I would just like to start off saying how much I have enjoyed this assignment. Although sometimes a blog post became a frantic Tuesday night ,11:45pm task , this project has become the highlight of Critical Thinking. Where else am I allowed to turn in writing with not-so-on-point grammar or the occasional "lol's?"
As a teenager in today's technology-dominated society, of course I consume tons of media! It's within my reach all the time! (literally too because my phone) The media blog has not diminished my consumption of media, but it has definitely made me about 9347183504823x more aware of what it is that I'm consuming. Before this project, the first thing I usually notice about advertisements is either the person featured or the font/color theme. Those eye catching qualities of an ad may actually be harmful to the company if I take the role as a consumer. Now, even if I only get a glance at an ad, I begin to analyze everything possible. I analyze it to figure out what needs the company is appealing to and what techniques they use. As a critical thinker, I also begin to utilize healthy skepticism to question whether or not the company will be able to deliver what it is promising its consumers. Wheels in my brain begin turning and I can no longer enjoy the messages advertisers are attempting to convey, which is the essence of this course.
In just a short four months, my whole view on advertisements and other forms of media has changed. I can't even watch a movie normally without pointing out the product placements embedded in random scenes. Just today, my friend and I were watching a movie and when we saw the main character using her MacBook Pro, we turned to each other and said "product placement!!!"
And that's when I knew, Critical Thinking has permanently changed me, for the better.
I honestly don't think my media consumption level will change in the future, but I have retained enough from Critical Thinking to realize what the advertiser is selling to us is completely different from the reality. I was simply too blind to see this before, when I would fall victim to whatever needs they were appealing to.
Because of this blog, I won't fall for advertising techniques as easily as I did before, nor will I be subconsciously brainwashed by product placements and love marks. Although, who's to say I won't be continuing to support love marks? lol (<-- see I did it again!!!)
Here I am chillin' on the weekend watching Netflix (what's new?). A cooking show I am currently OBSESSED with is Cutthroat Kitchen (It's so good 10/10 would recommend!!!!!!!!! Beat Bobby Flay is super good too). It is a show that provides $100,00 for four chefs to auction and outwit each other, as well as cook. While I'm watching, I have crit in the back of my mind (typical right?). I could not think of a blogpost idea, and just when I was about to put it off and procrastinate just a little more with Netflix, it hit me. I saw my next blogpost, literally. Through all the panicking and cooking featured in the show, Food Network still manages to take a few seconds out of the show to focus in on the Capital brand name on the oven.
Of all the different types of shows available, I would think cooking shows feature the least amount of product placement. But I guess Cutthroat Kitchen needs to get the $100,000 somewhere. No wonder Food Network utilizes Madison and Vine to feature the shiny Capital brand on the oven. Just as a chef is closing, opening, or even passing the oven, the camera immediately focuses in on the obvious brand of kitchenware. This does not just occur once, but occurs about every eleven minutes (yes i actually counted). Let's not forget this show is about forty-five minutes so basically out of the forty-five minutes, Food Network is showing the Capital brand ten seconds. This may not seem like a lot but a whole ten seconds was a big enough influence for me to notice, and I'm sure the majority of viewers notice too, which is exactly what the advertisers are aiming for. When considering kitchenware brands, a Cutthroat Kitchen viewer might recall the frame and be more inclined to purchase from Capital than other cookware brands, like Le Creuset, Kitchenware, and Cuisinart.
Like I said before, I attended 4H and became super emotional, but let's not talk about that right now. If you want to know more, just read my old post. This new post however is going to connect to the 4H one. During the weekend I spent with the children, I was super surprised by one thing. Although we did not have Internet access at the time, the children voluntarily wrote down their social media accounts like Instagram, Oovoo, and Snapchats for the teen tutors so we can follow each other and keep in touch afterwards. I was definitely in shock at the amount of media these elementary school children are exposed to everyday. I got Instagram when I was in seventh grade, and I was most definitely not as aware in fifth grade as these children are today. However, are they being aware of the "correct" things? In this specific case, I mean aware as in aware about celebrities and the "new hottest trends," and not social justice issues affecting the world.
