According to the book They Say I Say Sherry Turkle “looks askance at today’s media-saturated culture, because of the way cell phones, computers, and other portable technologies undermine public spaces and community. (212) Sherry Turkle had a piece published in Forbes magazine in 2007, in the article she points out “five troubles that try her tethered soul” as related to the use of technology today.
“ There is a New State of the Self Itself” Where she talks about the virtual self and how you can be just about anyone you want to be while online. There is a virtual world called Second Life where people who are normally socially awkward can be a social queen since they are interacting through a computer and not in real life. As Turkle says, “it is easier to express intimacy in the virtual world than the real world." She also adds that "online life provides an environment where one can be a loner, yet not alone.” Turkle is worried that soon people will stop even wanting to go outside and be social since they have a computer instead. We don’t want our kids learning social skills from a computer.
Are We Losing the Time to Take our Time? Where she talks about people growing up and multitasking and having rapid responses. With the new technological age and people are always on the move doing something with the technology and “are we leaving enough time to take our time on things that matter?” Recently people make their world revolve around their blackberries, rather than what’s important like family.
The Tethered Adolescent. Talks about how children are losing a sort of right of passage by having cell phone and having there parents on speed dial so they don’t have to experience some of the things that we did as children. This section also talks about how cell phones take away from the ability to be alone and children now a day don’t get to feel that. Children need to be able to feel independence, and how are they supposed to do that when they are have mom and dad one click away. Turkle believes that children end up being more dependent on their cell phones than their own self.
Virtuality and Its Discontents. Speaks about how if we are always being watched can lead to political abuse.
Split Attention speaks about “doing e-mail” while doing other tasks such as during classes, meetings, while talking to our children, walking down the street, driving cars, or when having dinner with our family. “Once done surreptitiously, the habit of “Self-splitting in different world becomes normalized.” Which means that we can be in the physical world while also being in the virtual world?
I believe that Turkle would agree with Amy Goldwasser, they both have similar views about technology today. They believe that kids are too into electronics and are not focused on the important things in life. Turkle would love how Goldwasser says,” Kids today don’t read, don’t write, and don’t care about anything farther in front of them than their iPods.” I also believe that Turkle would agree with Dana Stevens when she suggests that the nation take a week off of TV.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Turkle
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Reality Television: Oxymoron
By: Kari Duddeck
In the article Reality Television: Oxymoron by George F. Will he describes the workings of television and the ways that television has morphed over the years. According to George F. Will television is all about imitation. In order to make "good" television people create television shows off of other television shows and each time they put a spin on it to make it more and more interesting and shocking. George F. Will also argues that we are becoming more and more desensitized. Television shows are increasing the amount of violence, sexuality, and degradation and at the same time people aren't as easily shocked as the once were. We have become so desensitized that it is becoming harder and harder to take viewers by surprise so television producers just continue adding more and more violence, sexuality, and degrading material.
One of George F. Will's main points is the fact that television is all about imitation. One of the examples in the article was the television show Fear Factor. Fear Factor was created based on the MTV show Jackass. Fear Factor takes the basic concept of Jackass and adds different twists, not to mention money, to gain viewers and participants. Another great example of television imitation is the NFL versus the XFL. NBC recently created the XFL. The XFL took the main concept of the NFL and promised that viewers would see more violence and more cheerleaders' breasts. Another one of George F. Will's main points is that the shock factor is harder to achieve. The idea of imitation is what brings about the added shock factor. Because shows are imitated producers have to add more twists to make them different and prove to the television viewers that it is worth watching. In order to provide the needed shock factor television shows are adding more sexuality, violence, and degrading material. Because we have seen so much imitation and even more shock factor we are becoming desensitized and it is getting harder and harder to shock us. As an added twist more and more television shows are providing a monetary reward if participants follow through with the television shows stunts or answer their embarrassing and brutally honest questions.
In the article Watching TV Makes You Smarter by Steven Johnson, he argues that it takes more brain power to decode and think through some of the shows that are on today. George F. Will would argue that even if the television shows deal with more complicated concepts and it takes more brain power to pick up on the humor, those television shows are also contributing to our desensitized nature. George F. Will would argue that people can use their brains and think through shows without having to witness the extra sexual material or watch a scene from 24 where the secretary of defense authorizes the torture of his own son to uncover evidence of a terrorist plot.
In the article Thinking Outside the Idiot Box by Dana Stevens, Stevens argues that Steven Johnson's article was a weak argument. George F. Will would agree with the argument that Stevens makes. Stevens argues that the new complicated television shows don't necessarily make people use their brain and think outside the box. Television viewers start thinking about what is going to happen on the show next time. People don't watch certain television shows for the brain stimulation, they watch it for entertainment and because it is what is popular today.
