Blog Post #5.

Downloading music for free on the internet is very easy these days. However, most seem to let the fact that the act is illegal, slip their mind.

Music is such a huge part of life. It’s how some turn frustrations into art, it’s an all day, outdoor, event shared by thousands, and it’s an individual’s motivation during a workout. These are just a few examples of how valuable some see music.  With that said, these people will do whatever is easiest, quickest, and cheapest to get their hands on it. That brings on an excessive amount of illegal downloads. Once you get a taste of a little danger, with no repercussions, the desire to continue is inevitable.

In reference to ethics, one cannot argue that the act of illegally obtaining music is unethical. To say that those who take advantage of this, would not be a little upset to lose revenue if they were the ones who had created a hot item, is bull. When considering the categorical imperative, in that it asks people to consider what would be the result of everyone acting the same ways they themselves wish to act, it is likely that downloading free music as an option will cease to exist. Are people thinking about what their peers are doing and how it will affect them?  Of course, not.  Americans act for themselves, first, always.

Now, downloading music without paying is illegal, but it’s not murder. Sissela Bok suggests you follow a three step process when analyzing an ethical situation. You must consult your conscience, seek alternatives, and hold an imaginary ethical dialogue with everyone involved. Alternatives include sharing music with a friend, using YouTube to find songs, or paying for the CD or song individually. Most who will hold imaginary conversations with the artists involved would lead themselves to believe that those artists can spare a few bucks for their enjoyment, ya know, paying them with flattery.  When it comes to the conscience, it is a true display of  character to tell the voice in your head asking you to think twice when committing an illegal act, no matter how severe, to shut up.

Blog Post #4

After years and years of media exposure, you almost become oblivious to the immense amount of advertisements you see in a 24 hour time period. After being instructed to keep a diary of the advertisements I was exposed to, I realized quickly that you can establish patterns throughout a day’s worth of exposure.

When a company decides to design and purchase advertisements, they are ready to buy a time and space where they can market their product to that specific slot’s targeted audience.  That time selection is very important. If you don’t select the appropriate time, your only other option to reach an audience, is by luck.

When analyzing my list of ads, I realized that the greater portion of the daytime is taken up by an array of different products. These products could range from food ads to car ads to make-up to beer. None of the ads had a significant signaling factor. These products all seemed fairly gender neutral.

Day time is prime time. From 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. advertisers can hit every segment of their audience. Once the sun goes down, the audience becomes smaller. After the audience shrinks down, a viewer is more likely to sense signaling.

After watching a few late night reality shows, I began to understand more what products are specifically marketed for that very time slot. Products like Pro-Active face wash, fast food restaurants, weight loss supplements, and various sexual items are repeatedly aired. It makes sense that these specific products appear while children will most likely be in bed.

After a certain hour, the programming disappears and it’s strictly ads. Yes, they get more time on air, but whose up at that hour? Those who market their products during 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. seem to have picked the short end of the stick. It can’t be doing productive things for a business.

I’ve learned that if you have a product that can be used by most of society, regardless of age, gender, or any other difference, an ideal time to market is late afternoon. Other than that, advertisers and their team must seriously consider what other part of the day will get the most exposure. It’s subject like these that make you understand the saying, time is money.

Blog Post #3

This Old House, a home improvement a remodeling magazine, can be analyzed quickly in regards to who its target audience is. Based on signaling alone, one can assume this magazine is geared toward middle aged, handy, home-owner males. This can be assumed not only by the countless car and the tool ads, or even without seeing the five middle-aged men on the cover, just by simply reading the title.

It doesn’t take an educated human being to recognize signaling. Females know when they see floral arrangements, high heeled shoes, and even women in lingerie that an ad is meant for their eyes. These females also know when they see advertisements about tools, big cars, and “how to’s” around the house, that their eyes aren’t where they belong.

Interests are developed at a young age. Usually, those interests are shared by a particular demographic. All young girls love Barbie’s, all little boys love toy trucks, all teen girls love to shop, and all teen boys love video games; the list can go on and on. The fact of the matter is, society and culture teaches us what to want and when we don’t see what we want, we look for it elsewhere. If a woman begins to look for Cosmopolitan Magazine, and has to finger through the Golf Digests and Monster Trucks and Chicks, she doesn’t redirect her search; she’ll continue to hunt for that coveted Cosmo.

According to This Old House’s online site, 88% of their readers don’t bother to pick up any other shelter magazine. The average age of these loyal consumers is 50 and the greater part of the statistic falls in the 50+ category. Despite the previously mentioned signals, the number of male to female readers is only split 52% to 48%. This may be considered shocking to those who have stumbled upon this magazine for the first time. Over half of their audience makes an average living of $50,000 a year, 1/3 have actually participated in home remodeling in the past year, and most are married home-owners with children. These last few facts can easily scream “dad.”

