Princess and the Frog- BEST DISNEY MOVIE EVER

Princess and the frog is one of my all-time favorite Disney movies, and one of my favorite movies general. If there is any movie that goes against all Disney princess movies it’s this one. Not only is Tatiana the first African American Disney Princess, but she is the one of the first princesses to be independent from a man’s world. She made her own money, set her own goals and followed her own dreams. She didn’t fall for the prince. He fell for her.  Though he really was a prince, he wasn’t portrayed like the rest of the princes, rich and noble young lads. He is portrayed as lazy, more free willed, and somewhat unintelligent.  Which I think really has a feminist perspective in mind. Also, Tatiana’s best friend a rich, dumb witted, blonde girl who is the daughter of the governor of Louisiana who originally wanted the prince ended up not getting him, which I believe shows that Disney is portraying a theme that women who work hard, are independent, and not afraid to speak their mind are the women who will get their man of their dreams, and that she is not the lucky one, but he is.  No matter what color or ethnicity they are. All on this entire movie is brilliant. I think the song that Momma Otis sings also speaks wonderful words of encouragement to those watching the film. “Don’t matter whatchu look like, don’t matter whatchu wear, how many rings you got on your finger, we don’t care, no we don’t care!”

Sterotypes for each generation

People have sterotypes about every race, sex, and gender. The question is how does it start? What drives people to say what they say about different groups of people. Does this shape how we watch television and movies. The sad thing is it does. This is what entertain people, so when we talked about the show Family Guy and how it may step over its boudries is because it is true. This show has made millions of dollars throwing in lttle side notes that are races and uncalled for. This is excepted in America I feel because there are so many different ethinic groups and races here. So the creaters feel that they would be able to appeal to an audience that like it when they bash other races. I feel if this show were to be broadcasted in other countries I feel the rating and popularity of this show would be much lower than what it is.

Where did stereotypes come from?

The theme in one of my communications classes this week is orientalism.  I had to watch an interview of the orientalism guru and scholar Edward Said, which was absolutely fascinating to watch.  In having this topic already fresh in my brain, I began to think about stereotypes and how desensitized I am to them in my everyday life.  It's like every time I pass a group of people that would ordinarily be stereotyped, I imagine what someone would say to them. It sounds really weird, but I can't help but think of the stereotypes and the reasoning behind them.  Not limiting myself to any group of people, of course, I think about stereotypes for all groups.  I was in the gym and saw a student of Asian decent (or who looked of Asian decent) throwing a ping pong ball up against a wall and catching it.  It made me think of one of the stereotypes of people of Asian decent where they talk about Asian people playing table tennis all the time.   I don't really have a point to this example, but just to show a thought process.  I just don't understand how the stereotype came about.  What if I was throwing a ping pong ball, would someone think the same thing?  Probably not.  Maybe the student just found the ping pong ball on the ground and decided to throw it.  Yet, I didn't stop in my tracks when I thought of it/saw it and it helped me realize how desensitized I am to stereotyping.  It's sad.  I don't even have an ending to this one.  It's just something to think about I guess. Why are stereotypes even alive?  Do they come from any truth?  Are they just made up out of some random negative thought?

Globalization

Culture is an important part of the way our society interpret things and each culture differs in beliefs and viewpoints. Certain lifestyles and people are seen differently depending on where you are in the world. For example, as discussed in class Jersey Shore is a popular, well liked show in the United States but in other countries like those in Europe find Jersey Shore to be less appealing and many people find it appalling to watch. This is very common for celebrities and political figures because of the different ways we are raised and our how our morals vary. Globalization affects the way we adapt to each others lifestyles especially in economics and mass media. More specifically, mass media is important in all countries but the context and level of importance differs depending on where you are.

History Repeats Itself: Whitney Houston & America

What social events, tragedies, or accomplishments impact society enough to stay with us for years or centuries after they have occurred? Is it something that has occurred globally or nationally? Who decides what is important enough to be placed in history books? Edward Said believes that all Arabs are being mistreated by Americans even more so now than ever before in our generation since the terrorism of 9/11 and the war. Edward Said further explains how these individuals are constantly being looked down upon and blamed because of the negative factors associated with their attire, actions, and culture from the terrorism against the United States in 2011. Just 11 days ago a renowned vocalist and pop culture icon Whitney Houston died. Media outlets have covered this story since her death, incorporating new elements to the cause of her death. Over the weekend I had the opportunity to speak with friends who adored and admired the singer. On YouTube we watched the singer Whitney Houston take center stage as she belted out a mind-blowing rendition of the 'Star Spangled Banner,' bringing fans to their feet and tears to the eyes of many watching at home. Before Whitney the general public never paid much attention to national anthem, but every since “Whitney” sang it… well it has been a sought after spot for many vocalist. Many have attempted to sing it like Whitney, trying to hit those incredible high notes and many have failed. Her singing was perhaps even more memorable than the Giants 20-19 win over the Bills that year. The song and the way it was sung stirred such strong patriotism that it's released as a single and went gold in 1991. It is almost like America watches now the anthem to be sung to see when the next “Whitney” will give us all chills and have has in utter shock saying, “Damn, their good!” My friend turned to me after watching the YouTube video and said, “Not in this life time.” It made me stop and think. Are these events generational? Are there biases on particular events, tragedies, or accomplishments based on our generation? Do some events mean more to us because we were alive during them? Which brings me to my final thought regarding history; is this why history seems to repeat itself?  It is almost as if we truly don’t learn from our mistakes and need to have it happen in our lifetime in order to conceptualize the consequences.    

"Tribalism" in The River

Humans are innately ethnocentric. Dr. Said researches orientalism, or the ethnocentric views of the middle east, but what about other parts of the world? Televised media is rampant with foreign stereotypes. Most recently, I noticed an ethnocentric portrayal of a group that is less popular, but still extremely misrepresented: indigenous tribes. The Steven Spielberg show, The River, takes place in the Amazon and in the third episode, the characters cross paths with a tribe and their actions are calculated and terribly misunderstood.

Since the colonization of America, native tribes have been viewed as savages, polytheists, and below any deserving class status as assumed by the colonists. They are misunderstood, and thus feared by westerners who have taken their rights, their lands, and their lives in droves. In The River, their portrayal was no less misunderstood or misrepresented. The tribe was savage, causing blindness for the characters, judging them on their behavior and if deemed undeserving of travel on their land, they would be killed.

I cannot think of any instances in which tribes are portrayed positively. They are victims due to their own decision to live off the land instead of embracing the power of technology. But as Americans, we are in terrible debt and have a huge dependency on foreign oil, but those who utilize the land without destroying it are to be feared and are nearly "stripped" of their intelligence in the media and represented by 'kill or be killed" instinctual beings. This "tribalism" has caused pain and suffering for thousands of individuals in the past and present and should not be tolerated.