Works Cited
Johnson, Steven. “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Stevens, Dana. "Thinking Outside the Idiot Box." The Say I Say. Como. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Will, George F. "Reality Television: Oxymoron." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
In the article Reality Television: Oxymoron by George F. Will he describes the workings of television and the ways that television has morphed over the years. According to George F. Will television is all about imitation. In order to make "good" television people create television shows off of other television shows and each time they put a spin on it to make it more and more interesting and shocking. George F. Will also argues that we are becoming more and more desensitized. Television shows are increasing the amount of violence, sexuality, and degradation and at the same time people aren't as easily shocked as the once were. We have become so desensitized that it is becoming harder and harder to take viewers by surprise so television producers just continue adding more and more violence, sexuality, and degrading material.
One of George F. Will's main points is the fact that television is all about imitation. One of the examples in the article was the television show Fear Factor. Fear Factor was created based on the MTV show Jackass. Fear Factor takes the basic concept of Jackass and adds different twists, not to mention money, to gain viewers and participants. Another great example of television imitation is the NFL versus the XFL. NBC recently created the XFL. The XFL took the main concept of the NFL and promised that viewers would see more violence and more cheerleaders' breasts. Another one of George F. Will's main points is that the shock factor is harder to achieve. The idea of imitation is what brings about the added shock factor. Because shows are imitated producers have to add more twists to make them different and prove to the television viewers that it is worth watching. In order to provide the needed shock factor television shows are adding more sexuality, violence, and degrading material. Because we have seen so much imitation and even more shock factor we are becoming desensitized and it is getting harder and harder to shock us. As an added twist more and more television shows are providing a monetary reward if participants follow through with the television shows stunts or answer their embarrassing and brutally honest questions.
In the article Watching TV Makes You Smarter by Steven Johnson, he argues that it takes more brain power to decode and think through some of the shows that are on today. George F. Will would argue that even if the television shows deal with more complicated concepts and it takes more brain power to pick up on the humor, those television shows are also contributing to our desensitized nature. George F. Will would argue that people can use their brains and think through shows without having to witness the extra sexual material or watch a scene from 24 where the secretary of defense authorizes the torture of his own son to uncover evidence of a terrorist plot.
In the article Thinking Outside the Idiot Box by Dana Stevens, Stevens argues that Steven Johnson's article was a weak argument. George F. Will would agree with the argument that Stevens makes. Stevens argues that the new complicated television shows don't necessarily make people use their brain and think outside the box. Television viewers start thinking about what is going to happen on the show next time. People don't watch certain television shows for the brain stimulation, they watch it for entertainment and because it is what is popular today.
Works Cited
Johnson, Steven. “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Stevens, Dana. "Thinking Outside the Idiot Box." The Say I Say. Como. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Will, George F. "Reality Television: Oxymoron." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Hidden Intellectualism
In the writing Hidden Intellectualism, Gerald Graff is focusing on how he feels that being street smart and being intellectual can benefit each other. Motivating young people in school can be done by the teachers being more creative in their lessons and focusing on the interests of the students. One of the examples Graff makes to back up his point is, he reflects on when he was younger and how his endless debates with his friends about sports and who is the toughest kid helped him in an intellectual way. These things in his youth helped him to understand how to make arguments and converse with others. Graff also brings up the points about students being able to see their interests "through intellectual eyes." This means that street smarts alone is not enough, but if a student can use their intellect to focus on a topic they are interested in this could help them in their studies. This also ties in with Graff's points about how if the student uses their interests for a topic, they are likely to approach the material in a reflective and analytical way.
In the writing Can You Hear Me Now? Sherry Turkle makes the connection between street smarts being similiar to emailing or texting. Graff may think this would be a good place for the teacher to incorporate the current interests of students into their learning. The students would benefit if part of their academics involved technology that they are currently interested in. This goes along with how Graff feels street smarts can benefit an intellectual goal.
Antonia Peacocke mentions how the show Family Guy "intentionally satirizes some aspects of American culture," in her writing Family Guy and Freud. Graff would identify with this as some street smart humor being used in a more intellectual way. The topic of the satire may not be the most intellectual thing but the way the jokes are delivered would be more intellectually based.
Over all Graff's points about the importance of streets smarts being important to intellectual goals would help a lot of people realize they have been acting like an intellectual maybe without even knowing it. His approach to learning could help many people look at their interests in new ways and ultimately help them with their educational goals as well.
In the writing Can You Hear Me Now? Sherry Turkle makes the connection between street smarts being similiar to emailing or texting. Graff may think this would be a good place for the teacher to incorporate the current interests of students into their learning. The students would benefit if part of their academics involved technology that they are currently interested in. This goes along with how Graff feels street smarts can benefit an intellectual goal.
