ICrazy.

Has the IPad become more favourable than the written book?

The introduction of apple’s latest product, The IPad, has many people stirring. The gadget provides many online stores and apps for buying books and being able to read them on the IPad. You can even bookmark your page; just like a real book.

Advantages of the Paper book:
– There are more available
– There are billions in the world referencing millions of topics
– Anyone can buy a book
– They are portable
– Easy to use
– They are cheaper than an IPad
– There are different type’s i.e. picture books, baby books, adult books, etc.

Advantages of the IPad:
– Portable
– Looks nice
– Technologically advanced
– Easy to read ( zoom)
– Easier to take notes
– You never have bad lighting
– Large amount of space

Cons of the Paper book:
– Paper cuts
– You need a lot of room space to store books
– Books may be heavy
– You have to search a library or book store to find them

Cons of the IPad:
– You have to worry about battery life
– Technological bugs and glitches
– Not all types of books are available for purchase
– You wouldn’t buy a 5 year old an IPad to show them a picture book
– Expensive

How do I know what to use?

In my opinion, the IPad was created to target certain demographics. For example, the CEO’s of society will be all over the IPad because it fits their lifestyle. They want everything first, and the brand image of the IPad promotes an easy, technologically advanced lifestyle. For certain demographics like the Belongers who value family and being a part of the community, I do not believe the IPad would be too favourable to them. The IPad is expensive, and you wouldn’t buy a 5 year old an IPad to start readings books on. The written book describes our civilisation, from the Shakespearean times to today. No matter how fancy the IPad is, I do not believe it replaces the written book. The written book has been here longer, and it shall remain selling more than the IPad will. Personally, I love paper books. The smell of a new book, the feel, and the no worrying about battery life really appeals to me. I mean how many people want to plug in their book every 6 hours?

More doctors smoke Camels.

Would cigarette companies get away with these ads today?

Cigarette ads, especially back in the day, promoted smoking on a different level. Even today, companies create a persuasive message behind their ads; smoking makes you younger, sexier, and more fun. However, most consumers do not realize this is just a way for companies to market their brand.

Many cigarette companies in the past promoted their product by claiming that cigarettes were good for you, that they would promote health. Today we know that this scientific claim was completely wrong. Smoking causes not only lung cancer, but other cancers and second hand smoke. Before the rumours about smoking cigarettes leading to health issues, many people smoked cigarettes. Even though this is the problem today, at least we have packaging that actually informs the consumer that the product is detrimental to their health. Doctors recommended Camels until the 1950’s. After the truth about cigarettes was made aware to society, the very same doctors never showed their face in an ad again.

The doctors in these ads that were promoting Camels should be held liable for the society’s development of health issues that came post smoking these cigarettes. Doctors are seen in society as people who are here to protect, promote, and preserve life. If they are promoting something that is supposedly “good for you”, then certain demographics, such as the Belongers, will go out and buy this product.

The Camels ads were not the only shocking ones. The following ads are vintage ads that actually existed in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s.

A baby promoting his dad smoking cigarettes? That would be banned today. Smoking around babies is extremely detrimental to their health, especially with new evidence about second hand smoking. A child should never be the spokesperson for something that may kill you.

Smoking and the female emancipation. This sends the message to woman that they will look powerful if they smoke, and in the times that were struggling with woman rights, the woman would eat this up and buy the cigarettes just to fit in with the men.

Santa Clause likes cigarettes. Selling death at Christmas, how many things are wrong with this sentence? Is it morally right to associate Santa Clause, a child’s fictional icon, with smoking?

If I had lived in the 1940’s and 50’s, I would see these ads and automatically assume that smoking was both cool, promoted independence, was good for me and even little kids would like it. These ads sent out the wrong message. Even the brains behind persuasive messages today would not go that far for cigarette ads.

More $$$ more problems.

Should music be free?

Teenagers, armed with their IPods, mp3’s, phones, and computers have all the technology in front of them to do virtually anything they want. However, the problem is, they are using this technology to download music for no price. They use torrents, limewire, Napster and many other sites to download free music. The debate of today’s time is, should music be free?

Many adolescents download music for free because that it is cheaper than buying music off of ITunes. The newer generations, such as myself, find it easier to simply download their favourite album off Limewire instead of paying for it on iTunes. If we are willing to accept the lesser quality for the exchange of no price, then let it be. The argument on the artist’s side is that they are not working for free. They are working hard to create music for their fans that in return should be purchasing their songs.

