Blogs I commmented on...

Here is the list of blogs I commented on:

1) Sarah B.'s "Google Street View... The Next Big Thing?" -- media section 2
http://mystique-rose.blogspot.com/2009/10/after-reading-post-on-class-blog-i.html#comments


2) Inggrid's "Re: Are they Kidding Me?" -- media section 4
http://inggridluvsmedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/re-are-they-kidding-me.html#comments


3) Karen's "Social Awareness Contradiction" -- media section 3
http://karenswactblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/social-awareness-contradiction.html#comments


4) Angeli's "4/6: The Changing Face of Video Games" -- media section 1
http://angelibeans.blogspot.com/2010/01/46-changing-face-of-video-games.html#comments


5) Catherina's "Re: Photo Manipulation on Hiatus in the Media" -- comm tech section 1
http://cathyandherchronicles.blogspot.com/2010/01/re-photo-manipulation-on-hiatus-in.html#comments


6) Caitlin C.'s "6; Is anyone else thirsty?" -- media section 1
http://caiitlinc.blogspot.com/2010/01/6-is-anyone-else-thirsty.html#comments

Pop Tax!

In our modern world, more and more people are becoming health conscious in an attempt to prolong their lives and to live better. Health consciousness does not mean that one only eats broccoli and celery, but that one is aware of the foods that one is eating and their effects on the body. Pop is one of the largest culprits of obesity in North America today. Despite many commercials and other sources of information that prove that these simple unhealthy choices can add up (for example, drinking one can of pop for a year will increase your weight by ten pounds), many people continue to deny the facts, and continue to drink pop, ultimately unaware or even uncaring of their future.

I applaud the New York Health Department’s attempts to help people make healthy choices. Although I would prefer if the scare campaign was not necessary – I believe that it is. People rarely think of the consequences of their choices of food. Eating MacDonald’s once a month will not harm you, but if you have it once a day, then there will be devastating health effects. Similar to the documentary Super Size Me, sometimes a scare campaign is necessary because people need to see the actual possibilities and not just hear the facts in order to make a change based on emotional response.

This video does not make me want to become a healthier person. I would already consider myself health conscious, and I rarely drink carbonated drinks. The commercial turns me away from food in general, rather than pop specifically. The video made me feel sad, actually. It was a bitter reminder that many people are not health conscious, and that such a video is needed to motivate people to eat healthy.

I do think that the growing rates of obesity in our country is an epidemic that many are not taking seriously. Obesity leads to so many other health problems and complications later in life that drinking pop is not worth it. Would one rather have pop every day than a glass of water, gain weight or maintain one’s figure, or ultimately live five years less?

I hope that the tax does go through, and I hope that Canada feels pressured and adds it’s own tax to pop. I believe, however, that fifteen cents is too small an amount to deter anyone. I think, however, that it is sad that a scare campaign is even necessary. Our bodies are our most important resource, so I can't understand why people would willingly poison themselves.

These Images have been Photoshopped!

Photoshop is one of Adobe’s many amazing products. Because of its depth and scope, it has become the universal photo manipulation program. It can be used to create dazzling pieces of beauty and touch up photographs, but it is also used for what I believe are evil purposes. Many magazines use Photoshop to drastically alter images of their models so that the ‘perfect’ body can be seen on the cover, wearing the products the magazine advertises.

I think that the Photoshopped images are revolting. Although they may at first seem to be beautiful, upon closer inspection one realizes that the perfect skin, the perfect teeth, the perfect makeup, the perfect figure – it’s all fake. Everything has been altered with help from the liquefy tool.

There are many horrible images out there in which the person on the cover’s appearance has been altered so much that he or she no longer looks like what she or he does normally. The picture of the model for Ralph Lauren is especially disturbing. The image of an already slim and attractive woman was taken and turned into something that, based on its physical characteristics, can no longer be considered human. Perhaps what is most shocking about this image is that it is extremely obvious that it was Photoshopped. Photoshop, like makeup, was originally invented to subtly make someone look better, not to change his or her entire appearance.


This site shows a few of the greatest Photoshop blunders.
http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/
I once saw a picture on this site where the woman's waist was as thick as her arm ! Photoshop Disasters is an apt title.

It does bother me a lot that companies often over-edit their models because I know that many insecure people compare themselves to what they see in magazines. And it is extremely unfair to make people feel bad, or even guilty over the way that they look, despite the ‘perfect’ look being something that is physically impossible without starving oneself.

I think that this trend of real models will become more prevalent, however, I doubt that the media will change its ways quickly. The media has spent more than a century slowly losing its integrity, and it will take a long time to recover. I am especially concerned about the people whose self-esteem have been damaged by these images, and will be scarred psychologically for many years to come.