Antonia Peacocke mentions how the show Family Guy "intentionally satirizes some aspects of American culture," in her writing Family Guy and Freud. Graff would identify with this as some street smart humor being used in a more intellectual way. The topic of the satire may not be the most intellectual thing but the way the jokes are delivered would be more intellectually based.
Over all Graff's points about the importance of streets smarts being important to intellectual goals would help a lot of people realize they have been acting like an intellectual maybe without even knowing it. His approach to learning could help many people look at their interests in new ways and ultimately help them with their educational goals as well.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Watching TV Makes You Smarter
Millions of people turn on their television every night and watch a few moments of reality TV. In doing so, they might not know it but they are bettering themselves on a personal level. Based on the ideas of Steven Johnson the average person could learn a thing or two form reality TV. In his article called, “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” Johnson states that; "For decades, we've worked under the assumption that mass culture follows a path declining steadily toward lowest-common-denominator standards, presumably because the "masses" want dumb, simple pleasures and big media companies try to give the masses what they want. But as that 24 episode suggests, the exact opposite is happening: culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less."( 214). Johnson talks explicitly about what a scholar might call the “dumbing down of America”, which in his mind is completely false. Watching reality television in his mind makes a person more aware of the everyday occurrences that happen.
The major point first made in Johnsons article is based on his theory called, “The Sleeper Curve”. This theory is about how: “television alters the mental development of young people for the better” (215). Johnson talks about reality TV affecting younger generations in a positive light and helping with personal development. Another major topic discussed is how; “multiple threads in new television episodes are much more complex than old television shows.” In talking about this Johnson refers to the Mary Tyler More show being cookie cutter whereas reality TV today has real life issues. Through this kind of television our younger generation can be taught how to handle tough situations. The third major topic that is brought up in Johnson’s article is about how younger generations are given mindless television that they can not apply to their everyday life to watch and then expected to go out in the real world of high school and college and deal with tough, harsh situations. Through harder, more intense television our younger generations could have a bit better idea on how to handle these situations, while knowing the different outcomes that could occur. Quoting from his article Johnson says, “What I am arguing for is a change in the criteria we use to determine what really is cognitive junk food and what is genuinely nourishing. Instead of a show’s violent or tawdry content, instead if wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind.”
In a statement made by Graff in “Hidden Intellectualism”; “What doesn’t occur to us, though, is that schools and colleges might be at fault for missing the opportunity to tap into such street smarts and channel them into good academic work. Nor do we consider one of the major reasons why school and colleges overlook the intellectual potential of street smarts with anti-intellectual concerns.” I think that Johnson would completely agree with Graff’s statement and would back it up with research of his own. He would agree that society can be formed into great people with street smarts and books smarts, followed by a dose of reality.
As Duglas Rushkoff suggests in Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence, The Simpsons has a complex structure and, "Rather than drawing us into the hypnotic spell of the traditional story teller, the program [The Simpsons] invites us to make active and conscious comparisons of its own scenes with those of other, less transparent, media forms" (Rushkoff 248). What Rushkoff is saying here is that not all televisions shows are mindless entertainment, rather they can challenge our intellect by allowing us to find patterns of recognition. I agree that even shows like The Simpsons make us smarter because they depict political and social situations.
WORKS SITED
Johnson, Steven. “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Greff, Gerald. “Hidden Intellectualism.” They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Rushkoff, Douglas. "Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverance." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
The major point first made in Johnsons article is based on his theory called, “The Sleeper Curve”. This theory is about how: “television alters the mental development of young people for the better” (215). Johnson talks about reality TV affecting younger generations in a positive light and helping with personal development. Another major topic discussed is how; “multiple threads in new television episodes are much more complex than old television shows.” In talking about this Johnson refers to the Mary Tyler More show being cookie cutter whereas reality TV today has real life issues. Through this kind of television our younger generation can be taught how to handle tough situations. The third major topic that is brought up in Johnson’s article is about how younger generations are given mindless television that they can not apply to their everyday life to watch and then expected to go out in the real world of high school and college and deal with tough, harsh situations. Through harder, more intense television our younger generations could have a bit better idea on how to handle these situations, while knowing the different outcomes that could occur. Quoting from his article Johnson says, “What I am arguing for is a change in the criteria we use to determine what really is cognitive junk food and what is genuinely nourishing. Instead of a show’s violent or tawdry content, instead if wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind.”
In a statement made by Graff in “Hidden Intellectualism”; “What doesn’t occur to us, though, is that schools and colleges might be at fault for missing the opportunity to tap into such street smarts and channel them into good academic work. Nor do we consider one of the major reasons why school and colleges overlook the intellectual potential of street smarts with anti-intellectual concerns.” I think that Johnson would completely agree with Graff’s statement and would back it up with research of his own. He would agree that society can be formed into great people with street smarts and books smarts, followed by a dose of reality.