The Canadian Recording Industry Association found that conventional music sales fell a 35 per cent in the first quarter of 2007. However, 60% of all musicians believe pirates should NOT be sued. The internet has made numerous artists famous of more famous. If the internet is also causing problems for them, such as music downloading, then they should take the good with the bad. The internet, such as the website Napster, not only let’s music be fast accessible and free, but it also promotes artists. Many people use this site to sample music BEFORE BUYING it, so why prosecute the company that is also making you money? Napster was shut down by the courts.

If file sharing has made is more difficult for musicians to sell music, then they should concentrate on making revenue from different sources. Only musicians without talent suffer, because the others can make millions in profit from tours and concerts.

Many countries around the world are making it illegal to download music for free. However, not all adolescents have the $20 to buy their artist’s CD. Downloading online is fast and easy, and more accessible. It takes two minutes to download one of Kesha’s songs for free, so why not just do that?

Many artists do not only create their music for revenue, but to convey their freedom of expression. Has listening to someone state their opinion become illegal if we do not pay for it? In all fairness, if an artist is willing to put their music in the industry to express themselves, then why should we pay for it? If artists do not want their music to be listened to for no price, then they should simply refrain from using the internet to promote their music, or putting their music on iTunes. All in all, downloading music for free is a phenomenon that cannot be stopped, even if is illegal. Society will find a way to download it, illegally or not. It is the price that comes with the more technologically savvy generation; artists should find other ways of creating revenue.

Tecktonik is a fad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZA45IZ6GzQ

Politicians take it too far

What has politics come to? Playing Dirty.

We all know that one of the concepts of media is that media messages contain social and political implications. When there is an election, the society views a large amount posters, commercials, ads, etc promoting the campaign of a politician. In October 2008, Canada was a media playground. Ads and commercials were everywhere promoting the federal elections. I remember viewing at least 2 political campaign videos a day. Not to mention how much attention the elections were getting on the news. CBC posted news updates almost every few hours on the elections. It is safe to say that elections are extremely popular. Television can make or break a politicians campaign; negative media spreads can and will lead to the downfall of a political party. A great example of this was the Liberal Party smear campaign lead by the conservatives.

This and many other smear ads jeopardized the Liberals popularity. The national leader turned out to be Stephen Harper. The conservatives did not stop there, they continue to run a smear campaign on the Liberals:

Are these smear ads taking things a little too far? I believe that politicians use the media to their advantage to make fun of other political party’s based on superficial issues. If it weren’t for the use of the television ads by the Conservatives, the Liberal party may have won. The Conservatives used the ” Stephan Dion=Donkey” ( obviously not in those exact words) to win an election. The Conservatives won a minority government, not a majority. The media has a great influence on the public opinion on absolutely every topic, but what many people fail to recognize is the fact that the media constructs versions of reality.

The following ad was one that I first though to be fake, but turned out to be a real republican ad.

I cannot begin to explain how politically incorrect this is. Dan Fanelli is arbitrarily saying that all non white people in America are terrorists. Ads like this one are taking the campaigning too far. When racism comes to abruptly into play in the media, someone must stand up and take a stand. Politicians are supposed to represent the people, the house of commons or house of representatives are the ones who reflect our opinions, if we allow politicians to do such a thing, what are we saying about ourselves?

How misleading can these political ads be ?

Buy me!

Persuasive messages are everywhere; they are used to emotionally hook the consumer. The brains behind the persuasive messages create an appealing image that becomes the representation of their product. The persuasiveness in ads in our society play a large role in consumerism. If a brand is synonymous with “youth”, then many older women would be buying that product. Corporations target a demographic, create an image, and then they have to sell. Advertisers have to do 4 things

1) Get the consumers attention
2) They have to reassure the consume that they are making the right choice
3) They need to persuade new people that they want to buy their product
4) And they have to establish an appealing image or personality

In Canada, what is more important than nationalism? The demographic “belongers” will do everything in their power to be a part of their community, and more importantly, their country. The Molson Canadian slogan “I Am Canadian” is a prime example of a persuasive ad. If you buy Molson Canadian beer, you will be Canadian, and who doesn’t want to be a part of this beautiful nation. It almost makes buying other brands of been a taboo, they are not “Canadian”. If we believe that Canada is the best, then this beer has to be the best. The message is brilliant, it support our nation.