Spartacus:the new standard of television

Watching TV has been come a necessity for some people and others not so much.  I found that premium television has become a standard for people watching TV. Spartacus has become one of those shows where other shows followed and take them to another level.  Spartacus is a show about gladiators and their daily habits.  Since it is premium television, you get to view everything on a level.  There is a lot more gore and other things.  These additions push standard television shows to do things close to this. Watching TV is still enjoyable for me but I’m looking for things to keep my attention like in Spartacus.  I also look at television in a different way since watching premium television and taking communication classes.  These premium shows make everything more lifelike and they make you feel like you are right there, where the regular television does not.  Everything is a little better because of that extra cost.

Globalization & mass media

This week we talked about globalization and the mass media.  I found the article about the Simpsons interesting to see how different shows are altered for different countries in order to relate to their specific culture.  Compared to other countries where sex and vulgarity is seen as obscene and indecent, in America, it is used continuously as a successful product that sells.    I think it is interesting to see how in America things can be looked as funny and attractive while in other countries it can look as offensive and rude.  An example of this is how on certain tv shows like Jersey Shore are seen in America and how it is seen overseas in different country.  My sister was in Florence the same time they were shooting, and from that experience and seeing all the cast, she said that all the people who were actually from Italy would scream things at the cast of Jersey Shore and over all were angry that the show had come to Florence for a season.  I think it is interesting how here, we make fun of Jersey Shore but still watch the show and find some of the things they do as funny, but over seas, they look at it as obscene and vulgar.

Jersey Shore & Globalization

The first thing I was reminded of when we discussed in class the way shows are reformatted and packaged for different cultures and audiences was the infamous Jersey Shore. I remember reading articles like this one about how MTV executives were quoted saying things like Jersey Shore's appeal was universal, especially for people unfamiliar with the "shore culture" and being a "guido." Essentially, they were saying that the Jersey Shore concept did not need to be repackaged for other cultures, and in 2010, Jersey Shore reached over 30 countries in broadcasting. So has it been successful? It's hard to deny that the MTV marketing of the shore appeal has worked, considering the immense success the subjects have enjoyed (club appearances, book deals, fragrances, clothing lines, etc) and the success of the show in general. But the interesting thing about the globalization, so to speak, of Jersey Shore is that several other countries, including the U.K., Canada, and even South Korea have introduced their own versions of the shore show. When I think about the dialogue and catchphrases used in the show, I think of the "Dubbing the Simpsons" article and wonder. I can't understand how on earth the show could have been successfully translated or dubbed. Some things just don't translate for dubbing or subtitles. So with the different versions of the show, coupled with critical backlash as well as backlash from Florence during the filming of the season in Italy, I would say that the global marketing of Jersey Shore has not been entirely successfully exported.

Globalizing the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

The article dealing with The Simpsons we read this week brought up a lot of good points about the way American culture is becoming globalized. We are exporting our entertainment like other goods to make a profit. In the process, many shows will loose their humor and wit because the language gets lost in translation. This article made me think about the Girl With the Dragon Tatoo franchise which was originally from Sweden, but was also turned into an American film. While Americans are the ones importing entertainment this time, there is still the sense of needing to make certain versions of a story for certain cultures. The film was much more violent in Sweden and the character of Lisbeth was a little more freaky looking. While the American version has it's share of violence, it is very different from the Swedish film. The reason changes are made in film and television is so that one culture will not be offended by another cultures norms or humor. The question becomes why even try to make films and shows global? Of course it is done for the profit, but do the shows lose meaning and do they actually do damage to the shows image? I think that trying to fit shows like the Simpsons into certain cultures does not work because the humor is just not there. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is different because the story is still remaining true to itself, but the violence is what is changed. The question is if changing things that are done in one context to another is a good idea. Samantha Morales

South Park in Brazil

Just like the Simpsons, South Park has been dubbed into different languages around the world. The show is about four grade school boys - Cartman, Stan, Kyle, and Kenny. They live in a small city, named South Park, in the state of Colorado.

South Park is characterized by its crude and satirical humor. The show is full of graphic images of violence, profanity, and sex. Most of us understand the creators’ intentions of using these images because we understand the context in which they are created. These images are familiar to most of us because they mock people or events from American culture and society.

Do these images make sense if shown in a different country? Do audiences from a different culture understand the messages these images are trying to send?

To try to answer these questions I watched the episode “The List” in English and in Portuguese. In this episode, the fourth grade girls make a list rating the boys from the cutest to the ugliest. The boys become obsessed with this list and plan to steal it from the girls.

The translation to Portuguese is almost literal. I noticed very few things that were changed, such as when Cartman mocks Kenny because he eats “pop tarts “every night. In Brazil people do not eat pop tarts so they dubbed it as “biscoito”, which means “cookie”. Another example is when Stan’s mom says he has not eaten his “cannish”. In the dubbed version she says “comida”, which is “food”. Most Brazilians are not familiar with cannish so translating it as food made more sense. Considering only language, I would say that the show’s images can be easily understood by Brazilians. Regarding the context, I would say that they make sense in Brazil too. This particular episode is mocking girls and their love for shoes. Also, it is exposing American society’s ideals of patriarchy. Carter says, “Screw [the girls]. We are guys. We can outthrust them”. This line was translated literally to Portuguese, “Nos somos homens. Nos podemos engana-las”. The context here makes sense in Brazil too since the country’s culture shares the United States’ patriarchal ideal.

Although this specific episode of “South Park” fits well within Brazil’s structures of society, we cannot forget that media corporations’ main interest when dubbing American shows is to make profit. In addition to that, I believe that media corporations are interested in preserving American cultural imperialism. Maybe that is why many American shows appear to fit within other cultures. Perhaps these images fit well because other cultures have changed or adapted some of their values and beliefs to the American values and beliefs.

Taciani D.

Jersey Shore, Italian Style.

Many of us have seen, or at least heard of, the infamous Jersey Shore. It's reputation for alcohol, sex, and vulgarity has made it a prominent topic in our country and ,now, even countries abroad. The last season was filmed in Florence, Italy. Fortunately enough, I was studying abroad at this time so I got to see the episodes in Italian subtitles. Immediately after watching the first couple of episodes I noticed that the translations and even some of the gestures on the show were completely off. For starters, the language was changed in a way that made what they were saying a lot less vulgar than in America. Also, a lot of scenes that involved drunk Snookie, or anyone really getting intoxicated was often cut from the show as a whole. Even with these changed, the show still seemed to be of great dislike to the Italian Community. What I didn't consider vulgar at all, Italians seemed to be enraged about, and I didn't really know why. It's clear now, that countries have their own standards and what might work in America, might not work in Italy.

What the DUB did you say?