Even when I had Instagram in seventh grade, I was not posting the same content as what these fifth graders are posting now. Sevie year little Steffany would post pictures with her friends or cool trips she went on. Now I'm not saying these fifth graders don't post with their friends, because trust me they do, but they are also posting pictures that crave for attention from others.
Posts like these crave for compliments from one's followers. This pictures specifically is defining the person based on whatever emojis his/her followers might comment. As children become more exposed to media, the more consumed they are. Some are even at the point where they allow simple emojis and others to define who they are. One of my absolute favorites is this picture.
Not only is this picture again allowing simple likes to define one's character, but this picture also stresses the fact that children rely on media to strengthen themselves. They are relying on simple taps by people behind a screen to reassure they are beautiful, which is absurd in my opinion.
What is no one likes his/her picture? The damage that could be done to the poster is unimaginable.
As technology advances in 2016 and on, not only are children being exposed to media at an earlier age, but the reliance they have on media is also higher, which is something we as a collective whole need to watch out for.
Who remembers the old Disney Channel? And when I say old, I only mean the Disney of us millenials' generation. Remember the days when Alex Russo always got into mischief, or when Miley Stewart was trying to hide her secret identity as Hannah Montana? I definitely do. Or what about Taylor Swift releasing Mean and Our Song? Well if you don't remember these moments, then you're in a bit of a pickle! Because now, all you'll see of Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift are them in mainstream and slightly revealing outfits. And Miley Cyrus, well, if you don't know about her development, where have you been?!?!? But here are some pictures anyways.
Selena Gomez and Miley Cyrus can be considered two of the most famous Disney stars since it was Disney who started their careers. Children around the world adored Alex Russo and Miley Stewart. But what happened when these two separated from the Disney world? Well, the mainstream world hit them and they found themselves lost in the clutter of teenage superstars.
In order to set themselves apart, they fell under the pressure and had to take advantage of the midriff. As Merchants of Cool defines the midriff, as a "collection of sexual clichés repackaged as female empowerment." The midriff encourages females to flaunt their sexuality and relays the message that a woman's body is her most important asset. There is no problem with Disney stars growing up and changing their appearance because that's their own choice, but it becomes a problem when advertisers take advantage of the stars' influential position.
Selena Gomez and Miley Cyrus have moved on to become individuals who don't rely on Disney, but young girls continue to idolize them. And by young, I mean young (like middle school.) And it's not just Disney either. Even singers like Taylor Swift have collected a massive fan base of teenage girls that completely idolize her. However, when there are so many other similar aged and appearance celebrities in the industry, there needs to be a way to break through the clutter. These superstar celebrities slowly alter their appearance in accordance to whatever is "hip" or "cool, in the case of today, revealing clothing. But simultaneously, they need to stand out from the mainstream as well. For example, if the mainstream is revealing clothing, stars need to be the most revealing to be the stand out in the crowd. Consequently, when young girls see their idols wearing revealing clothing, they are compelled to do the same. Young girls will buy similar clothing to look as cool as their idols because they are perfect and children totally aspire to be them. Plus, since they're superstar celebrities, of course they'll know what's cool and what's not!
Taylor Swift 2006
Taylor Swift 2016
We used to see Disney stars mature AFTER they leave Disney, but the midriff has even affected current stars. For example, Shake It Up is still airing on Disney Channel, and Zendaya and Bella Thorne are definitely idolized by young girls. In my opinion, Zendaya is probably one of the most empowered female in the Hollywood industry. But even at some points, is it questionable whether or not the midriff is getting to her as well. This reflects the main problem of the midriff. Are the revealing clothing a choice of female empowerment, or is it just a technique of the advertisers?
Remember my very first post? When I said I probably can't live without media? Well, I was proved wrong just last weekend. Last Friday right after school, a few friends and I left the crazy world of media behind and entered Camp Gold Hollow territory. The same territory that consisted of no cell service and basically took us off the grid.
