Sex in what City?

I am analyzing the meanings of the portrayal that a type of person in the media can have on society.  For my analysis I will use the movie “Sex in The City.”  The qualifications of my analysis are modeled after Bonnie Dow’s (1996) qualifications of arguments in the book “Prime-Time Feminism: Television, Media Culture, and the Women’s Movement Since 1970”.  The views I express here are solely my thoughts about the movie.  My perspective is not the only interpretation of the movie.  I am just offering a consideration of a new way to interpret the movie, in light of my arguments.  The series-turned movie allows all four of the movie’s main characters to be powerful women in society; the women are exclusive via wealth, race, sexual orientation (of the women) and even body type.  The movie provides some corrections to the hegemony the show illustrated with the encouragement of overspending for all economic classes.

            The four main characters of “Sex in the City” are upper-class white women.  Apart from the women’s differing hair color, the most diversity in the “Sex in the City,” television series supplied was lacking.  In a few episodes one character, Miranda, had a relationship with an African-American male. In a few other episodes another character, Samantha, dated a woman.  Among the main character’s representations of diversity those select episodes were all the series offered.  While some viewers of “Sex in the City,” may be fit, upper class, white females, most likely are not both.  Meaning that while the show offers some attempt at empowering women, through women’s control over men via sex, the women oppress almost all of the viewers.  Not many people can afford to purchase $4,000 purses and $400 shoes.  In light of the women’s spending habits with little repercussions, makes viewers want to purchase more luxurious items.  These luxury items come at a higher cost than a price tag.  The items maintain a socioeconomic oppression on lower economic classes, because a person does not make it to a higher economic class by spending unnecessary amounts of money on unnecessary items. 

            Along with the movie “Sex in the City,” came a new light on the portrayals of the characters.  The once-criticized show, for only portraying upper class white women, branched out to illustrate diversity to moviegoers.  A character, Carrie, gets an African-American assistant in the movie, of a lower economic class, who comes to New York in search of love and trying to make a name for herself professionally.  The assistant, because she cannot afford a designer handbag, rents out the newest designer handbags for a week or two at a time.  This illustrates to moviegoers how they should perhaps, not buy outrageously priced luxury items if they cannot afford it.  Thus aiding to the movies attempt of correcting some of the hegemony portrayed in the television series.  However, while Carrie’s assistant provides some diversity, she is not a main character in the movie- nor is the assistant a focal point of the movie.

            Some people might argue that the empowerment of women in the movie, outweighs the lack of diversity provided in other aspects, and they may also argue that a television show is just that: a television show.  Additionally you cannot expect a show to be able to touch upon every aspect of diversity, because that is just unrealistic.  While the show does empower women, it only empowers the women that fit into the specific molds of the characters.  Furthermore, it empowers women primarily through the power of sex over men- which is arguable at best if that is a decent way to obtain power.  While I agree, that is it unrealistic to expect a television show to illustrate all diversities equally, the hegemony, represented via the severity of the economic conditions of the women, advocates for an unhealthy society.

 

Brener, Richard (Producer), Busby, K. A. (Producer). (1998) Sex in the City [Television series] HBO

 

King, P. M. (Writer, Producer). (2008). Sex in the City [Movie].  New Line Cinema, Warner Bros, HBO Films. 

Read Full Post »

F*** Yeah! When is the FCC in violation of the first amendment?

You’re a parent flipping between two television programs, the Golden Globes and Saving Private Ryan, with your twelve-year-old sitting beside you.  Similar to many American families, you have cable, and thus are not shocked when you hear profanities coming from Saving Private Ryan.  However, when an accepting artist of a golden globe uses an isolated profanity you are taken aback.  The next day you read in the news that the government is now making moves toward changing its policies to start fining broadcasters for now isolated and fleeting instances of vulgar usage of language at live events.  The FCC actually did change regulations in 2003 after Bono, the lead singer of U2, lightly used an isolated profanity during his Golden Globe acceptance speech. Thirty years ago, when the FCC put the ban on the seven “dirty” words being on public broadcasting stations prior to 10 p.m., a lot was different back then- times have changed.  Not nearly as common among households as today, cable allows for a higher likelihood of television viewers to hear explicit language.  If cable faces such loose regulations by the government while reaching multitudes of viewers, the restrictions on public broadcasting should not be as strict as they currently are.  Where does the FCC’s over-censorship come into play in violating the first amendment’s freedom of speech; where do we as Americans draw the line.