So i grew up in another country, Saudi Arabia, until i was a teenager, this was from 1983-1995. A lot of programs that were available in the US were initially banned from Saudi television. Most shows recognized with Western culture were carefully monitored because they didn't want Saudi culture to be influenced by western civilization. There were other ways around things like that though. If you could afford it, which most ex pats(people who live and work in another country solely for job purposes) that did not live in a compound could afford it, they bought a satellite dish. Not the small dinky dishes you see for direct TV. These dishes were almost 15ft in diameter and you needed a huge flat top roof to place it on. These dishes were also banned in Saudi when i was living there. It was not strictly enforced but we did have radical extremist religious police we called Matawa that roamed the streets in search of perpetrators that violated laws against religion and that looked for dishes. Any factors that would influence violations such as western television was banned. The quickest fix to this was to build a frame around your satellite and hide the entire dish  by covering the frame with white sheets. If they couldn't see a dish they weren't allowed to inspect whatever was on your roof. If they did allow certain shows or movies to air, sometimes the scenes were deleted due to sexual content or nudity. A lot of the movies lost meaning through this. Or they would be dubbed in Arabic or subtitled wrong. Sometimes during movies here that contain arabic, i understand what they are saying but that's not what the subtitles suggested because a lot of meaning is lost in translation.

Mcdonald's

We talked about the way TV shows are marketed abroad, and what in the show needs to be changed to appeal to a certain audience.  Shows and most other products are marketed specific ways so people who relate with them will be more likely to consume them.  In 2002 Mcdonald's released a new burger called the "McAfrika" in Norway which is one of the richest countries.  This was very controversial because the release of a burger in one the of richest countries called the "McAfrika" while there are millions of people in Africa starving to death.  The McAfrika burger and it's name was specifically created to be marketed to a specific group.  The idea behind the burger was to bring new tastes and spices to Norway, however they marketed this time in a very offensive way.  Not only was it marketed offensively, but this was the only region in which this burger was released.  The insensitive marketing was overlooked in the effort of making money.  Shows, food, and other products are marketed so companies can make as much money as possible, and in the process it is not uncommon for different groups to be offended.

Mass Media and Globalization

              This week, we talked about globalization and the mass media. One of the things that interested me was the article about dubbing "The Simpsons." I found it very interesting how corporations would go about altering character names, accents, and even heritages to fit "The Simpsons" into other countries or cultures. Even though the companies who decide to globalize television shows try to indigenize the shows as much as possible, I still think that the ideologies of America are put upon people of different cultures. It could be unintentional, but I do not think so. When looking at other cultures, it does not seem like others are as materialistic or promiscuous as America. If someone in another country watches an American television show, they may want to emulate our culture because it seems more fun and has less rules. This could greatly limit cultural expression because they may to decide to act like the characters on the television shows. In a way, globalization damages other cultures. The mass media wants those cultures to take in what America has to offer and buy and buy from them. It is all about money, like always. If other countries continue to consume what America is forcing upon them, the whole world will almost all be the same. Diversity will be smaller and cultures will not be preserved.

Summers Eve Youtube Channel

I feel like this topic needs to be brought back up on the racially depicted commercials from the Summers Eve youtube channel. Instantly after watching these three commercials, I realized other then being incredible racists, it kinda tied in with another in-class video. In prior classes we watched a video clip (with Denzel Washington) about the dictionary definitions between black and white. In my opinion this was most certainly in favor of white women for the least offensive racially. But, will give them credit for making white women out to be incredible huge air-heads. They made the white women sound like the dominating race with the commercials quote saying, "Population of 3.5 billion and growing, thanks to us" (us = white vagina hands, if you forgot...). This meant 3.5 billion women in general, but the white vagina hand represented these females as a whole.  Then they presented symbols like B.F.F. (best friends forever or friendly) and the ying yang symbol (sign of peace), which was not a bad set of classifications on the white female race. Now, lets look at the other ethnicity symbols or focused ideas. The black women has a cactus, hair, words spelled incorrectly, and a stereotypical black female voice. Now, for the Latino, hhhmmm, again stereotyped voice, babies, and classification that they often times move. This was really interesting in thinking back to the Denzel Washington Clip on the definitions of black in white. If you remember the clip did it bare resemblance, because I think it did... 

¡It's funny, pero (but) like they won't get it!

After reading and talking about how television executives localize American television shows to foreign markets, I got to thinking about a new show on CBS and how this would be marketed to foreign viewers.  ¡Rob!,a new show on CBS is a comedy about a middle aged white man who marries a young Mexican women and finds himself in a difficult situation trying to get the approval of her family.  Set in California, this show focuses a lot on the stereotypes associated with the Latino population in California.  Although the Mexican family on the show appears to be middle class, they all speak with an east L.A. accent, which is usually associated with a lower class status.  One of the most interesting parts of the show is the funny and well-known Mexican actor, Eugenio Derbez, who plays a minor role as the funny and strange uncle.  Although very well respected in the Spanish speaking community, Derbez is portrayed as silly to American viewers.  These western views of other cultures, not just the Latino culture, is a recurring pattern.  We see this in shows like I Love Lucy with the exaggeration of Ricky’s ethnicity, bubble bee man in the Simpson, movies like Machete, and countless others.  What is seen as humorous to American culture is not just offensive to other cultures but also confusing.  It seems pretty safe to say that ¡Rob! would be a very difficult show for television executives to market globally because the humor only applies to American viewers.

Sex and the City 2

After discussing different cultures and how shows and movies are adapted to conform to the values of these different places where they are aired, I thought of a particular scene in a movie. The scene is from Sex and the City 2. It's when Carrie is in Abu Dahbi with the rest of her friends and she is trying to get the cabs attention. In this scene all the woman including Carrie and her friends are dressed in burqas (fully covered from head to toe) in efforts to get a cab Carrie hikes up her burqa to expose her leg and her stylish high heel. Multiple cabs suddenly stop in hopes that this "daring" woman will get in their cab. I find this scene funny and worth recognizing  because Carrie is an American woman and she is being associated with showing a little more skin to attract the male can drivers. In the culture of Abu Dahbi this is obviously prohibited so the men are attracted to it. The portrayal of a woman being able to use her body to get what she wants is present in this scene and really shows what our culture deems acceptable in films.

Orientalism and the All American Muslim

Watching the video on Orientalism made me think back to one time when I watched an episode of “All American Muslim”. It is a documentary style show on TLC that focuses on the lives of Muslim immigrant families. The episode I watched took place around September 11^th and highlighted how these families remembered and thought of the day. It brought up a lot of discussion between the families about how they constantly feel the need to apologize for their faith or remind people that they are not terrorists because they suffer from a stereotype influenced by Muslim extremists. Just wearing a hijab, which we discussed as something that can be empowering to a Muslim woman’s faith, is also a dead giveaway that she is a Muslim and therefore can be associated with a terrorist. I wish I could tell the people on the show to watch the video on Orientalism, and they would realize that the illusion people have about Muslims doesn’t just come from September 11^th, but from a long history of stereotyping the Middle East as a mysterious or dangerous place.