Something that we often forget is that magazines are not only for women with a seventeen-inch waist, they’re supposed to advertise clothes for everyone, so different ages, races, and body types need to be shown.

I am very happy when I see non-glammed magazines. Although the models in those photos may not be breathtaking, they’re real, and I find that a very comfortable thought.

A New Generation of Video Games

Technology, video games in particular, have come a long way over the course of the past fifty years. Video games are at the centre of a lot of controversy. Some believe that video games are a fun way to spend one’s times, while others argue that people can become obsessed with video games.

I rarely play video games, but even so I acknowledge that many games are in fact beneficial to the population. For example, pioneer games like Wii Fit and BrainAge are affecting people in positive ways. Wii Fit is an easy way for people to work out and get in shape, while Brain Age challenges the mind to think quicker and keeps people mentally sharp and aware. In fact, Wii Fit sales have increased dramatically over the course of the last few weeks, as many people aim to get in shape or lose weight for their New Year’s Resolution.

I do not think that video games are bad in themselves, or that they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. It is true that video games are designed to attract players for long amounts of time and for their products to be sold, however, players choose to spend their time playing the games. It is fine to like a video game and to play it often, but if one is so addicted to it that one’s personal life and career are compromised, then an intervention is needed to wean the person off of video games.

A game is defined as a ‘source of amusement’, a ‘pastime’, a ‘sport or other athletic activity’, or a ‘competitive activity involving skill, chance, or strategy’. (Thanks Merriam-Websters College Dictionary) Based on these definitions, I would still say that video games like WiiFit and Brain Age can be classified as games. Both are pioneers in the field of video games, but have had positive affects thus far, such as helping children remain healthy and active through fun and engaging ways, and keeping many people mentally active. In my opinion, running and reading books are still better habits to keep fit and smart, but I applaud Nintendo and other accomplished video game designers for creating these games that will hopefully appeal to children and other people, and teach them good habits.

Video games have come a long way, but what is wonderful is that despite changing forms, they are still games: they are still a fun source of entertainment, and still offer mentally changing plots that involve strategy and skill. Similar to the predicted wave of three-dimensional televisions and the wave of high-definition televisions that we currently live in, I think that games that are directed towards everyday living will become increasingly popular, and although not all will, hopefully most will benefit and perhaps even improve society.

Dove and Axe

The Ethisphere Institute has chosen Unilever, the parent company of Dove and Axe, as one of the most ethical corporations of 2009. Dove started a campaign in 2004 to change the way the media and the beauty industry affects women, specifically impressionable young girls. Axe, Dove’s ‘sibling’ company, however, has a completely different view. Axe believes that its fragrance will attract model-like women to men. These are two conflicting views from the same corporation.

I am a fan of Dove’s campaign. It tries to show that looks can be deceiving (as the images of many models are altered greatly in Photoshop and other image manipulation programs), while trying to build the self-esteem of women who mistakenly associate beauty with appearance. Beauty is subjective, and does not relate only to physical appearances. I think that Dove’s advertising is effective and that it is promoting the right thing because it shows women why they should not compare themselves to others. Many people often mistakenly believe that is promotes obesity and unhealthy lifestyles. Dove does not promote obesity, but tries to help society accept that not everyone will look a certain way. It attempts to get women to accept their bodies so that women can be considered beautiful without being labelled as either ‘anorexic’ or ‘fat’.

I think that the Axe Effect Campaign is pure idiocy. It tailors to arrogant chauvinist men who think that physically attractive women will fall for them if they wear Axe fragrances. I find the advertisements repulsive and offensive. Furthermore, the use of Axe in such large doses, as advertised in the commercials, would not attract women, but drive them away because of the overpowering smell.

I do think that a parent company has the responsibility to ensure that all kid companies and different sectors uphold the same morals and purpose. Consistency is a wonderful thing. Similar to an essay, all corporations and bound together by their one purpose or goal (thesis). There are many body and supporting paragraphs throughout the essay, just like how there are many kid companies for different corporations, but all paragraphs link to the thesis and attempt to prove the same thing, but with a slightly different focus. All kid companies should uphold the same values and ethics as its parent company. Having different values and beliefs within the same company can lead to a lack of community and may eventually lead to an internal demise or unethical behavior.

Advertisements

The four advertisements presented are shocking. Two are health contradictions, one is sexist and degrading, and the other is plain stupid.