Position: The product is for Canadians who drink beer
Brand Image: “I am Canadian”
Marketing: They use written and television ads

Who wants to look like an animal? Certainly no human being. The Lubriderm ad portrays a women posted next to an alligator, who are known to have extremely scaly skin. That is the last thing that anyone wants, therefore they should buy Lubriderm, it will prevent that. Millions of woman worldwide pay million of dollars in order to have young looking skin. They pay for plastic surgery in order to make sure that they do not have skin that looks like an alligators. If this product promises soft smooth skin, then the women (and even men) who want smooth skin will buy it. With good looking skin, one feels better with themselves. If you feel better with yourself, you will be more accepted. Therefore you will become popular. If this Lubriderm cream “heals” our skin, it must have a magical power because it is “curing” us of a “disease”

Position: The product “heals” our skin
Brand Image: “See you later alligator” The image is synonymous with beauty
Marketing: They use both written and television ads

The media gives a negative image to adolescents

Unfortunately for the adolescents living in today’s society, their image on television is less than appealing. One look at an episode of 90210, the OC, or Gossip Girl will have you believing that all adolescents are criminals. Today’s media portrays adolescents in a very bad light; the truth has yet to be revealed. What the audience needs to realize is that television shows such as the ones mentioned above are created to hold the attention of the viewer, therefore creating as much as drama as is necessary. As we have learned, all media messages are constructions. The media does not necessarily reflect external reality. They have crafted an image for teenagers that do not serve adolescents justice.

The adolescent stereotype can be summed up intro three words, sex, drugs, & rock and roll. However, this can be very misleading. Teenagers are known for experimentation and rebelling, but this is only a portion of teenagers. Just like there are demographics for adults, there should be demographics for teenagers. Every time there is a teenager on a television show, they are having sex, drinking, smoking, or breaking the law. This is the media’s opinion on adolescents.

Adolescents’ problems go past the superficial ones depicted in the media. The media only shows a small variety of teenage groups, more commonly the “popular”. We are not all thinking about prom, or who has the best hair cut, or who has the best clothes. Our lives revolve around pressure from not only our peers, but what society has depicted us as. Once the media decided on their opinion of us, we feel subjected to meet to their expectations. How often do you see a television show about a normal middle class student trying to get grades to get into university without cheating? Never. What we do see are rich, spoiled brats who go shopping. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QB_xh_0UN8

Freaks and Geeks is a television series that was discontinued because it was too SMART. The showed looked into the lives of many teenagers dealing with various problems, social standards, school, peer pressure, bullying, and even dealing with grief. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZh2sAAgbNs

Not all of us go to a rich private school, and have unlimited amounts of money and time (there can’t be that many hours in one week to go through all the drama in these television series).

Reality TV is definitely subjective. Television shows like Laguna Beach and my Super Sweet Sixteen are not a proper portrayal of our lives. On Laguna Beach, these teenagers are running around spreading rumours and it seems almost impossible to co exist in their world. Once more, it seems that the only thing their lives revolve around is excessive drama. On my super sweet sixteen, we see sixteen year olds who throw 500, 000 dollar parties in honour of themselves. How often does that happen in Canada? Never. Unfortunately, the adolescents who try hard in school to achieve good grades in order to go to university and get an education never get casted.

TV companies have one prerogative in mind, money. Sex sells, therefore the more drama included into these shows, the better; even at the expense of an entire generation. Negative images sell; the news is more likely to report a teenager killing someone then a teenager getting an A.

Desert Island Mix

1990

Vogue – Madonna Pop/Dance
• Madonna has sold more than 200 million albums world wide.
• Vogue is from Madonna’s soundtrack album I’m Breathless
• It topped the charts in over 30 countries becoming one of Madonna’s most popular songs

Blaze of Glory Jon – Bon Jovi Classic Rock/Blues
• The group was formed in 1983 and they have been together for 26 years
• Blaze of Glory hit #1 in the Billboard hot 100
• A theme in the album Blaze of Glory is to make yourself heard in the world

Ice Ice Baby – Vanilla Ice Rap
• Vanilla Ice’s real name is Robert Matthew Van Winkle
• Ice Ice baby was not initially successful
• It was the first hip hop song to top charts

2000

Breathe- Faith Hill Country
• She is married to Tim McGraw
• Breathe is also the name of her fourth album
• Sold 8 million copies alone in the US

Say my name- Destiny’s child R&B
• Lead singer is Beyonce
• Their original name was Girls Tyme
• From the album Writings on the wall

Kryptonite- Three doors down Rock/Hard Rock
• formed in 1996
• The band performs more than 300 concerts a year
• On the album The better life
• Stayed at number one for 11 weeks consecutively

2010

Need you now- Lady Antebellum Country
• formed only in 2006
• nominated for 2 Grammy’s at the 51st Grammy awards
• Need you now was awarded 2010’s song of the year at the 45th ACM awards

Not afraid Eminem ft Rihanna Rap/Hip Hop
• Real name is Marshall Bruce Mathers III
• Also known as Slim Shady
• First artist to win Best Rap Album for three consecutive LP’s
• Not afraid hit #1 in the US from the album Recovery

Love is forever- Muse Alternative Rock

• originally names Rocket Baby Dolls
• The Resistance is the band’s fifth album
• The song is the lead single for Twilight’s third movie Eclipse

Be who you want to be, be B A R B I E ?