I grew up in a suburb of Chicago that is very diverse and home to many Muslim immigrant families. I befriended a girl who is Americanized like me in every way except for one: she comes from a Muslim family and was born in Palestine. I remember once asking for clarification of where her family was from saying, “Where were you born again? Pakistan?” She wasn’t mad, but she was very firm in correcting me that she was from PALESTINE. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but I now realize why she was so firm with me. As Americans we are taught the differences between France, Germany and Britain, but we learn little about the differences between Middle Eastern countries. The media often lump together situations from this part of the world and label them all as “a Middle Eastern terrorist act”. It’s easy to see why the people on “All American Muslim” feel so misunderstood. And it’s a shame that one part of the world encompassing multiple countries with years of different religions, histories, and cultures all get lumped together in such a negative way.

Christine A.

Oversexual spin-offs in Argentina.

Going abroad to another country really opens your eyes to how our media in the US is so different from other cultures media. When I was abroad in Argentina I started to realize how over sexual everything in there culture was. I was really surprised how skanky there TV hosts were and how provocative there TV shows were. Argentina has a TV show called "Showmatch" which is a spin off of the United States "Dancing With The Stars". Both shows are on prime-time TV, yet Argentina's Showmatch features pornographic choreography, which often includes nudity. When i was reading an article on Showmatch i found this paragraph which really shows how different our dancing shows/ "cultural morals"/ TV rules are:
"When Nancy Grace slipped a nipple on Dancing with the Stars, it caused a huge uproar. Now imagine if Nancy Grace ripped off her top, exposed her breasts, humped her partner, took off her G-string, and appeared completely naked. Oh, and Nancy Grace was a gorgeous model. That's what happened Sunday on Argentina's version of Dancing with the Stars."

Showmatch is one of many Argentine shows which is a spin off of an American show. Argentina even has there own "Oprah" named Susana Gumenez who hosts her own talk show called "Hola Susana". Susana is a 67-aged former model who is over sexual on her show. She is described as having a "tranny grandma look with a raspy voice" due to her many operations to stay "young".

"$#!% Someone Says"

Edward Said in his work on Orientalism and Chandra Mohanty in her work "Under Western Eyes" both provide insight on stereotypes and "colonizing" a group of people based on certain characteristics. Although Said's work focused on the portrayal of the Middle East and Mohanty's work focused on Western feminist scholarship of third world women, their arguments can be used to discuss more local issues of stereotyping. Each race, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and so on has its own stereotype or stigma attached to it.


Recent YouTube videos have emerged, stereotyping what certain groups of people say and how they act. These videos are titled "S--- Girls Say," "S--- Black Girls Say" or "S--- Girls Say to Gay Guys" and so on. These videos have been a huge hit and are now talking about every group you can think of. They are not meant to be offensive, but rather are meant to be viewed as a joke. Either way, this is a great example of stereotyping groups of people, based on the sound of their voice, what they wear, etc.

Finding a target audience is essential for effective marketing and advertising. However, there is a line a company should not cross when determining that audience and reaching out to them. The Summer's Eve commercials that were taken off the Internet were extremely stereotypical and offensive. I felt it was unnecessary to have three different commercials for three races because the product would have the same effect on each person. The audience is women, not specifically Hispanic, African-American or white women. If this was obvious to the people behind the commercial, it was most likely just to get attention and stir up controversy. The stereotypical voices mimic the ones used in the YouTube videos and the commercial immediately reminded me of those videos. 

National Treasure

            After our class discussion about American television shows being aired in other countries I thought of how last week I watched a few minutes of National Treasure on a Spanish channel.  The more I thought about it, I realized there are so many things in the movie that people of another culture would not understand.  National Treasure is about a group of people given different clues taking them to different American landmarks in order to find treasure.  The movie mentions different landmarks and figures that all Americans typically know such as the White House, the capital building, the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin, the Liberty Bell and so on.  Throughout the movie it is suggested that the audience should assume why these symbols are so important to American culture.  The importance is suggested that these items represent freedom, independence, etc and therefore they are able to uncover the clues and find the treasure.  The more I thought about it I realized that these symbols that are so important to American culture are completely insignificant to people in other countries and of other cultures.  Many countries have different forms of government and might not even understand the type of government we have or our interpretation of freedom and independence.  Even countries that do have a similar government as the U.S. probably have their own set of symbols and figures to represent their own country’s culture.  Therefore, I think it is interesting to air this movie to people of different cultures because they most likely will not understand these representations in the same way as we do.         

The Vow

So, of course with Valentine's Day last week I had to go see The Vow. This is the stereotypical romantic comedy for the most part. Male and female fall in love. Female falls out of love, and the male tries to win her back the entire movie. (It wasn't quite this simple, but I don't want to give any details away.) America is obsessed with the story of "love." However, how would this play out in another country? Would other societies be just as intrigued as the Americans?

I don't think this storyline would work perfectly in other countries. The main female character does not have the best relationship with her parents, and in many cultures, family relationships are extremely important. Even so much so that the grandparents, parents and children all live under one roof. I think some individuals would be upset to see this break in the family.

With all this being said, not all media produced will evoke the same reaction or response for every culture. Media needs to fit that culture specifically based on their morals, religious views and economic status. In America, we would not like to see our "beloved" Apple products being marketed to just one specific type of person. The reason we like their products so much is because they market their goods to every type of person within the U.S. That's what makes them so successful. They found their market and played to their needs perfectly (or pretty close).

orientalism

After listening to Edward Said talk about Orientalism I have been thinking a lot about framing and the different stereotypes that have been constructed for different ethnic and racial groups. It brought me back to a time in high school when my German teacher told us a story about something that had happened to her when she was young. Sara is full German. She was born and raised speaking German and only started learning English when she hit the age of 5. In middle school she would tell everyone that her goal in life was to become a German teacher. Many people would tell her that her dreams of becoming an educator were great. But in 7th grade when she told her teacher of her dream to one day become a German teacher she was given a negative response. Her teacher told her that becoming a German teacher was a horrible idea and that all Germans were bad people. Sara was confused, but it was only until her teacher told her that she was Jewish and that her relatives were killed by Nazi's that Sara started to understand. Her teacher said that all German people are bad people because of Hitler and all the Nazi's that killed all the innocent Jewish people. Sara was confused because she was not alive during this time period and had nothing to do with the Holocaust. She was being targeted by her teacher because of her German heritage. She apologized to her teacher on behalf of all Germans and was really hurt by the fact that her teacher thought all German people were bad people, even in today's society, for what happened years ago. Her teacher was appreciative of her apology, but she said that her mindset on German people would never go away because of what they did to her family. Today, this is how many people on our society view the middle east because of 9/11 and the war. In class my group questioned if America and the middle east will ever be able to live in peace and coexist with one another. A really good point was brought up that said certain generations will probably never fully be able to have peace with countries that they have had wars or violence with. While our generations might not have peace with the middle east, our children may not have peace with another country that they have violence with. Because of wars and violence, I think that a country will always have a preconceived notion for other countries based on their relationship during different time periods.