It was a weekend dedicated to incorporating science into interesting activities. This provided an opportunity for children to experience science in nature, as opposed to their usual classroom setting. Since it was our first time attending 4H On the Wild Side, we were all dreading the loss of media for the weekend, given how it dominates our daily lives.
On Friday night before the children from three different elementary schools arrived, I was not in the best mood. I was anticipating for the children to be a bit whiny since the weather wasn't all that great. The requirement of teen tutors sleeping outside with the children also contributed to my gloomy mood. But this all changed Saturday morning.
The ecstatic children piled out of the buses and immediately turned my mood around 180 degrees. I was reminded of why I volunteered for this organization in the first place, to help these children. The children and I spent the entire Saturday and half of Sunday together, learning science, making friendship bracelets, and simply learning about their lives. The bond we created in just thirty hours was stronger than anything that could have been created with texting for sixty hours. There was about 100 children there, and by the time they left on Sunday, I had already known about fifty names, and grew close to about twenty. I was so emotionally attached to the children, I began crying at the ending ceremony when I realized I probably will not see the children again. The attachment was mutual and proven when the children reciprocated my tears and hugged my friend and I for almost ten minutes. Some of the children even left the lanyards and friendship bracelets they made at camp for us as a keepsake, saying things like "Please don't forget us," and "Can you come back with us?"
This trip provided me a great realization about the technological world today. People are so consumed with the communication of media, that real life interactions are minimized. Camp Gold Hollow was such an eye-opening opportunity that demonstrated how strong a relationship can become when there isn't the barrier of media. During the weekend, no one was communicating through a phone or any of the normal technologies we would use. Yet, my bond with the children was so strong I was influenced enough to cry uncontrollably at the thought of them leaving. Here's a picture of some of the children with my friend and I. I apologize for looking bad lol I was crying for fifteen minutes.
Inevitably, once I left the perimeter of the camp and finally received service again, I immediately replied to texts and Snapchats, and checked my Instagram feed. After all, my life is still undeniably consumed by media. But my view on media has definitely changed due to 4H because it demonstrated that I can in fact live without media, in contrast to my first post.
There I was at the Selena Gomez concert awaiting for DNCE, her opening band to play their most famous song Cake By The Ocean. But before the band got to the much anticipated performance, DNCE performed Toothbrush (which I may or may not like even more than Cake By The Ocean now). Here's a cool picture I took at the concert. :))
Five days ago, DNCE released the official music video for this awesome fantabulous song. Please click and listen to it!!
The music video features Joe Jonas and Ashley Graham, the star of this media blog. Ashley Graham is a famous "plus-size lingerie model for Lane Bryant". I can honestly say this is one of the few times a "plus-size" model has made it into something as big as the main female character of a music video. To even emphasize this rare occasion, the song is basically about a sexual relationship between Joe and Ashley. I'm not saying "plus-size" people never make it into "big things," because they do. But most of the time it's to contribute to very explicit messages like "love your body" or "you are beautiful." This music video has nothing to do with loving your body, or at least the lyrics don't. But the video has an underlying message that not all people have the perfect body figure like the normal female interests portrayed in media as big as this music video. Most of the time, advertisers/companies may think it is better to put these self-love messages upfront, but in my opinion, the message is more effectively conveyed if it's implicit like in Toothbrush's music video.
Almost never has a "plus-sized" model participated in something, and hasn't been pointed out as being the outlier just because she/he is a little more rotund than the others. Even now, a majority of the YouTube comments are about Ashley and her participation in this project. But at least in the video, she is regarded as a normal being engaged in a relationship with a man. There is nothing sung about her that points out her body. It's the viewers that notice for themselves how Ashley is different from the "perfect" figures of media. This is a bit saddening to me because all the comments on YouTube are about how beautiful Ashley looks. This came off as a great thing to me at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized why there were so many comments. The public is so conditioned to see the ideal slim figures, that any other different body type immediately stands out to them.
This music video provided just that experience for its viewers. It has the underlying message that not only perfect bodies can hold sexual relationships, but all body types can too. This is only just the first step of body-awareness. One day, when a body different from the stereotypical skinny figure is featured in media, the public will no longer comment on her "unique" body, but instead solely focus on her performance.