 

When you damper the right of free speech; speech is no longer free at all.  Therefore, any regulation of the freedom of speech takes away peoples freedom in speech, thus, is a direct violation of the first amendment.  Freedom of speech is not a half way grey area matter. Either a person has complete freedom of speech or they do not.  However, for the better operation of everyone in a society there must be laws which restrict even our freedom of speech. The amount to which the freedom is restricted and taken away is up to the citizen elected government officials.  The FCC should not put abnormally strict regulations on the freedom of speech with respect to the first amendment and the citizens of the United States.  Consideration to a reasonable manner which would benefit all of society rather than just a small margin is important.  Also while rationalizing; the FCC should consider how much of banned speech is potentially within earshot almost anywhere.  

 

While cable may have gained an immense amount of popularity among households during the past thirty years, it doesn’t mean the American government should deregulate public broadcasting.  Cable does offer a more excessive amount of profanities.  Parents are aware of the matter however, and if they so choose to monitor their children’s television consumption to exclude profanities the public broadcasting systems should provide a safe environment without worry.  The amount of vulgar language that would be permitted on airwaves, without the networks receiving heavy fines, would be a single infrequent profanity, not several streamed in a row.  Another person should not have their freedom of speech abolished due to one profanity that you’re child could easily hear on the street, at the store, and if they are past a certain age almost certainly at school.  The FCC shouldn’t hinder the right to free speech so abstractly.  Times change, and while the FCC may not want to, the advancements of the American society need to be considered.

 

The FCC should not take away all restrictions on freedom of speech expressed on public broadcasts, nor should the FCC regulate all uses of profanity on public broadcasts.  The extremes of both situations are equally obscure and unrealistic.  I believe that while regulations should be in place, so profanities are not allowed to be streaming out during public broadcasts, the FCC should make the restrictions not hinder the right to freedom of speech so highly.  Additionally the FCC needs to observe the changes within the American society while adapting the restrictions. 

Jessi

 

Read Full Post »

How like your parents are you?

     The assignment, this week, called for an analysis of an article in the Science & Technology section of a mainstream newspaper.  I selected from The New York Times an article found under the Science section titled “In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents Genes Are in Competition” by, Benedict Carey.  The Article mentions a recent theory proposed by Bernard Crespi, a biologist at Simon Fraser University, and Christopher Badcock a sociologist at the London School of Economics.  The theory on brain development links mental disorders to genetics, such as: autism and schizophrenia.  The article proposes the researches present an argument along the lines of an evolutionary “tug of war” between the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm can cause the fetus to develop, genetically, altering attributes from the genetic codes.  Crepsi and Badcock note, almost spectrum, opposite characteristics of autism and schizophrenia.  Furthermore proposing a correlation between autism to the father and schizophrenia to the mother. 

 

         The coverage of this article did seem highly sensationalized.  In part, I feel that the subject matter (all the scientific terminology and specific mentions of defects on particular chromosomes) would be difficult to analyze and critique without at least basic understanding of biology and genetics.  The journalist did a good job of playing a custodian of fact role , because while Crepsi and Badcock were publishing journal articles about this- I feel the public was not aware and Carey informed the public of this upcoming theory.

 

         Having taken some college level Biology recently (I am not expert but the small exposure to the subject is still fresh) I had some more questions that I did not feel Carey answered to the journalists full extent.  Thus, I will be researching the published journal articles by Crepsi and Badcock later.  I wanted to hear in greater detail about the “events other than mutations” Crepsi and Badcock believe change gene behavior.  Also I could see were the researchers rationalized that the more emotion based mental disabilities correlated with the mother, but why must that mean the other social based disorders must come from the father?

 

         The theory proposed is definitely new, and has much research to be further done, and many revisions in store on the theory.  The journalist portrays well that, this theory while intriguing has uncertainties still, and does not yet discredit other explanations of autism and schizophrenia in place.  However, Carey did not mention many limitations of the theory apart from the uncertainty.  Nothing was mentioned as to how the researchers developed the theory, but there were enough comments on the matter by other, I would classify them as, informed individuals (other researchers at differing Universities such as Cambridge).

 

         Overall I found this article informing, and to be a substantial article.  Personally, the article has not only informed me of this new theory, but excelled my interest in it as well.  Initially I did select this article due to my bias of having a family member with classic autism (a more severe autism on the spectrum than Asperger’s syndrome).  The theory, I am still not certain of my feelings toward yet, due to an insufficient amount of knowledge.  Especially since personality traits I believe are inherited through nurture not nature.  However, Benedict Carey excelled in writing an intriguing article with substance.  The article did not provoke interest at the expense of accuracy and drew attention to a potentially monumental not to mention important theory evolving in the science realm, which the public should be aware of.    