National Geographic: Family Guy Edition

The clip above is just one of many Family Guy excerpts that pushes the "racial stereotype" envelope. Many people argue that stereotypical driven content is funny because it has truth to it. Though this is often times true, it is almost always extremely exaggerated, and it is that extremeness that makes it funny. When it comes to Family Guy, I think it's safe to say that everyone agrees that it's humor is usually over-the-top. When racial stereotypes are addressed in the show, it is often times poking fun at the stereotypes themselves, at just how extreme and often times ridiculous they are. Many of the stereotypes that exist in American society only exist because we continuously allow them to exist. The racial jokes in Family Guy are aimed at almost every single racial and ethnic group in existence, therefore not targeting just one. The jokes seem to all be in "good humor" and usually make light of racial topics which are sometimes uncomfortable to address in a more serious setting. Overall, I don't believe that the racial jokes are meant to be derogatory towards any one group of people. I think they purposefully exaggerate and poke fun at some of the ignorant racial stereotypes that our society fuels, and often times highlight just how ridiculous it is that our society "believes" in these stereotypes.

TV Shows and Movies Abroad

After the exercise we did in the beginning of class on what we would change about TV shows if they were transferred abroad, it got me thinking about how my life relates to this. When I went to Paris 2 years ago, I saw American movie posters for movies that were shown here months ago but had just arrived in Europe. One of the movies was The Hangover- the title for this movie in Paris was Very Bad Trip. It's funny how they translated this movie into something the French  would understand, yet it was still in English. I knew it was The Hangover because the movie poster was still showed the same photograph. I find it interesting how things like movies, TV shows, and even  restaurants can be universal yet be translated in a completely different way. For example, the McDonalds commercials we saw were all different yet they were all for McDonalds. In America, it is represented as family yet in places like Japan and Europe, McDonalds is represented as something sexy. Due to these cultural changes, I think it would be very hard to bring an American show to Europe or Asia because not only would it be confusing to some, but it would also be offensive.

Korean Horror Movies

There are a lot of changes made when a Korean horror movie is made into an American film. Jee-Won Kim's "A Tale of Two Sisters" was changed to "The Uninvited." I watched both films and it was almost completely different movies. "A Tale of Two Sisters" had a lot of symbolism and questions at the end. "The Uninvited" was much more straightforward. The shocking ending in both movies was much more insane in "A Tale of Two Sisters" because you didn't immediately figure it out. Another interesting concept I've noticed in this horror movie as well as other Korean horror movies are daughters dealing with "daddy issues." The daughters in the movie kind of have a romantic interest in their fathers which is the reason they act out. In the American version, that whole theory is cut out of the movie and instead focuses on the evil stepmother being extremely sexual. They find her vibrator and lingerie. The explicit sexual scenes in the American version would be considered inappropriate in Korea and would not serve a purpose in the movie. Sex sells much better in Western countries. The Korean version also had less violence and more horrific, ghostly images while "The Uninvited" showed a boy's back breaking and other violent images. I feel like the Korean version was much more artistic but also a lot more confusing than the American version. This shows what people expect to see in horror movies in America. Gore and sex are huge components.

White Chicks

This film is one of the most popular Wayans Brothers film but is one of the most racial stereotyped films created in our generation. This film follows two FBI agents who have to go undercover to protect two heiresses. In the process they have to dress up as the two heiresses to protect them and everyone believes they the two heiresses themselves. While doing so they embody all kinds of Caucasian stereotypes. Just as seen in the Summer Eves' commercial they talk in text terms such as "bff", but in the film they mentioned a text-term I haven't heard before that which was "bf" for bitch fit. They acted just like the stereotypical valley girls who said thing such as "omg" and "wtf" and talk only about boys, fashion, and the latest gossip. Although they poke fun at these type of people we still watch it, just as we laughed at the Japanese McDonalds commercial we and laugh at this, but why? Just because it is different from what we are used to does that makes it OK to poke fun at another culture because its different then ours? This is where we believe that our culture is the best and all others should be just like us, but shouldn't we look at this in a different prospective and maybe try to pull ideas from their culture into our and vice versa to challenge this ideas, or is this asking to much from our society?

TV globalized

After our discussion in class and reading Chiara Ferrari’s article “Dabbing The Simpsons: How Groundkeeper Willie List His Kilt in Sardinia” which discusses how TV shows such as the Simpsons are altered to fit specific cultures to appeal to a particular audience, I couldn’t help but think about last year’s show “Outsourced”  on ABC.  It is about young man who had his whole company outsourced to India, so he would wither have to be without a job or go to India.  He ends of going and slowly adapts to the culture.  Even though this is a network trying to multicultural for the sake of advertising revenue, reputation, etc., the show is very Americanized.  I do not feel liking I am watching a Bollywood film, or learning about Indian culture.  The main character is Todd  and all of his workers speak perfect English, laugh at American jokes which would be unlikely to understand, and worst of all, brings to light the outsourcing problem here in the U.S. which is doing nothing but hurting the economy, and putting Americans out of work.  Besides that, the main character is American and if there is an issue it is concerning him and nobody else.  Which makes me think if the character was Indian, would that attract a large audience here in the U.S?  Would the Simpsons be popular in Italy if Homer was Black for instance, or if Duff Beer in the Arabized meditation of the Simpsons was a bottle of Vodka supposed to ordinary pop.  This author argues that in order to appeal to the audiences, it needs to appeal to the pop-culture of that particular society.  This may include the stereotypes in our society that brings to light the otherness of some characters.  Here in America is isn’t hard to find a drunk and therefore in our version of the Simpson, the drunk, or Barmy in this case burps and slurs his words often.  This same concept across cultures, people has interest in laughing at otherness and singling out others by stereotypes which is the cream of the crop for pop-culture.   

Occupy Wall Street and Lippmann

After Tuesday's class, I was thinking a lot about the different ways we see the Occupy movement and how much of that has to do with media framing. I do have to agree with what would be Lippmann's perspective on the Occupy movement - that the majority of the protestors have no idea what they're talking about. While I think they're onto something important, that the way our taxes, loans, and financial systems work in this country is outstandingly flawed, they aren't going about protesting it the right way. Their movement has brought awareness and attention to the issues they're concerned with, but the problem is they have not delineated any kind of "plan of action" or even fully agreed upon central issues. They scream about evil corporations taking our money and loans and so on, but I don't understand the point of protesting if you don't have some kind of plan as to how the situation can be rectified. So Lippmann would that these occupiers are blind people leading blind people, and though I don't think it's fair to make such generalized statements about any group of people, I can't help but agree with Lippmann a bit.
What I'm curious about, though, is how much my opinion of the Occupy protesters is shaped by the way the media frames them as a whole. Networks like CNN and Fox have different ways of framing the Occupy movement (and everything in general) and I'm curious how much my opinion is shaped by news framing.