On a completely separate note, when watching Toothbrush 193479752384 times, I was extremely proud of the video containing no ads. Until 3:09. Up until 3:09, the video just featured Joe and Ashley's relationship. But viewers get to 3:09, and boom. There it is.
Ashley is holding a cup of tea and turning on the speakers. Speakers from Beats by Dr. Dre. Speakers that the camera felt the need to zoom all the way in on the lowercase "b." I was so proud too, but I guess media is media and it's inevitably going to contain some forms of advertisements.
Concluding this post, I am going to insert another picture of the Selena Gomez concert because why not? Plus, I really miss that night!
While shopping at Champs this weekend at Arden, I noticed a good section of the store was dedicated to the Golden State Warriors aka dubnation.(Why dubnation? I really don't know. Maybe because the W?) It featured the players' jerseys, T-shirts, hats, etc. As I exit the store, I also notice a big section of the glass was taken up by this giant poster and corresponding merchandise around the poster.
Although this poster does not scream advertisement at first glance, it actually is a print ad. It utilizes a couple of techniques to appeal to its target market, men who are fans of the Golden State Warriors.
First off, the entire poster is primarily black and white with the Adidas and it's three bars, except for the tiny NBA symbol on the bottom. The only thing that actually has color is the phrase "REP HARD DUBS. TAKE THE TITLE," which is super emphasized by the shiny gold caps letters. Now, anyone who watches basketball or knows someone who's a dedicated NBA fan will know playoffs are going on as of April. Knowing this, the phrase on the ad is basically cheering on GSW (too lazy sorry) at playoffs and telling them to rep(resent?) hard and win playoffs, eventually taking the title. This ad appeals to fans because as a dedicated fan, they perceive buying a dubs shirt will maximize their support for the team. This uses the technique bandwagon because dubnation fans will generally want to stick together and cheer them on as one unit. Buying a shirt or jersey will allow the consumer to join the huge crowd of dubnation supporters.
Another technique this ad uses is Transfer/Association. With a GSW player in the back (surprised it wasn't Steph Curry) with a facial expression and motion of success, fans may think buying a GSW product will allow them to achieve the same level of success as possibly winning the NBA Playoffs. This appeals to the need to achieve. The Golden State Warriors are doing pretty well so far and have won most of their games (except Monday with OKC ughh), so dubnation is automatically associated with success and achievement. When consumers view GSW products, it is immediately connected to the triumph of the team and how much publicity dubnation has received.
Lastly, this ad primarily appeals to men because in the background with the player, he is portrayed as super "masculine" with his face seemingly shouting from success. This goes along with the stereotypical portrayal of men and their masculine arms and facial hair, needing success. Males fans of dubnation will most likely associate himself with the player in the poster. This adds on to the other plethora of appeals this print ad has accomplished in order to persuade the GSW fans they must buy a dubnation product.
About two years ago, three very famous and influential male Youtubers came out with a video called "What guys look for in girls." What began as an innocent Q&A spiralled out of control as Cameron Dallas, JC Caylen, and Nash Grier listed out ridiculous expectations they have in potential girlfriends. The video led to a plethora of hate comments towards Nash Grier and he soon deleted the video from his channel. But luckily in this amazing world called the Internet, where nothing can be permanently deleted, the video was soon recovered, replicated, and uploaded by others.
This ten minute video could be one of the most frustrating things I've watched. And having to watch this over and over again now for this blog may or may not be killing me slowly. Before I even get into the expectations they listed, I need to point out that not once did the three Youtubers refer to the "girls" in their video as woman. They are literally three white privileged males criticizing and dictating what girls need to do to win their affection. If that hasn't made you irritated already, just you wait.