Jessi

Read Full Post »

I already disliked milk.

I recently explored an online braded community, as per the directions for my newest assignment, White Gold.  This websites entire focus is a campaign to inspire the consumption of milk.  The web address directs you to a sight with a link to the “Got Milk?” website in the bottom right hand corner and a link to the rest of the website.  The site is flashy, attention grabbing, primarily white with gold (surprising), and not entirely direct with the campaign’s intentions.  Once you enter the site, a mock rock band named White Gold has different songs you can select, at the top of the screen with icons, complete with music videos with lyrics about what else: milk.  While the campaign does not make particular sense the target audience seems to be a younger age, with lines like “you’ll grow…” insert different items.  Advertising always is aiming to hit target audiences and discover new ways to break through the clutter; and well the online branded communities definitely have a new approach.

While I feel the website definitely put fourth a lot of thought and effort and was successful in grabbing my attention I dislike the idea of it.  First of all, I would never have been surfing the web and found this site; furthermore, if I had I would not have clicked on anything and I would have exited out.  Second, overall while visiting the site, I felt the lack of substance and overall intentionally cliché atmosphere was somewhat irritating. 

The online branded community did however do a good job of what every advertisers goal is: breaking through the clutter.  Establishing an entire website devoted to one campaign where people can navigate around and interact essentially with the site.  It provides a way to entertain the viewers and keep them drawn in and thinking about the campaign for longer.  

I don’t buy milk currently, despite the efforts of this ad campaign when I go to the store tonight, I’ll still pick up my favorite kind of Soy Milk.  The new branded online communities are introducing a whole new level to advertising, which will just keep the business evolving.  A new niche will just provide more jobs for a growing population.  Even while I don’t feel the White Gold ad worked effectively with me, there is no denying that the idea of branded online communities are a good idea for advertisers to jump on board with- especially with our ever evolving technological era. 

Jessi

Read Full Post »

Dear Parents of America,

Some of the youth of America have submerged themselves into a different culture than that of their parents.  With all of the video game consoles and video games offered for computers, and the decrease in the ages of the children using this medium; no wonder researchers have started to take a closer look at increasing violence and the role playing of violent videogames plays.  The bigger question arises from these reports:  who is to blame for the correlation between violent videogames and violence from children?  Does the blame fall on the media, government (for lax regulations), or the parents/guardians?  I believe that violence is inevitable as well as the increases in violence due to an increasing population, and also the parents should be the regulators of the child’s intake of their videogame medium, not the government nor the media. 

 

Violence will remain whether videogames, sports or something else promotes it (Marche 2008).  Violence is a part of human nature, and has been since prehistoric times.  Just because we are civilized does not mean that humans will be able to rid themselves of inherent nature.  However, this does not mean an affirmation for violence running wild all over the streets- just because it is a part of human nature.  With laws already in place controlling violence, the adoption of humans is apparent.  Additionally it is not the government’s job to further intervene with video game regulations because parents are not watching their children, or screening the videogames the children are playing.  Videogames have not been proven to be a huge epidemic the government needs to put further restrictions on in order to be able to better protect the citizens of the United States.   The videogame companies, essentially another source of media, do have an influence on the masses.  However, I do not feel that because the companies are providing a broader spectrum of entertainment should be at fault either, especially when the videogames have rating for age ranges similar to movies and songs.  After the age ratings have been placed on the games, the companies do not have an obligation to stand in stores or invade households to make sure the ratings are being followed. 

 

Violence is increasing and so is the amounts of violent videogames impressionable young children are able to get their hands on.  A lot of children wish to play videogames, some of which are violent ones.  Some argue the government should do a better job of regulating the media companies in production of these violent videogames- because the violence rates are increasing.  However, with higher regulations and new guidelines, people, children included, will still use violent videogames and the violence levels will still be on the rise. 

If the American society is worried about the correlation between violence in America, and Parents and guardians should be held accountable for their own children’s consumption.  Their “one-word summary is “relax,” because fears of harmful effects are no different from historic public uproars about dime novels, gangster films, and comic books” (Lieberman, 2006).   This quote illustrates the overreaction American’s have had in blaming the increased violence on videogames. The government should not have to prioritize itself with interfering deeply into citizen’s personal lives.  Also the videogame industry rates their games already, and the parents are the ones who need to see if the rating on the game matches their standards for their child’s consumption, that is not the government or media company’s job.

Jessi

Lieberman, James E. (2006).Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do..Library Journal. 133, All.

Marche, Stephen, (2008). Are Things Getting a Little Violent?.Esquire. 150, 38-39.

(2008).Video game’s release under fire. USA Today.

