Movies contribute to our socialization in many ways. New movies are coming out constantly, and just about everyone watches hundreds if not thousands of movies in their lifetime. Just like of types of mass media, movies usually show women as beautiful objects for powerful men to use and look at (Princess movies, MCU franchise, Star Wars). This has been going on since the beginning of show business, and it has very much influenced the way society views the difference between women and men. Just like the movie“This film is not yet rated” said, violence in movies is deemed less controversial than sexual acts in a movie. This has contributed so much to our socialization because most people believe that sexual acts, which are a part of everyone’s lives at some point, are more controversial to see in film than pointing a gun at someone, because of the rating shown on the movie. All of this shows just how important representation is in films. More women and people of color need to be at the helm of the film industry, and they need to be shown as powerful figures and equals when they are on screen in order to truly change the social norm. There needs to be more equality in the industry, but they don’t have to depict reality in my opinion. The whole reason people watch movies is to escape reality. If you’re watching the Avengers or Monsters INC., they’re obviously not the best depiction of everyday life. But, that’s the whole point of watching a movie. The plot points of movies can be far from reality, but they just need to make sure that the people they portray in the films are not just your average “beautiful” man or woman.
SUBJECT: Is Verizon’s First Amendment rights violated by Net Neutrality rules?
This memo addresses whether net neutrality rules are violating Verizon’s First Amendments rights. Net neutrality is the idea, principle, or requirement that Internet service providers (ISPs) should or must treat all Internet data as the same regardless of its kind, source, or destination. The FCC has implemented rules to make sure that ISPs do not violate consumers net neutrality rights. Verizon argues that “Broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners engage in First Amendment speech”. They go on to express their concern that net neutrality rules trigger First Amendment concerns by restricting broadband providers’ rights to allocate more bandwidth to some content that to others. In 2012, Verizon was caught blocking people from using tethering application on their phones by the FCC. This action caused Verizon to violate a net neutrality pledge it made to the FCC in 2008. With the Supremes Court’s interpretation of speech and press including using the internet, I have determined that Verizon does not have a valid First Amendment case. However, I do believe Verizon may have a case for violation of Fifth Amendment rights (protection for private property rights). If Verizon chooses to make a case against net neutrality, it would be in their best interest to argue that net neutrality rules are violating Verizon’s Fifth Amendment rights.
Media products can be economically different from other kinds of products, but they are very similar to other products for the most part. Some differences between media products and others are the fact that media products cost much more and take way more time to complete and put out into the world. The similarities between the economics of media products and others are the facts that companies have to come up with a business strategy and they have to decide how to handle the competition. Economics is basically about making choices. When a company creates a product, whether it’s in the media or otherwise, they decide what is going to be the best route to take economically for the company. The only thing that sets the media apart from others in the field of economics, is the cost of production, distribution, and consumption of what they’re selling. Everything in the media cost way more in comparison to other products. So, when media companies decide what is the best route to take economically, it usually revolves around the social norm, because that’s what sells. When watching “Miss Representation” it was made clear that men took up almost every aspect of leadership there is to offer. When the media, or even product companies, are deciding what will make them the most money and views, they put out what they believe others want to see. In a man’s world, they want to see women as objects as opposed to peers or leaders. In our world today, because of the flooding of men in leadership positions, it is the men that decide what would be the best option for that company economically. Just like they say in “Miss Representation” that’s not how the world should be, and if women were in the big chairs, there wouldn’t be this type of misrepresentation in the media.
A few days ago, a report was published by a local environmental group suggesting that the water in Quinn’s Pond may be unsafe to swim in, causing major concerns for all citizens. In response to the report, we have asked The IdahoState Department of Agriculture to check the waters safety using the Regional and Local Agricultural Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program. There will also be research conducted on the findings published in the report by the environmental group. The second the ISDA receives their findings, we will issue another press release immediately. However, until the water is deemed safe, we ask all citizens of Boise to refrain from swimming or using the water in Quinn’s Pond. The City of Boise cares about the safety of our citizens and the quality of our environment to the highest regard. It has always been our vision to “Make Boise the most livable city in the country”. If anyone has any questions or concerns regarding the matter at hand, feel free to go to our website to email a representative, call, or stop by the office at any time. It is also encouraged to speak with a representative from the ISDA if you have any questions about the Water Quality Monitoring Program. We hope to solve this issue once and for all and thank you all for your patience during this time.