Is Barbie a good role Model?

Barbie, a fashion doll created by Mattel in 1959, became an icon. Barbie has the biggest wardrobe of any fashion doll, the most pets (about 40), the most shoes and even more. Barbie has dozens of different houses and cars, not to mention jobs. Barbie has everything she wants, an on and off boyfriend (Ken), nice mansions, beautiful cars, amazing clothes, great jobs, a perfect body, and so much more. However, because of these factors, it is evident that Barbie is not a good role model. In our society, girls come in all different shapes and sizes; we are not one plastic doll with one shape. The original Barbie doll created in 1959 had a very small waist, one that every woman dreams for but never achieves. They widened the waist in 1997; however Barbie’s body is still perfect, like the ones on TV or covers of magazines. A very small percentage of girls actually look like Barbie, and the doll can make children feel self conscious about themselves. Why is it that 16 year olds are always shown playing with the dolls on television ads, when in reality it’s 5-12 year olds who play with them? Younger children play with Barbie; therefore it is unrealistic to have such a body on a doll. Body image has become a very large issue in our society, especially with the growing rates of obesity. The creators of Barbie could make their doll a bit more realistic, and even larger waist size, normal looking legs, etc. In my opinion, that it why the Bratz dolls gained so much popularity, their bodies are much larger than the Barbie dolls. Not to mention that modern day societies Barbie has tattoos on their lower backs. Women worldwide started associating Barbie’s blonde skinny looks with what is ” beautiful”. Frankly, that deeply upsets me.

Aside from Barbie’s body, Barbie is synonymous with consumerism. Barbie has everything she wants, all the clothes, jewelry, houses, and cars a girl could dream of. But that is exactly what is wrong; children should not be raised wanting these material possessions. Mattel’s marketing strategy is to hit little children with shopping fever; getting them to want things at an even younger age. Barbie has everything, so why can’t I? As a child, when I played with Barbie’s houses or cars, I wondered why I couldn’t have the same. Is that the right message to be sending out to children? Barbie is the sign of capitalism, even within her own image. That is not the right message we should be sending to the youth. I agree with this statement in the article “… It is American in miniature- a tint parody of our pursuit of the beautiful, the material and the trivial.” Children should not value these things, instead they should be thinking about education, so that they can support themselves financially in the future.

Her on again and off again relationship with Ken is controversial. Children should not be exposed to such an unstable relationship. This is giving them the wrong impression about the values of marriage and common law.

Barbie, who is an icon, should value the more important things in life. Money does not buy you happiness. Modern day Barbie is too much, as the years go by, Barbie gets more and more revealing, promiscuous, and it overall sending the wrong message to youth.

The evolution of the television

1. What was your first memory about television? The first memory I had of television was a series named the 6 million dollar man I was 7 years old. The actor was Farah Fawcett, her hair was called the “Farah’s hairstyle” a new hairstyle that every teenagers copied. I remember the action, the male actor was under arrest from the FBI so he was escaping from one event to another, basically somebody killed his wife, but he was the suspect in the murder case. The team of the male actor was doing something unusual and was trying to be good people, and Farah Fawcett was helping him.

2. Where were you? I was in Astara, in Iran. I had a colored television. I also had a black and white TV.

3. What was your general opinion about television? I didn’t like TV, after watching TV I felt very lazy, tired, and at one point I didn’t want to go back to school. I just wanted to stay home and watch TV. And that feeling bothered me and I didn’t want to watch TV after that.

4. What about color/sound? I remember that the action seemed realistic to me. I copied the show; I made them my role models. For example, I wanted to be a detective because detectives were common on TV.

5. Were you hooked? I did watch TV after that, only at night. No I wasn’t hooked, I made a choice. It was conflicting with my studies.

6. Would you say you watch more TV now? I watch TV an hour and a half every day, which is more than before.

7. How much did you watch before? Every other day I would watch an hour.

8. What did your TV look like? Big, black or silver, we had no remotes, we had to do it manually (there was a dial on the TV). Since I didn’t have a control, I would get really lazy and use my feet. TV would get fuzzy, because we had antennas, no dishes or cable; it was one metal vertical bar and horizontals bars on it on the roof top. On rainy days the TV would get fuzzy, I would open the back of the TV, and there was a plastic button and I would play with it and return the picture back.

9. What is the biggest difference between television then and now? We had two channels, I liked it. Everyone was waiting to see the music channel, from 7:30-8, they played recorded tapes.