 

Read Full Post »

.org versus .com

After the monitoring the coverage of two different media sources; The New York Times and Free Speech Radio News, I looked for the differences between mainstream and alternative media.   From the limited perspective I obtained, five articles from each source, I feel that consuming both alternative and mainstream media sources together, due to their differences, is beneficial. 

The articles covered vary in type- The New York Times currently seems to have a primary focal point on articles involving the economy, impacts on the economy, with an emphasis on the American economy.  While the economy is a very serious point, that in my opinion, not enough of the citizen of the United States understand well enough other issues deserve the spot light.  Free Speech Radio News had more variety between the stories posted on the main page- obviously intended to be read by more viewers.  One of the stories, was about the FDA’s attempt to allow genetically altered or even cloned meat to be sold to the public, without a requirement of markings on the package warning consumers. The other main stories involved other overlooked issues and a story from Egypt. 

The New York Times contrasted to Free Speech Radio News has higher opinion based articles, in general from the sample size I selected.  The New York Times gives no greater motivation for reading an article completely- there is no need everything presented already came across and majority of the article remaining is reiteration.  Free Speech Radio News continued interviews with qualified peoples throughout the articles; giving cause to finish a whole article.  Additionally Free Speech Radio News informed the public how to voice their opinion on some matters giving the name of the office the public could contact and the date the public had to voice their opinions by.  Both media sources excel in using informed peoples to provide quotes- adding an informed outside opinion.  Neither website gave access to easily changeable language options, and if an English speaker experiences difficulty locating these someone who is not a native English speaker likely will have more troubles- which excludes readerships.   

Overall both media sources used together would create a stronger informed public than either source alone.  Both sources ignore certain issues and in my opinion, The New York Times prioritizes publishing articles that will sell to the masses, and Free Speech Radio News seems to target articles that are getting less publicity.  Thus either news site on their own would be inefficient for a better-informed public.  However, I do personally enjoy the style of the Free Speech Radio News, simply because I don’t feel like I waste my time after finishing a complete article. 

 

Check them out for yourself:

http://nytimes.com/

http://www.fsrn.org/

 

Jessi

Read Full Post »

Will a real journalist please stand up?

Over the course of three days, I monitored a news source for one hour daily for my class assignment.  The focus of my monitoring was on the differing political pieces and analyzing the roles the media fulfilled based on Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Walkman’s book “The Press Effect”. 

I’ve read 17 articles concerning the presidential candidates.  I feel a journalist’s most important role is to seek information the public cannot; due to insufficient resources, time, or knowledge.  The “press as custodian of fact” roll is the most important position a journalist can take on.  If the journalist plays this roll, illustrated by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman, the journalist should; inform the public of factual inaccuracies, correct misused key terms and understandings, provide a sense of history and biography behind articles- demonstrating the candidates promises versus past actions, and exploring potential impacts of polices. 

Seven of the 17 articles could have even been questionably considered a style titled “press as custodian of fact” role. Apart from the lack of articles taking this approach, two days in a row the front page of The New York Times elected to display articles on Sarah Palin getting her ex brother-in-law fired.  As a consumer, while I do feel that the character traits displayed are useful to gain knowledge on, I do not care enough to have the article make the front page two days in a row- that is absolutely ridiculous!  The journalist’s time would have been much better spent trying to interpreting how the proposals for our country’s, say economy, from both candidates could potentially impact the world.  Rather than a potential Vice President’s firing of an ex-family member.  A lot of the articles printed basically reported tattle-telling on who said what.  One entire article, “In Friendly Region, Biden Cites McCain as Erratic”, was about Bidens criticisms of what McCain was saying or doing.  I know candidates in opposition will critique each other’s actions.  These articles where both something between what Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman would label “press as a story teller” (where the journalist picks a fact to fit a story), and “press as psychologist” (where the press portrays a person in a certain light to influence public opinion).

While even the articles I gave credit for being “press as custodian of fact” were cutting close- a few articles did a great job of communicating the “press as a custodian of fact” roll.  Such articles as: “McCain Offers Proposal on 401(K) Withdrawals”, and “History Suggests McCain Faces an Uphill Battle” where two great example of articles saturated with facts and relevant information.  In the former, apparent research and communication with the readers about the candidate’s policies was present.

The New York Times  in my opinion, should put more pressure on the journalists they hire to print stories that fulfill a “press as custodian of fact” roll. The United States is a superpower and every journalist should not take informing the citizens of this country lightly.  The press fought for the continuation of free speech to have the ability to check the government by doing the research that not every American can do. Will a real journalist please stand up?  

 

Jessi

Read Full Post »

What do we not hear due to our own bias?