Pop Culture + Politics = The Daily Show

This week I watched the epitome of intersections between pop culture and politics: The Daily Show. Though it is a comedy program hosted not by a journalist but by a comedian, a majority of people who watch it do consider it to be their news source according to a study done by the Journal of Communication Inquiry (Baym & Jones, 2010).
The episode I watched commented on a current political news story; that the Pentagon has changed military rules to allow women positions in the military closer to the front lines. The show comments on videos of actual journalists, politicians, and experts covering this story. The videos they choose show experts who are against this change by the Pentagon using two different positions. One, that men in the military will now feel obligated to protect t the women in the military, and two, that combining men and
women in the military will increase the amount of sexual assaults that take place.

As communication scholars, we know that these positions both reinforce feminine gender stereotypes by categorizing women as weaker than men, and being sexual objects to men. But what John Stewart did with these stories was very interesting. He mocked these experts and used satire to show how
ridiculous these standpoints actually are in our society. In effect, he actually reduced these people to something of characters rather than experts. He took away their power and challenged the stereotypes they reinforced. By making them elements of pop culture instead of real respected figures, The Daily Show makes something new out of news.

To watch this clip, click here.
Baym, G., & Jones, J. P. (2010). A dialogue on satire news and the crisis of truth in postmodern political television. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 34(3), 278.

-Christine A.

News Media: Violence & Youth

It appears that sometimes we take for granted the littlest things. In fact, we tend to believe whatever is “served” to us. Instead of actually doing research or investigating the topic for ourselves. Yet, are we to blame for believing everything that is portrayed in the media? And if so, why do we invest so much trust in these sources? In an article I read this week titled, “Debates Over Media Effects” it discusses this notion of fears associated with the effects various media will have on particular audiences. Violence in the media seemingly is always associated with aggressive behavior among youth, yet is this true? The media has a eloquent way of attributing violence acts with deviant juveniles. In fact, the most prominent school shooting that was nationally covered was the 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Colorado. This received massive amount of coverage because the shooters where only 17 and 18 years old. The media portrayed this to be the first of its kind and a massacre that would go down in history. Yet this hadn’t been the first reported school shooting in the United States. In fact, the first reported school shooting or massacre occurred in 1764 during the French and Indian War in what is now present day Pennsylvania. Native American Indians entered the school killing the professor and nine of the 10 children. In retaliation the government passed an order allowing the slaying of all women and children of American Indian decent. I can’t recall being taught this in school. Yet, I feel this is an important part of history that should have been disclosed to me at a young age. By informing children of the serious ramifications that were associated with these acts in history and by enabling them to understand why these acts where done and how devastating they were, it could help build wiser young adults. It appears we are taught what media portrays best. We learn what we are served and everything else is left for us to discover.  

Does Lippmann Prevail?

This morning I read a tweet posted by @RedEyeChicago that read "On Whitney's death: Love the talent, not the hype, and then get back to work".  I found this quote to be a little puzzling the first few times I read it.  I kept re-reading it throughout the day and for some reason it kept reminding me of the News IQ quiz I took yesterday in a communications class.  Probably because we, society at large, hold on to celebrity news and culture to the point that it lingers around for far longer than it should.  I agree with this quote in that we should acknowledge the event at hand, put it behind us, and move on.  Anyways, in class the entire quiz was fixed around politicians, executives, and geography which all seem relevant considering it was was quiz on news topics.  Interestingly, there were a ton of people in class that took the quiz and didn't do as well as they expected to do before the first question was even asked.  After taking the quiz and going through the answers, I announced to the class I was surprised there wasn't a question on Mariah Carey, although I had meant to say Whitney Houston who died recently and seems to be taking over the news.  Amongst everyone's verbal confusions (i.e. "pssh" "what?" etc.)  I knew it was a valid thought.  Think about it.  How often are our "news only" channels covering topics involving celebrities and celebrity culture?  I would say, all the time!  On another note, I guarantee everyone in the room would have gotten the question right had one been about the entertainment industry, especially if it had been on Whitney Houston, famous vocalist/musician.  While everyone would most likely get 100% on an entertainment industry quiz, half of the class didn't recognize the proper Republican symbol, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, or who was winning the house of representatives.  Does anyone else find this mind boggling?  Why don't more classmates of mine know some of the most important icons/figures in our corporate and government culture?  Is it a lack of teaching, interest, or news watching?  What would Walter Lippmann say about such uninformed students?

If I had to guess, he'd say, "Thank you.  I've just won the debate against John Dewey". And walk away.  (no discussion needed).


Tom P.

Voting Rocks

It is easy to say that important political topics are not covered by the media adequately nor represented accurately in pop culture. For example, South Park can take a topic, such as the Occupy Movement, and mock it until it is remnants of what the true nature is. Another example is the unequal coverage of presidential candidates, thus making few more salient to consumers, increasing their likelihood of being voted for. However, I think it is important to point out just how impactive pop culture can be in the political world.

An example is the "Rock the Vote" campaign that began in 1990. In 1992, Rock the Vote had helped increase the youth vote in the presidential election by 20%! One of their main strategies to attract young voters is by celebrity advocacy. It's not surprising that the youth gives a lot of respect and attention to well known artists and actors, who in turn have influence over young voters. Not only does Rock the Vote promote voting in elections, but it also educates the youth on topics such as health care and environmental issues.

Even though pop culture is low culture, in that it covers topics that are trivial and fleeting, it is proven to have positive impact in the political arena on the youth of today.

Occupy Something?

As we brought in the ideas of the theories of Dewey and Lippmann into class tried to figure out what they would say about the occupy movement and the tea party, I started to think of my impressions of the movement.  What were these people thinking and why do this?  I have a friend go from working a nice job that moved him out to California and paid his rent and food with money left over for entertainment and then he quits because occupy LA people started talking to him and kinda brainwashed him.  It truly makes you wonder if these people have a true purpose in life or is it just to be nuisances to others.  I have walked by the Occupy Chicago area many of times and all i think of get a job people.  You leave your jobs to go sit in a park and moan about a government that has given you alot and protected you and all you say is the government should be destroyed. Think about what you are saying and doing before you open your mouths to spout out anything.  Sure, this may have worked in Egypt but we are not in the middle east, we are in the U.S with a totally different government system.  People dont really know what is going on this world and it is scary.

After taking the Pew Research: News IQ Quiz (and failing miserably) I decided to do some light research on American youth to see if I was alone in the arena of "political struggle". The youth of America is comprised of over 44 million young adults age 18-29. 93% of us have a cell phone, 88% of us are online regularly, 73% of us have a Facebook page and 31% of us use Twitter. 