One thing is clear; this magazine is meant for a consumer with a purpose. That very consumer’s interests fall into the long tail. Each time an issue is published, the editors and writers can probably predict or even assume what kind of person will be purchasing. Not only are these magazines a past time for a certain demographic, they will quickly turn into collector’s items. Those men that fall in the 50 year old and older category may use these magazines to occupy their retired lifestyle.

Most Americans assume by signals they’ve learned throughout their lives, that the older male generation’s demographic are handy, practical, do-it-yourself types who’d rather spend a few bucks on a magazine as opposed to shelling out a few hundred for someone else to do their in-home project. These assumptions are why This Old House has been thriving for over 30 years.

To be honest, I have never head of Al Jazeera. To be completely honest, I rarely watch and/or listen to CNN. These few facts may disappoint some, but I'm being honest here. With that said, I had no idea what to expect when beginning to look for related articles on both websites. Keeping that in mind, researching was the most difficult part of this particular blog. I found several leading stories that had some similarities, but nothing that convinced me that the subject was worth writing about. After surfing for about an hour, I stumbled upon two related articles involving a bombing in Thailand.

It was an easy choice because I instantly sensed bias. CNN's article title was, "Israel blames Iran for Thai bombings" while Al Jazeera's title reads, "Bangkok blast leaves attacker wounded." Priorities? Can you feel it? I can picture an ignorant American reading "attacker wounded" and saying, "Good." Americans like the drama. They're much more likely be interested in conflict overseas than how a "terrorist's" health is.  Al Jazeera clearly intended on telling the necessary facts, while staying neutral. CNN wanted readers.

Now I can sit here and type the play-by-play listing every miniscule detail of the event and how the different sources differed. However, I'd rather tell you how I can relate and how I relate affects which article I'd rather read. 

Within the past month, my older brother returned from a month long trip in Thailand. He was working with young adults forced into the area's popular sex trafficking industry while enjoying an experience of a lifetime. Now, if this event had occurred a month ago I would hands down rather read Al Jazeera's version. While the event is frightening no matter how it is read, Al Jazeera is straight forward and free of drama. It strictly describes the what, when, where, why, and how then the article quickly ends.

Tomorrow, I will begin my application process to attend birthright. Essentially, birthright grants me a free trip to Israel for being Jewish. After reading the CNN article (which I read AFTER the Al Jazeera article) I am once again more scared than excited to go to Israel. It seemed like CNN advocated the conflict as they shared mildly threatening quotes from both side's public figures. CNN included a long standing history of what's been happening between Iran (where the attacker is from) and Israel, while also including a detailed rundown of the event. They certainly aren't sending eachother flowers regularly. Rather they are often accusing the other of an explosion or what could be an outside threat.

The problem between sources isn't the facts. The problem is the intention. I feel like Al Jazeera's mission is clear. Something related to the middle east happened that was devastating. The blast happened outside of two schools. Can you guess what article I read that in? CNN may not be bias in their writing, but they are clearly writing for you to be able to pick a side. They'll provide a long history of the conflict so you can make an educated decision on whose "side" you're on. Or perhaps, just to reinforce the side you took once before, is the side you should remain on. Bias is evident, but I was looking for it. I wonder what the average eye would have to say after reading both articles.  


Oh and by the way, the attacker, the one who made me wonder what would have happened to my brother if he was still in Thailand, the one who has made me nervous to attend a once in a lifetime trip, the one who made headlines in Al Jazeera's artcile, he blew off his own legs.

Blog Post #1

As an avid television watcher, I can admit it's tough to distinguish reality from fantasy.All shows have their labels whether they're reality TV, sitcoms, or a dramatic series. Despite the labels, you may find it difficult to believe the "reality", and even more difficult to not relate to what you watch. 

In today society, everyone is guilty of relying on celebrities, or the characters they play, as opinion leaders. With this in mind, I can consider a few of my favorite shows and wonder how it affects the way i act, dress, and deal with everyday life. For example, a popular series Sex and the City, would be considered a show that contains reality and fantasy, while setting a huge example for a certain demographic. 

These four women live a modern yet, ideal life living in New York City. They all have stable and respectable professions. They've dated every type of guy, with every kind of job, with all kinds of quirks. They teach the viewers what's acceptable in dating, while simultaneously teaching us what's considered sexy. Now, although I may consider these women to be the epitome of sexy, they wear things I would never be caught dead in. I've even read the actresses themselves dislike some of their character's outfit choices. However, their outfit selection, as well as their selection of men keeps my interest. 

I can watch and dream of writing a simple weekly column, while consistently dating gorgeous men, purchasing a new pair of $500 shoes weekly, as I live in a beautiful one bedroom apartment in the center of Manhattan. Is this reality? Of course not, on what kind of writer's salary can one afford this kind of lifestyle? Khloe Kardashian, popular reality TV star, is even blinded by fantasy as she looks for an apartment similar to Carrie Bradshaw's in Manhatten. She asks, "how did Carrie afford an apartment in the city? She was just a writer." It's not just the average Jane's that get seduced by the illusion of reality in video representation.