In a lecture hall that seats up to 500, majority of the seats were full.  Students from the University of Oregon came to rate the 2008 presidential debate!  While Senators Barack Obama and John McCain fielded questions and stood their ground, both striving to prove to every American that he is the better candidate choice, the future of America looked on- actively listening to the rivals.

 

Photograph by Sarah Miller

After the debate, came what we were waiting for: the student polling on the debate. Silently and vocally students gave feedback and contributed their thoughts on tonight’s action.  A proffessor, after more quantitative questions (example: “The candidate who “won” the debate is:”), asked if some students would be willing to vocalize why they chose a certain candidate.  Students backed their votes for John McCain, and Barack Obama alike.  As you will see from the polls, which are listed below, majority of the group favors Barack Obama.  However, one student really brought to our attention how much personal bias can come into play- illustrating how much you don’t hear when you already know what you want to hear.  A  Barack Obama supporter (featured in the photograph below) vocalized his reasons for selecting John McCain as the “winner” of the debate, due to the ways in which McCain stood his ground, communicating to the viewers his point of view clear and concisely.  While still in support of Barack Obama the student was determined to watch the debate with as little bias as possible.  The scoffing and laughter, which demonstrated the crowds activity level in the debates, was good to hear in some aspects in others it reflected their biased and arguable ignorance.  The lack of recognition to both senators being faulty was clear, when some students spoke out.  One claimed McCain did a poor job of answering every quesiton, and that Barack did; however, when asked by a person who lived through the great depression what the people of the United States will have to sacrifice in light of our current economic state, McCain answered the question with certain government funded projects, and Obama went directly back to his points on energy solutions.  When the opportunities presented themselves to also, laugh or scoff at Barack Obama the crowd fell silent.  

Some say “the more we hear the less we know “, I feel the saying is reflected in many ways, and especially in bias clouding judgement.  This also made me wonder, how many people who vote or even voice opinions for that matter know anything other than what people have said to them?  How many opinions do not come straight from a persons environment?  What is choice when in certain areas most people will form to the opinions of their surroundings?  How many voters have actually looked into the candidates policies not just into their words, since those seem to fluctuate? Although, I may disagree with the methods in how some voters go about their decision making, in end people thinking, getting involved, and voting are important steps in a good direction.   

Barack Obama advocate, supporting a victory of John McCain in the debate.

Photograph by Sarah Miller

Here are the student polling results!

I watched the first presidential debate:
Yes- 50%

No-50%

The candidate who “won” the debate is:

John McCain- 12%

Barack Obama- 62%

Both performed equally well- 10%

Undecided 12% 

When decided who “won” the debate, I based my answer on:
Style- 7%

Issues-27%

Both- 65%

Which candidate had the best style?:

John McCain- 14%

Barack Obama- 71%

Undecided 14%

Which candidate had the best  substance?:

Barack Obama- 59%

John McCain- 27%

Undecided- 18%

Based on your viewing which candidate ran more negative ads?:

Barack Obama- 7%

John McCain- 54%

Both were equal- 14%

Undecided- 25%

The debate helped me decide whom to vote for:

Strongly agree- 15%

Agree- 36%

Unsure- 14%

Disagree- 24%

Strongly disagree- 11%

Read Full Post »

Greetings

 

 

 

 

My name is Jessi and this is my first blog, let alone my first blogging experience.  I consider myself to be decently internet savvy, having been online for a while now- especially since almost everything has moved online!  I have a wide variety of interests, ranging from the media to the vast world of business. Currently, I am enrolled at the University of Oregon and have yet to decide which path I wish to take with my life.  I love reading, learning, rafting, hiking, and pretty much any outdoor activity. When I learn enough about something I usually have a strong and unique opinion.  I hope my blog will provide something different yet insightful for you to explore.

I am setting up this blog for a journalism class I am enrolled in.  I will be posting, initially, in accordance to my class assignments.  However, after the term I will be continuing my blogging.  My goals are to, provide a different outlook on subjects, bring up points that hadn’t occurred to you prior, and to develop some continuing readers. 

My next blog entry will be on October 7th the night of the presidential debate.  At the University of Oregon we are hosting an event titled Rate the Debate 2008.  On Tuesday evening, hundreds of students will be seated in a lecture hall watching the debate.  Afterwards there will be polling, and the students will be giving their opinions.  Rate the Debate 2008 will have outside media coverage, and I will be posting an entry to give an inside view along with the results from the polls.  The event is a great opportunity for the students of the university to show the world that we are the future of America and we are paying attention. 

 

Jessi

Read Full Post »