I just read a very interesting New York Times review of current television programming, and felt it was relevant to our concern with media literacy.
Alessandra Stanley, in her article "It's a Crime That Men Are So Lazy," observes that male characters in many of today's TV shows are lazy, incompetent, powerless, and/or just generally unhelpful to their female counterparts, who are forced to pick up the slack (she even mentions one male character who is a recovering addict).
Certainly, the presentation of ANY demographic in the media -- be it men or women, children or adults, black people or white people, etc. -- has consequences. The portrayal of women in the media has been a concern for quite some time, and rightly so. But I think we need to start paying more attention to the other side of the gender coin as well, and to what sort of image our young men are being given of themselves.
Click here to read the full article.
Showing posts with label Media Literacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Literacy. Show all posts
Monday, June 13, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Two media projects tackle problem of violence/abuse from different angles
If you peruse the latest in entertainment, popular culture and media news, you may find some information about two very intriguing projects, both of which deal with contemporary instances of violent behavior.
The first is "Man Down," R&B recording artist Rihanna's latest video, which premiered on BET Tuesday. It has, as its main "character," a young woman who takes revenge on her sexual abuser by shooting him in the head.
The second is "Beautiful Boy," an independent film opening in theaters today. It was directed by Shawn Ku and stars Maria Bello and Michael Sheen (no relation to Charlie "Bi-Winning" Sheen) as the parents of a young man who took his own life after going on a shooting spree at college (much like the two kids at Columbine High School). As an exploration of the subject of school shootings, this film is unique in that it deals with the subsequent struggles of the perpetrator's parents.
In numerous ways, these two projects are considerably different. One is very popular, the other is more on the fringe of popular media; one is primarily a music medium, the other is a feature-length film; one has aroused the concerns of parents, the other is likely to elicit empathy from parents. But both are relevant to two very pressing issues in our culture: media influence and violence (both in the case of Rihanna's video, the latter in the case of "Beautiful Boy").
I'm interested to know what people think. Does Rihanna's video go too far in dealing with a controversial issue? As for Beautiful Boy, should we be doing more to address the experience of parents -- of both victims and perpetrators -- when dealing with bullying and violence in the schools?
My information comes from two online articles -- one from the Associated Press and one from Reuter's.
Click here for the article on "Man Down."
Click here for the article on "Beautiful Boy."
"Beautiful Boy" Trailer
The first is "Man Down," R&B recording artist Rihanna's latest video, which premiered on BET Tuesday. It has, as its main "character," a young woman who takes revenge on her sexual abuser by shooting him in the head.
The second is "Beautiful Boy," an independent film opening in theaters today. It was directed by Shawn Ku and stars Maria Bello and Michael Sheen (no relation to Charlie "Bi-Winning" Sheen) as the parents of a young man who took his own life after going on a shooting spree at college (much like the two kids at Columbine High School). As an exploration of the subject of school shootings, this film is unique in that it deals with the subsequent struggles of the perpetrator's parents.
In numerous ways, these two projects are considerably different. One is very popular, the other is more on the fringe of popular media; one is primarily a music medium, the other is a feature-length film; one has aroused the concerns of parents, the other is likely to elicit empathy from parents. But both are relevant to two very pressing issues in our culture: media influence and violence (both in the case of Rihanna's video, the latter in the case of "Beautiful Boy").
I'm interested to know what people think. Does Rihanna's video go too far in dealing with a controversial issue? As for Beautiful Boy, should we be doing more to address the experience of parents -- of both victims and perpetrators -- when dealing with bullying and violence in the schools?
My information comes from two online articles -- one from the Associated Press and one from Reuter's.
Click here for the article on "Man Down."
Click here for the article on "Beautiful Boy."
"Beautiful Boy" Trailer
Monday, April 25, 2011
Filmmaker behind 'Super Size Me' tackles product placement
Just a quick update on what's going on in the media world: Morgan Spurlock, writer-director-star of the 2004 documentary "Super Size Me," has just made a documentary called "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold."
Spurlock's latest documentary tackles the subject of product placement in movies and is entirely and intentionally (all in good humor, it seems) funded by -- you guessed it -- product placement.
Click here for the full article.
Spurlock's latest documentary tackles the subject of product placement in movies and is entirely and intentionally (all in good humor, it seems) funded by -- you guessed it -- product placement.