These statistics suggest that we should be very connected to the world and what goes on in it. The internet is a glorious place that seems to have the answer to everything, and the vast majority of American youth have instant access to it. But for some reason we are also the demographic that seems to be least informed and least interested about politics. Our country was founded on democracy and politics generally rule everything. So why are we so connected to the world via the internet, yet so disconnected from politics? 


I personally find politics utterly boring and pretty foreign to me. Political jargon scrambles and confuses my fresh, young mind. I want to be interested, but I'm too uninformed. Lippman would agree, I'm no expert. So I (as well as 32% of American youth) leave it up to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to make me laugh while attempting to keep me politically informed. I have confidence that one day I will become politically savvy... Slowly but surely. At least for now I can sleep easy knowing I am not alone in the arena of political struggle... Many of you are with me!

Lippman vs Dewey

So the argument stands that Lippman states that the people are too uneducated to make decisions regarding government, and that experts should be in charge instead of the general public in which he cals a Technocracy. However Dewey states that the public should be in charge because they can make rash decisions, such as Occupy Wall Street, and if they couldnt it was because of the poor education system implemented by government to begin with. The movement is basically 99% of the people revolting against the 1% who make over $300k and the differences in tax cuts. The banks failed and the government bailed them out, leaving the people to suffer, losing their houses and jobs, while the companies that were bailed out were giving CEO's mutli-million dollar bonuses and companies generated profits over a billion dollars. The fact is that we did need the government to bail these companies out because these companies are the backbone of our economy. However, these companies turned around looking for profits from the people who had paid for these companies to be bailed by the government through taxes. Essentially these companies took advantage and misused the funds to make profits and pay bonuses to CEO's. After the banks were bailed,  the government went broke and have slowly been bought by the companies it bailed out in the first place. So now these companies have a lot of influence as far as govenrment regulations in part by lobbyists. Dewey states that if people are smart enough to see that if people can identify a problem such as the one on Wall street that they are capable of making decisions regarding government regulations. This is what a democracy is about , having the people have a say in the way we are governed and have it regulated by the Senate. However since the republican Party has taken over the House, many regulations proposed by Democrats have been rejected by the House and is more in favor of the Republican party, which of whom are also in favor for the 1% of America who make salaries of above $300k. It almost seems as though Lippmans theory is more in favor since the 1% somewhat control regulations such as his "experts" and the 99% make up a majority of American citizens yet they dont have a say in much of government regulations because it is influenced by the money of the 1% through the bail outs. This is an exmaple of how greedy the rich are and that middle class is almost non existent anymore and the gap is basically between the rich and the poor now. There is no inbetween.

Lippmann and Dewey

During class we viewed multiple clips of protestors and discussed the beliefs behind Lippmann and Dewey. I agree with Lippmann's views on politics and the way our society perceives information. I am not involved in politics and therefore do not vote or voice my opinion on the debatable topics relating to politics. The majority of our society complain about certain aspects of the government and the million things they supposedly do wrong but it is not fair to judge and comment on information that I do not know enough about, which is what many people do. I enjoyed watching clips of protestors, Dewey would argue the protestors are correct and support their decision to stand up for their rights and beliefs. Lippmann would not be so quick to help or support protestors although they can be right in many situations.

Comm 330: Whitney Houston

Tonight I watched an episode of south park, and it could not have been a more perfect episode that deals with issues that resonate with current events in pop culture. The episode starts out with the boys watching T.V. The news is on and the 2008 primary debates are on between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, when all of a sudden “breakings news” interrupts the debates where Britney Spears is caught on camera, camping in Colorado and then caught peeing in the woods. They notice every little thing about Brittney and even point out her weight, zoom in on acne on her face, and then zoom in to show her peeing on a bug. The show then continues on where she ends up staying in south park and if a photo of her is released to the media, the person who takes the photo will receive a hundred thousand dollars. The boys attempt to get a picture, but when they get inside they see a sad Britney who just wants to be left alone from the media, free of ridicule. While the boys attempt to take a picture, Britney takes a shot gun and shoots herself in the face, blowing half her face off. She’s rushed to the hospital and the media makes it seem as if she was going for a drastic new look, and zoom in on a scar under breast instead of her half blown off face, that they assume is scar because of breast implants. This type of satirical comedy continues throughout the show. As the episode progresses, the boys try to free Spears of the media by taking her to the North Pole. The adults and media employees explain to them that just like back in the day when people would glorify a beautiful girl, give her jewels, and the sacrifice her, America does the same thing “but through pictures, and T.V.” basically saying we like to kill off our celebrities. Now, this episode had a lot of themes of about the effects of the media, but I could not help but think about Whitney Houston after watching this. We glorified this woman, made her a rock star, and then when her life began to go in shambles the media ridiculed her, and could not get enough of Houston destroying her life. Just like in the episode where Spears dies, and soon glorified for being a pop icon, this after making her out to be this horrible individual, we are doing exactly the same thing with Whitney Houston. Whitney Houston was phenomenal, one of the most beautiful and talented performers/ vocalists in generations, but as in South Park, it was the media that made her, and the media that destroyed her and it is the media that seems to forget they were the ones who contributed to her death, and we the people, those who consumed the media, feed into it, and now feed into glorifying her again. 

O'Reilly Factor

The Fox Network has a reputation for presenting news in a biased manner. For an example, when it comes to news pertaining to President Obama, because of his Democratic viewpoints he is often portrayed in a negative light. Rather than presenting the news in a way that detaches one’s personal opinions, Fox News Network inserts personal opinion almost as an attempt to implement their ideas into households across the nation. On Feb. 14, Bill O’Reilly, in an interview with Charles Krauthammer, spoke negatively about Obama’s budget plans. He proceeded to say “…he’s going to tax, because he’s going to tax you, and me, and all the rich people”. He goes on to talk about how this budget has created a shift in society that has made it exceedingly difficult to “be successful”. This directly relates to Lippmenn and Dewey’s argument about whether or not the public is educated enough to develop an opinion of their own. In this particular interview we see two individuals, which can easily be considered experts in their field, speaking, in a biased manner, about the injustice of taxes on the rich and how the middle class are the only beneficiaries of this new budget plan. 

Pop Culture vs. Politics

After taking that “quiz” on Tuesday about politics and some world news, it really occurred to me that the things featured in this quiz were not as well known as they should be. Most people in our age group are not very informed about politics and our government because it does not interest them the way popular culture does. Many of us can tell you who won which Grammy and all about the recent death of Whitney Houston, but when it comes to who won the Republican primaries in a certain state, there would be a lot less responses. Our media places such a large emphasis on celebrities and Hollywood, and such little on our government and politics. I feel Lippmann is correct in saying that a lot of people are not informed and do not really know what they are talking about because our society does not make topics like who will be running our country as important as which celebrity checked into rehab this weekend. It is up to the people themselves to educate themselves, but I feel if the media made an effort to feature some stories less focused on Hollywood, maybe more people would live up to Dewey’s statements.