The very first point Nash Grier made about girls was that they "have to entertain" him. Cameron Dallas quickly agreed and added that girls "need to be fun and start conversations." In my opinion, that's probably one of the dumbest things Nash has said (and trust me he says multiple). He may not mean it, but from what he is saying, he is suggesting girls are just a form of entertainment that need to be fun in order to get a perfect boyfriend like him. They all later agree that girls also "need to be spontaneous" and "always want to go out and do things." Once again, this is extremely frustrating to see these ridiculous standards men are setting for "girls." Women are expected to always be energetic and a great companion to men. Not once did Nash, Cameron, or JC mention what they would do if she is not feeling adventurous or active. Do they not realize women can't be 100% energized 24/7? They are so focused on how women need to be in order to satisfy their needs and their needs only. They are blinded by the fact that women are not the materialistic forms of entertainment they perceive them to be.
The three then begin to criticize girls who "have no talent." My first thought at this was "Well, what talents do those three have? I mean, besides enforcing their gender roles on women." Besides making Youtube videos, these three don't display any other talent so who are they to dictate girls must have talent to get a boyfriend. They bring in stereotypes of inferior women when they mock them by saying "I'm just gunna marry a rich guy." What Nash is saying is "girls that have no ambition" will not get a boyfriend and will be judged. All three are taking a huge jump to the conclusion that if a girl doesn't have a talent, she is automatically dependent on men to sustain her life.
As the video goes on, Nash, Cameron, and JC begin criticizing girls' looks and what they like and dislike. It's incredibly ironic because the conversation starts on with all three agreeing to the fact that they like the natural look and they believe girls shouldn't have to change their appearance. But that statement is definitely not supported by what comes after. They all begin to list out superficial characteristics they enjoy like height, hair color, glasses, superb fashion choices, and light amount of makeup. To start things off, they say "short girls are hot." According to this theory, sorry half the population of girls that are tall, you're going to be alone forever. :)) They also make a comment about how they favor brunettes. So sorry to all the blondes out there, I guess you're out too. I'm not going into the absurd judgements they make on clothing and makeup, but if you would like to be as frustrated as me, I suggest you check the video out! I will have one comment however. It's that women dress nicely or put on makeup for themselves, not to satisfy men. It may not be the entire population of females I am representing but it's a good fraction for sure.
The very last thing I have to comment on is the main reason why this collab video attracted so many hate comments. So the conversation went a little something like this:
Nash: "Everyone's trying to be one image, but like, just be yourself."
**literally three seconds later**
Nash: "Yo hygiene. SHAVE. Brush your teeth. SHAVE"
JC: "But the natural look though"
Nash: "The natural look is great! But HAIR! Take the hair off. Wax, shave, just take the hair off. UGH! When there's hair, it's terrible."
Nash basically contradicted himself in a matter of less than a minute. He emphasizes the importance of a natural look, but then goes on a rampage about how girls need to shave her arms, legs, even the peach fuzz on the top of her lips?!?! He once again imposes completely unreasonable gender roles onto women. Hair on women he perceives is "terrible", but I bet he doesn't feel that way about hair on himself, or any of the "masculine" men in the world.
This irrational Youtube video features three hypermasculine men attempting to dominate women's lives by dictating what she can or can't do. By naming the video "What guys look for in girls" they are essentially saying if girls don't fit the criteria, guys won't be interested in them. They are appealing to the need of affiliation and companionship of women since the consequence of not following these standards will be loneliness. I cannot reiterate this enough, but everything Nash, JC, and Cameron mentioned in the video are things women do for themselves, not for the satisfaction of men's needs. Gender roles? Goodbye.
Being a swimmer, there is a definite need for an array of swimsuits. Whether it's for regular practice or meets, it is best to have a selection of suits so a single suit does not get worn out too quickly (or at least I think so). Whenever it's time for a new suit, the first thing I do is go on the Speedo website. Even at times when I am on the SwimOutlet website, I will set my "Preferred Searches" to solely the Speedo suits. Why is this? There are definitely a plethora of other brands that produce swimsuits just as great as Speedo, or maybe even better! When having to choose between Speedo and another brand, I choose the former without any second thought. In my opinion, the brand of Speedo has already elevated to a whole other level from the rest of the swimwear brands like TYR.