Click here for the full article.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
TV industry turns to 'water cooler' phenomenon to boost viewership
In a recent New York Times article entitled "TV Industry Taps Social Media to Keep Viewers’ Attention," which was published yesterday, Brian Stelter (along with contributor Jennifer Preston) draws attention to a new marketing tool various media sources are using to attract viewership.
Many Prime-Time programs are now being accompanied by online applications, surveys and streams, at least some of which are available during the time slots of the shows themselves. The idea is to capitalize on contemporary viewers' heavy use of online networking sites -- Facebook, Twitter, etc. -- and propensity to multitask while watching television. The former is especially important to television executives, since many people use social media to chat about their favorite programs.
Stelter puts it this way: "It’s as if people are gathered around the online water cooler — and the television executives are nervously hovering nearby, hoping viewers keep talking and, by extension, watching their shows."
Click here to read the full article.
Many Prime-Time programs are now being accompanied by online applications, surveys and streams, at least some of which are available during the time slots of the shows themselves. The idea is to capitalize on contemporary viewers' heavy use of online networking sites -- Facebook, Twitter, etc. -- and propensity to multitask while watching television. The former is especially important to television executives, since many people use social media to chat about their favorite programs.
Stelter puts it this way: "It’s as if people are gathered around the online water cooler — and the television executives are nervously hovering nearby, hoping viewers keep talking and, by extension, watching their shows."
Click here to read the full article.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Super Bowl commercials and clever marketing
Monday, January 17, 2011
The Golden Globes and 'influential' behavior
This video is a mild example -- and I do mean mild -- of some of the off-color humor that characterized actor/comedian Ricky Gervais' monologue and comments as host of the 2010 Golden Globes. Some were highly inappropriate, most irreverent, all reaction-provoking. Other stars' comments were very similar in that regard.
A lot of talk has been going around about the use of language in political circles -- especially by Sarah Palin in the wake of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (see Thursday's post). Can we argue that, just as political figures should be held to higher standards of accountability in what they say, so should those in entertainment?
I think most people would say that we are talking about two very different situations here. To insist that there be no irreverent humor in entertainment -- especially on the part of those whose job it is to make people laugh -- would probably be unrealistic and oversensitive. Sure, one can go too far with it, but generally speaking, we can probably afford to "lighten up" a bit more with entertainment than with politics -- as long as it is understood that there is a time and a place for irreverent jokes.
My concern, however, is not with the overall irreverence of Gervais' (and others') comments. Rather, I am concerned with the questionable behavior of many of the stars throughout the night. A number of statements and words that came out of people's mouths -- including Gervais' -- were censored. Non-subtle sexual references were made on at least a couple of other (that is to say, non-censored) occasions.
Christian Bale, in concluding his acceptance speech for the Best Supporting Actor award, went over his allotted time to make some apparently inappropriate comment to Robert De Niro. Whatever the comment was, it took about 5 seconds to say and was thoroughly censored.
Paul Giamatti, in accepting the award for his performance in "Barney's Version," talked about how grateful he was to have worked on a movie where he could get paid to drink and smoke; he did specify what he was drinking and smoking, but this part was censored.
It is true, of course, that celebrities are not necessarily role models. Still, if someone is a high profile figure whose example, good or bad, is made available to people of all ages worldwide, he/she should realize that his/her deliberate bad behavior (especially in a high profile atmosphere like the Golden Globes) has the potential to set a bad example on a broad scale.
I think the media would probably do well to focus more on that aspect of last night's Golden Globes ceremony. In my opinion, their exclusive focus on the humorous jibes of its host only distracts readers from the more important issue.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Media Literacy - Who are the audience for this ad?
Today I am starting a new thread on the GCASA Cares blog tagged media literacy. We will be looking at the insidious assault on our youth by the corporatized drug pushers of our society.
Who do you think this ad is targeted to? Would kids like it especially 8,9, and 10 year old boys? What is the likelihood that they would want to emulate the behavior of the man who winds up with the beer?
What would you say to a 3rd, 4th, or 5th grade student about this ad?
What kind of TV shows do you think this ad will be played on?
Video lasts 0:30
This is article #1 in a series on Media Literacy.
Who do you think this ad is targeted to? Would kids like it especially 8,9, and 10 year old boys? What is the likelihood that they would want to emulate the behavior of the man who winds up with the beer?
What would you say to a 3rd, 4th, or 5th grade student about this ad?
What kind of TV shows do you think this ad will be played on?
Video lasts 0:30
This is article #1 in a series on Media Literacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)