that aspect of consumerism over the past eight years, it would have demonstrated significant foresight.

 

Cave, Damien. "On Sale at Old Navy: Cool Clothes for Identical Zombies." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 25-29.