Let’s call the first advertisement ‘Fat Banished’. This ad’s message is to lose weight by eating ‘sanitized’ tapeworms. This ad is not appropriate and is in fact promoting harmful behaviour. It is trying to get females to consume dangerous organisms to eat the fat in their bodies to lose weight and ultimately look a certain way. Tape worms, however, do not discriminate between substances, and so would not only consume the fat in the women’s bodies, but whatever else they had eaten. Although this advertisement at first seems more harmful than modern ads, many contemporary substances contain toxic chemicals. This shows that at the time of the ad’s production and distribution, North American women were already trying to fit the mold. Also of note is that the add claims that fat shortens one’s life. This is not true: a terrible diet, overeating, and no exercise, which is what the ad promotes, will shorten one’s life.

The second advertisement depicts a man blowing smoke into a woman’s face, with the caption, ‘Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere’. This advertisement is disgusting; it promotes chauvinism and a degrading view of and loss of respect for women. The message is that by smoking cigarettes, specifically the brand Tipalet, one will appear ‘cool’ and thus attract women. This ad was meant to be an appeal to romance, however, it crosses many lines by promoting destructive behaviour: the use of cancer-causing chemicals and promiscuity. This advertisement was meant to be flirtatious and clever, but is actually insulting to the female population, as it infers that women are not independent. This ad is not as bad as modern advertisements, in which messages of eroticism are more openly displayed, however, it still shows that at the time the media was open to using sexuality as commercial value. This ad reminds me of the television commercial in which a woman sees an expensive car, and so bumps into it to set the alarm off. A man comes running to see what happened to his car, and then the women flirts with him because of his expensive car. Although these are two different mediums from two different times, both present similar themes: that women are attracted to and dependent on ‘elite’ men.

The third advertisement depicts a supposed ‘doctor’ smoking cigarettes. It is obvious that this ad came out when research found that smoking cigarettes is harmful to one’s health. The company, Camel, tried to influence its customers to continue to buy its product by claiming that doctors, leading health practitioners, smoke cigarettes despite the toxic chemicals. The ad claims that ‘More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette’. This ad, however, violates broadcasting laws because the facts behind this statement are not given; the ad does not say how many doctors were asked, how many said they smoked Camels, how many smoked other cigarette brands, or even how many do not smoke cigarettes. This ad offers no proof of its claim, and tries to link cigarettes to health by associating its product with doctors. I am amazed that this ad was allowed to print despite the obvious lack of evidence and statistics to support its claims. This ad also shows that many North Americans wanted to smoke cigarettes, but they did not want the consequences, and so advertisers had to sway them with false claims of healthiness.

The fourth advertisement promotes lard, and equates its consumption with happiness. This ad is an appeal to sentimentality, as it shows a happy family who appear to be living the perfect suburbia lifestyle. This ad is very direct, and I appreciate that there are no hidden messages; I assume that the ad was allowed to be printed for this reason. Also of note is that many modern ads have hidden purposes, so this advertisement is refreshingly honest. This ad, however, promotes an unhealthy substance.

The four ads presented all bear interesting features that reveal a lot about North America and gender roles during the time they were printed. They show North Americans’ preoccupation with senseless dieting, harmful substances, and its demands on women to take on a certain role in society and to change themselves to fit the mould. All one can really say when looking at these advertisements and their irrational, senseless statements is “Are they serious?!”

Google Street View

When I look up my personal address on Google Street View, I can see my house and open garage clearly. My father is an electronics expert, and often takes machines apart to see how they work. If someone were to zoom in, they would clearly see all of the expensive computers, printers, and other technologies that my father has in the garage along with boxes of family memorabilia.

Although my family and I are not in the picture, I am still upset over Google’s actions. Google has taken an image of my property and put it out for anyone to see. Unfortunately, it is legal to take a picture of someone in a public space, even if that person is on private property. Google’s actions may be legal, but a moral issue is raised. Nobody has the right to take an image of someone else without his or her permission. If desired, a person should be able to remove his or her likeness – which is their property – from the eye of the public and media.

What Google has done is the near equivalent of posting the contents of someone’s diary online without his or her permission: people’s personal lives are being recorded and shown without any regard to the actual person. Google claims to be protecting people’s privacy by blurring out faces and licence plates. This will not do anything. Anyone can still see whether the person has an expensive car or not, or determine if the people living at the house are elderly or young children.

I am very worried over Google’s new product. I live beside a park, and there is the threat that someone could break into my house, as it has happened to my neighbours in the past. Any criminal could easily use Street View to see how my house connects to the park and figure out the best way to break into it or my garage, without ever having to set foot on my street.

Street View is an undeniably useful tool, but at what cost? People’s privacy is at stake. Blurring out faces and licence plates will not change that people’s likenesses are online without their permission, and it will not change the feelings of injustice that people will experience.