This newest Speedo ad features some of the most famous Olympic swimmers like Ryan Lochte, Nathan Adrian, Missy Franklin, and Natalie Coughlin. The commercial doesn't actually advertise or say anything the least bit related to the brand except at the end. But the truth is, it doesn't need it. Just featuring the Olympians already says enough: that if you buy Speedo, you'll have the ability to achieve the same accomplishments as these world famous athletes!
This was Speedo's road to becoming a lovemark in swimmers' minds. The brand has been advertised enough to the point where consumers will buy the product without even considering other brands. Speedo definitely has that effect on me. I will buy the $55 (on average) suit just because it has the extra Speedo boomerang symbol on it, when other brands probably produce the same suit.
Even after pointing out this advertising technique and seeing how they have attempted to basically brainwash me into seeing Speedo as the only swimwear brand, I will most likely continue to purchase from Speedo. That is lightweight sad considering how I am not able to detach myself from the deep love(mark) I've developed for Speedo's boomerang.
P.S. Another great swimwear brand is Jolyn! Every non swimmer or swimmer owns one and it is definitely one of the greatest swimwear out there, probably the only one! I encourage you to order one now at this link because every item on their website is amazing and flawless!!! I mean, everything with their symbol is perfectly fantabulous right?!?!?
P.P.S. That was total sarcasm if you couldn't tell. Jolyn is another existing lovemark out there (definitely mine!), but my love(mark) for it is too strong to criticize. :))
Is it me recently? Or is everyone saying "OMG goals." I don't know, it may just be me but I hear it about ten times a day. Although I have to admit, I probably contribute to three out of those ten times. Whenever I see someone or something desirable my immediate reaction is to say, "GOALS!" But upon reflection, do I really mean it? Is that someone/something really my goal in life?
Media, especially social media, has perpetuated this idea of "goals" in a lot of people's minds. On Twitter and Instagram there are even a plethora of accounts solely dedicated to posting pictures of "goals". An increasing amount of people are following these accounts, and I am definitely guilty of following some of them. These life "goals" can range from relationships, education, jobs, friendships, and even pets!
The concept of goals has been twisted from something small on social media, to advertisements for many companies. Consumers will see them and be encouraged to buy whatever product it takes to bring them up to the same level of "goals." This concept creates a false reality for people and takes advantage of people's needs for companionship, prominence, success, etc. Not going to lie, in eighth grade, my friends and I saw a best friends goals picture of four girls wearing corresponding Halloween outfits. Our immediate reaction was "That's so cute! We should do that too." Of course, we followed through and took almost the same picture that the girls took. If we had never saw the picture, we probably would have never bought the outfits (which were definitely not worth the money by the way).
Companies had embedded the idea of these goals in our minds, causing consumers to buy products they would normally never buy on our own. They attempt to imitate exactly these situations in life which are perceived as idealistic.
Media has perpetuated the idea of "goals" in the public's minds. Even my mom the other day texted me an aesthetically pleasing picture of her coworker in front of the Eiffel Tower and said "Goals!" She then proceeded to look up prices for a vacation to Paris. Is this really my mom's goal? Yes, I guess going to the Eiffel Tower is a pretty desirable thing to check off a bucket list, but without the concept of goals in the society today, this trip would probably not be planned so soon. Has the media influenced the public's minds with this false reality? Or is everything just the least bit adorable our goals?
North Carolina has received so much criticism lately, due to the HB2 law. The House Bill 2, or bathroom bill, enforces people to enter bathrooms corresponding to their biological sex, and disables cities from creating protection laws for LGBTQ people. This controversy has the entire United States' attention and has done nothing but harm the state. Big sport associations like the NBA and NCAA has expressed concern for the law and claims they will rethink their connections to the state. Bruce Springsteen and Cirque du Soleil has even gone to the extent of contemplating whether to boycott the state entirely or not. Big corporations, like PayPal, have also dropped their plans of expansion in North Carolina.