Dewey's Ideas of Occupying Z Wall Street & Hockey

After yesterdays class on the views of Dewey and Lippmann with the comparison of the Occupy Wall Street protest, multiple things can be taken from this situation. I do believe that Dewey's ideas as well as Lippmann's equally share purpose for this so called issue, but also would like to bring up a point leaning toward Dewey's potential thought process (and Hockey).

Dewey may have said during this issue (at least what was discussed during class on this situation) that it would be portrayed as a positive in society. His views in my opinion are incredible liberal and the Wall Street protest also certainly seems like it is heading in this similar direction. Personal I believe that it is not right to fight for something that you as a individual know nothing of, but also want to give an example by using Hockey to express a point.

Prior to the Blackhawks being put on television or being good, no one in Chicago really payed much attention to this game (in less you were a true fan).  Directly after this decision to put them on TV and pick many positive players from 2006 draft (A.K.A Toews and Kane), many people during this season tuned in (and called themselves so called Hockey fans (or Bandwagon Fans)). Eventhough these individuals knew nothing of Hockey during this season (and many Hawks fans still know nothing of Hockey) they were forced to learn the game.

In this way many people (must I add youthful individuals) have sparked interest in politics or if you want to look at Hockey have become Blackhawks fans. I think this is good for politics just like it is good for the NHL game and Hockey it's self. Surely Lippmanns ideas would also be feasible.. I mean honestly what are these protesters really trying to prove other then being unhappy with this situation. Really down to the point, ignorance is never a good thing. So basically this interest can never be classified as a bad because really you gotta fight... for your right...to party.. OH, and the REDWINGS are going for a NHL record of a 21 home game win streak!!  Pardon me they already beat the record!! 

No Politics...Pop Culture, Please

Yesterday, we talked about politics in pop culture and the different viewpoints of Lipmman and Dewey. I must say that I kind of agree with Lippman. I agree with Lippman for many reasons. The first reason is that I do not think I would could or would know anything in politics. It seems when I hear about politics or things, like taxes or the government, my brain just shuts off. Even yesterday, people were talking about the Occupy Wall Street and terms like "the 1%" and "the 99%" and I really had no idea what anyone was talking about. I am sorry, but I just cannot understand anything about politics!! And for some reason, I HATE when people complain about the government and act like they know what is going on. That is another time when I just fall asleep. On the other hand, one could ask me anything about pop culture and I would probably know. Any movie, song, tv show, and controversy, I will know! I just find it a lot more interesting and fulfilling then watching a State of the Union address where there is a bunch of words I have no idea what they are talking about. It kind of goes back to the argument of low culture versus high culture. Why would I want to be interested in politics (high culture) where everyone seems like they are lying and everything is about money compared to pop culture (low culture) where people are just trying to entertain us? Maybe it is just my opinion.
I also agree with Lippman because I think that most people are like me. I think that a good portion of the U.S. has no idea what is going on in politics. We elect people to make decision for us. Yes, it may be lazy, but if everyone got a say, nothing would ever get done.

Lippmann

            I feel that the class discussion yesterday really opened my eyes to how many people are uninformed about large issues in our country.  I really agree with Lippmann’s point of view about being skeptical of the public’s ability to make decisions.  I remember in high school I watched a video in one of my classes about the last election.  In the video, the interviewer asked random people on the streets of Washington DC simple questions about it.  The questions were extremely simple such as who the vice president running with each candidate was, as well as the current vice president (who was Dick Cheney at the time).  I was shocked when the vast majority of the people interviewed did not know the answers to these questions.  The interviewer then asked each person if they were planning to vote in the next election and almost every single one of them said yes.  I found this similar to the whole Occupy Wall street situation.  It seemed like the people in that video did not really know what they were protesting for.  Therefore, after thinking about these two things I really identify with Lippmann in that expecting the general public to be able to make effective decisions is unrealistic.  I think it is better to have a select few educated individuals to be in charge.  I mean if people do not even know who the vice president of the country is how can we expect them to be capable of making such decisions?

"Dora the Explorer"

I used to work with preschool children in my last job. It was very common for them to come to school and say or act out things that they had seen on television shows. I watched quite a few of these shows so I would know what the children were talking about. One of their favorite shows was “Dora, the Explorer”. Dora is a Hispanic girl who lives with her parents and her twin brother and sister. I am not sure of how old she is. I am guessing she is about 6 or 8 years old. Her best friend is a monkey named Boots. Some of her other friends are a bull named Benny, an iguana named Isa, and a squirrel named Tico. The “bad” character is a fox named Swiper. He always tries to steal Dora’s things. However, they are never aggressive or physical with each other. Instead, Dora uses her words. She says “Swiper no swiping” three times and that always seems to resolve their conflict. In each episode, Dora and friends go on different adventures, such as returning books to the library and rescuing Boot’s toys from a Gooey Geyser. At the end of every episode, Dora and her friends are successful in accomplishing their tasks.

Dora is the nicest child you could ever meet. She is friendly, polite, honest, smart, helpful, and considerate with her friends. She is also very nice to her family. She always does everything right. She gets along with all her friends who are all different from each other. In a certain way, she even gets along with Swiper. It is good to see a cartoon that teaches children about family values, friendship, diversity, and acceptance. These are great messages to be sent to children. However, we cannot forget that “Dora, the Explorer” is a very lucrative brand. Dora is a Hispanic girl. She caters to the Hispanic community. Their children watch the show and buy its products because they can relate to Dora. In addition, because Dora is such a nice character, she also caters to children from any other ethnic group. I have been thinking about the show’s creators and their goals. Are they really concerned about the negative messages in children cartoons so they decided to make a difference by creating Dora? Or are they opportunistic in the way that they saw a profitable market and took advantage of it?

Taciani D.

Weekend Update vs Lippmann

In class this week we learned about the Dewy and Lippmann debates.  It’s hard to to side with one or the other because they both have a good point.  Lippmann has a great point in saying that experts should be in charge of running things but I also agree with Dewy in that the people should have a say in politics.  However, it seems that Lippmann makes a better argument because Dewy falls short when the question of educating the public comes up.  Both men agree that it would be better if the general public were better informed but both agree that this would be a difficult task.  Do to this difficulty, the suggestion of having experts be in charge makes more sense because after all it is difficult to change peoples habits.  For example, not a lot of people are well informed about political situations they only receive some  information from popular media, like weekend update skits from SNL.  After watching the most recent weekend update skit, which hardly mentioned the importance of the  issue between the new health insurance police of all hospitals providing free contraceptives for women and the catholic church, I thought Lippmann has a point.   If the majority of the people get their information from segments such as this then it is fair to say that Lippmann’s argument makes more sense than Dewy.