For my ad, I decided to do a Banana Boat sunscreen ad. I was looking through my pictures trying to find one that looked like it could be an ad and I stumbled across a picture from four years ago of my friend and I during our marching band trip to California. We met this super nice girl that wanted to play with us, and this picture just reminded me of all the fun we had at the beach that day. In the Banana Boat original ad, it was conveying that using this sunscreen will allow you to have the perfect beach day. In my picture, we all have huge smiles on our faces and there’s people in the background hanging out at the beach, so I believe my image really showed the message Banana Boat was trying to get to its consumers. The demographic that I’m trying to reach is anyone who wants to go to the beach, or who goes to the beach often. A larger demographic that I could also reach would be anyone that uses sunscreen. The ad suggests that if you use this sunscreen, you won’t get burnt, and your day at the beach will be great because of that. The values that my ad conveys are selfcare and happiness. This assignment showed me that advertising plays a big part in society. If you see someone extremely happy in the ad for a product, you will most likely go out and buy that product. Advertisements convince consumers that they need certain things in order to be happy. In my case of advertising sunscreen, it is true that sunscreen is vital and we do actually need it, but just because you buy Banana Boat, it doesn’t mean that you will have a better day at the beach than if you would’ve bought a generic brand.
When you think about online social shaming, the video we watched, and the code of ethics we read, you start to realize just how unethical social media really is. These users who are shaming others online don’t know all the facts, don’t consider the long-term effects this may have on the person being shamed, and they don’t let the accused speak up about the mistakes they made. These ethical factors are very similar to what is expected of news media online. News media and social media have similar ethical guidelines in which the people creating content on both should always give a voice to the voiceless, balance their information with the public’s need to know, and the potential harm it could create, and they should weigh the consequences of posting or publishing personal information. However, the news media and social media do have their differences as well. The news media has to be accurate at all times and provide their sources to the public. But social media users don’t have to be accurate at all if they don’t want to and they don’t have to provide sources at all. The news media also has to make sure that they avoid conflicts of interest. On the other hand, a social media user can say whatever they want without being cautious of any conflicting interests. Although social media is a place that allows you to say whatever you want whenever you want, I think that there should be some guidelines to try and prevent online social shaming because this can ruin a person’s life. I have decided that my guidelines would be
The post cannot contain dialogue in which someone is suggesting assault of any kind towards another being.
Every social media user should not use malicious words towards another user.
Support everyone’s open and civil exchange of views.
Before you post anything, think about this, if you wouldn’t say something in person, should you say it online?
From doing the work in this module, I realized so much about my experience online. It seems as if everything is catered to you, with whatever site you’re on. This can be great because it allows you to search for something and find whatever you’re looking for immediately, and the information you find is usually catered to your beliefs. However, if you want a different perspective on something you searched, it’s way harder to find because these search engines and social media hide articles and websites that they don’t think you would want to see. I believe that filter bubbles are very similar to offline social separation. With filter bubbles, search engines and social media sites act as a gatekeeper towards you, and they only show you information that they want you to see, but you also are somewhat gatekeeping yourself by only liking posts are searching for things that you are interested in seeing. This behavior closes you off from other views, beliefs, and lifestyles. I believe that social separation is very similar to the traits of online filter bubbles. With social separation, I believe that you and society each have a part in what you see, and how you interpret the world. When it comes to society, I believe that it sorts you into groups based on your income, age, race, and many other factors, and that determines your interests, your view on life, politics, hobbies, and even religion. Inside that societal separation, I believe that you also have a role in your social separation. Once society decides where you belong, you then decide who belongs with you. You become closer with people that have the same hobbies and beliefs as you, thus separating you from other people that may have a different outlook. Both of these factors together can lead people to a close off interpretation of the world. In order to break social separation or filter bubbles, I believe that it’s important to immerse yourself in things that you wouldn’t necessarily want to do. For example, if you’re not a fan of sports, maybe join a local team, or go to a sporting event, and you could possibly like the people there, or you could somewhat understand why others like sports. This could give you a new point of view on matters in which you only had one. With the online world, if you’re a liberal, maybe search something that caters more towards a conservative, so you could see their side of the story and what they think about the matter at hand. Breaking these bubbles is important, because it allows you to see the world in a different light.