Before reading on, I highly recommend you to go educate yourself on the LGBTQ community by going to this website here! http://ok2bme.ca :))
Now I can discuss the debate over the HB2 bill, and examine what The Washington Post and The Charlotte Observer had to say about it.
The House Bill 2, or bathroom-bill, is "an act to provide for single-sex multiple occupancy bathroom and changing facilities in schools and public agencies and to create statewide consistency in regulation of employment and public accommodations." (For the PDF of the bill click here) The bill was drafted and passed so quickly, no other states saw it coming. However, once it was passed as a law, Charlotte, North Carolina became one of the hottest debate topics. Two specific news sources offered their perspective on the issue, only not directly, but in the loaded language.
Jeff Guo, a part of The Washington Post, wrote an article, "The Cunning Trick in North Carolina's Radical New Anti-LGBT Law" about the topic. Right off the bat the title of the article already connotes a criticizing tone of Guo. The cunning trick implies HB2 deceives or tricks people and is hiding something from the public. "Anti-LGBT" also has a very negative connotation to it. Jeff Guo begins the article describing what the HB2 law is with an incredibly negative connotation compared to the neutral denotation as stated earlier above (from the PDF). Guo states the HB2 is "the most extreme anti-LGBT measure in the country -- forcing transgender people into bathrooms that differ from their gender identity and disabling cities from creating laws protecting LGBT people." Guo's description has a negative connotation because it brings into question value assumptions. The law forces people into bathrooms, suggesting that they go in unwillingly, and it disables the protection of the LGBT community. By using this description, Guo is challenging the value assumptions we have in believing everyone should have equal rights and the freedom to identify with whichever gender they feel is appropriate for themselves. For more of Guo's insight, click here.
In contrast, Steve Harrison of The Charlotte Observer offers his insight on HB2 in his own article, "In Tim Moore's Cleveland Country, a different view on HB2." In this article, Harrison also brings into question the value assumptions of people. He mentions a point about safety of children inside bathrooms. Safety is a definite value everyone holds dear, especially with children. But in the sense of how Harrison stated it, he is suggesting violence will occur if LGBT people are allowed into whichever gender bathroom they identify with. He says it would "allow men posing as transgender women to enter women's restrooms or showers." This statement suggests a negative thought in readers minds because most men are stereotypically perceived as a more powerful individual compared to women. Just the thought of having a "violent" man taking advantage of the right will implant an extremely negative image in readers minds. For more of Harrison's thoughts, click here.
Loaded language is utilized to indirectly persuade readers with positive or negative connotations of the issue at hand. By comparing The Washington Post's and The Charlotte Observer's article on the HB2 law, it is evident that writers use loaded language, whether they know it or not.
Regardless of your sex, age, or race, if you live in today's 21st century, you know what Victoria's Secret is. When asked, people might answer "the biggest lingerie manufacturer globally" or "the brand that holds awesome annual fashion shows!!!!!!!!!!" Answers are a plethora and will vary. But the #1 unknown fact about this incredibly successful company, is that it was founded by a man. That's right! The original marketing targets of Victoria's Secret were men shopping for the perfect lingerie for his partner. This plan however, did not carry the business sales very far. As a solution, VS switched gears and revised the entire company to be aimed towards women. Previously, the advertisements only had to highlight how attractive the lingerie itself is, since it was aimed at men shopping for a gift. But after VS altered their intended consumers, the company now had to highlight both the model and the lingerie. Whether women admit it or not, they see themselves reflected upon the giant Victoria's Secret ads. It is definitely noted how flawless the model's bodies are, and we begin questioning ourselves, "Why can't I look like that?"
"A perfect body?" "Does the Victoria's Secret ad really say that?" "Are you kidding me?" "This is ridiculous."
These were just some of the criticism Victoria's Secret received immediately after they launched this ad. This ad promoted the Body bra, but VS advertisers took advantage of the doublespeak and used "body" to convey another meaning. What they meant was the perfect bra named Body, but what most consumers saw was the perfect bodies of the Victoria's Secret models. This ad stirred up much criticism for the company because the public claimed the models' bodies are perfect solely because of one thing: photoshop.
Victoria's Secret is specifically aimed towards woman wanting to buy lingerie for themselves. This is taken advantage of because advertisers realize when women see the giant, blown-up ad of the VS models in the lingerie, they are subconsciously reflecting themselves onto the model. They contemplate the possibility of themselves looking that good if they purchase VS products. But is this genuine? Victoria's Secret has been caught on multiple occasions for faulty photoshop.
The models are altered to have the stereotypical "ideal" body type implanted in humans' minds. I personally think (and this may be cheesy, I know) that all body types are beautiful. Yes, people may go against me and accuse of saying this because it's what everyone says or I only want people to agree with me. But it's definitely true. In my perspective all body types are beautiful because the "perfect" ones we see, are most likely photoshopped. Now, in no way am I saying all "ideal" body figures are fake. But, let's face it, who actually has the perfect body? Not me, that's for sure, and most likely not that Victoria's Secret model either, if VS was compelled to photoshop her waist. Everyone is insecure or unsatisfied with a part of their body. I'm positive no one struts around 100% confident and boasting about how they have the perfect figure.
It has been stated so many times, but it needs to be reiterated. We need to accept our flaws!!!!!!! This is an extremely hard task and a stereotypical thing to say, but it cannot be stressed enough. This is why Aerie, another lingerie company launched a project known as #AerieReal.
This project guarantees Aerie won't photoshop any of their models. This project has also led to women being comfortable and confident enough to share their flaws. Women would take untouched photos of themselves and post it on social media, showing off their flaws because they are #AerieReal. This idea of a real body being beautiful is gradually spreading and becoming the new principle in which people live by. Yes, the "perfect body" is still stuck in individual's minds, but there is definitely a noticeable change in which body figures are being approached. This is all because the involvement of media in promoting this message.
Can I actually go a day without media? In the beginning, I thought "Yes! Of course I have the self control to sustain a whole day without my phone." But then I realized media is much more than what my phone has to offer. Media is the means of communication, like the radio, television, Internet (of course), magazines, and even newspapers. Being in the 21st century, avoiding media just might be an impossible task.
I am definitely guilty of being addicted to media, or more specifically, my phone. It is the first and last thing I contact before I go to bed. I use it to play games, as a communication tool with my friends and family, and a gateway to the crazy world I call social media. There is always something interesting to see on Youtube. I can start off with watching a music video, and somehow wind up on a video on how to make cat pancake art three hours later. My phone is the main fuel to my procrastination. It is the reason why I have the ability to turn a thirty minute assignment into a three-hour task. Every day I start my homework telling myself I need to stay off my phone until I am at least halfway done. But DING! goes the iMessage ringtone and before you know it, I'm on my phone for a good hour or two.
Whether I'm texting, Snapchatting, on Instagram, or Twitter, I'm always on my phone. Sometimes, just to not look alone, I even find myself making up an excuse so I can check my phone. Or another situation is when I'm bored so I repeatedly check my phone for new notifications when I literally checked it less than a minute ago.
However, there is a line that I won't allow myself to cross: using my phone during dinner. Media has been blended within our daily lives so much so people barely even communicate. I just recently attended a dinner party and throughout the entire dinner all that most of the people did was take silly pictures with the new Snapchat filters and send it to other people. There was no real conversation going on, the only interaction was between those with the phone and the individuals who received the silly pictures. Meanwhile, the party host, two other people, and I had our own conversation at the opposite end of the table.
Is this really the way to go about? Social media has already developed such a negative connotation in people's minds and being obsessed with your phone to the extent of which human interaction is being deprived of, is sure not helping the situation.
Media has been categorized into social media ONLY. No one realizes that any means of communication that reach people widely are also considered as media. Throughout my entire day, there is media everywhere around me. The radio is always on when I get in the car, the newspaper is still delivered to my door every Sunday, and my parents constantly have the news playing on TV. Even if I don't intentionally contact media, like my phone, I am still indirectly associated with it since it somehow manages to always be in the background of my life.
Now, going back to my question, no, I really do not think I can go a day without encountering media.