As Duglas Rushkoff suggests in Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence, The Simpsons has a complex structure and, "Rather than drawing us into the hypnotic spell of the traditional story teller, the program [The Simpsons] invites us to make active and conscious comparisons of its own scenes with those of other, less transparent, media forms" (Rushkoff 248). What Rushkoff is saying here is that not all televisions shows are mindless entertainment, rather they can challenge our intellect by allowing us to find patterns of recognition. I agree that even shows like The Simpsons make us smarter because they depict political and social situations.
WORKS SITED
Johnson, Steven. “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Greff, Gerald. “Hidden Intellectualism.” They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Rushkoff, Douglas. "Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverance." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Me Against the Media
Every waking moment of our lives are concentrated with consumerism. I wake in the morning and turn on the television to catch the news report before work. In between the reports are fascinating and stimulating commercials. Commercials that tell me what to drink, what to eat, and what to buy. Many of these commercials are specifically generated to catch the eye of me, the consumerist. Generation Y, adults in range of 18-34 years old, the offspring of the "baby boomers," is the primary audience of advertising agencies. To paraphrase Gladen, " the legions of the so-called 'Age of Acquisition' who have few established brand loyalties and lots of pocket change." This audience is seen to be the major threshold of consumerism. Generation Y is the part of society that splurges on Starbucks coffee, purchases the Nike product to stay healthy, and the Sean John and Baby Phat to keep us looking hip. We as Generation Y are knowing in the political fields of appropriation of our loyalty. Our generation is mostly disaffected with the political scene, we know that isolation from this begins with our iPods, Avatars, and PlayStations. Rather we haven't been taught that consumerism as something that extends beyond the own enjoyable trip to the mall. (Gladen p. 289) Many people are opposed to this active appeal of the Generation Y, these media activists have three strategies to bring down the house of consumerism. The first is to find a way to appeal to the young people on their level as an individual. The second is to find the examples in popular culture, to show us that we are manipulated to believe we need these things. The third strategy is simply to have the youngsters speak with their parents about their personal experiences as they were growing up. As Johnson exemplifies, this consumerism is not about what we buy, but how we buy it. He believes that television is actually making us smarter. Television is making me smarter. So when I watch a episode of 24 on Fox, I am becoming smarter merely because I can follow multiple story lines. So if this show is making me smarter; does that mean I will buy product more intelligently. I think not, the shows we watch many of us believe are for their entertainment value and nothing more. This entertainment value is what keeps us from watching the Home Shopping Network and being an avid consumer who must buy, buy, buy. On the other hand, Will states that, "Ours is a stage besotted with graphic entertainments." He is referring that our society cannot stand up to the intellectual crowd because of our inability to connect with books and academia. We can no longer keep up with the academic world because we are constantly being bombarded with "graphic entertainment." This graphic entertainment is what supports the consumerism we are immersed in. Many of us Generation Y have grown up with many cartoons that told us what to buy merely because they re the newest hottest toy; such as My Little Pony and G.I. Joe. The television we watch everyday informs us of the material objects that can make us happy, if we only choose to accept the advertisements and buy. Just look the other way when Starbucks or Nike is advertising and remember that you are being manipulated to think these items are more special.
Johnson, Steven. "Watching TV Makes You Smarter" They Say I Say: With Readings. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
Rockler-Gladen, Naomi. "Me Against the Media: From the Trenches of a Media Lit Class". They Say I Say: With Readings. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
Will, George F. “Reality Television:Oxymoron” They Say I Say with Readings. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
"Thinking Outside The Idiot Box" by Dana Stevens
Watching TV doesn't make you smarter, and who is to decide which shows are considered worthy of watching or not. This is proven when stating that people are smarter from being able to follow more complex narratives, it doesn't follow that they are more educated than before. It is perhaps making them think more about future episodes and in turn also disengaging the viewer from the social inequalities and violence that the show may possess. People should watch TV shows based on what they like, for entertainment purposes, and not for the notion that they are doing it to "enhance" themselves. Because of the variety of interests and influence among individuals, there is no one able to declare that certain shows are really bad for everyone to view.
Perceived response to Reality Television: Oxymoron by George F. Will:
Watching television should be about what you like to watch, and not what is going to make you smarter or dumber. In “Reality Television: Oxymoron” People have the choice to pick what they watch based on what they want to watch. The only time people don’t get the choice what they want to watch if it is for class to teach something. People don’t have to watch something based on the educational factor in the show. Some shows like Fear Factor exist for entertainment only, or sports are there for people to watch. Even though you know you might see a fight during the game. Watching these shows will not necessarily make you smarter or dumber.
Perceived response to Family Guy and Freud by Antonio Peacocke: Peacocke intends to credit the show Family Guy with an agenda to make good humor out of our inherently human ability to find humor with letting our "animalistic and aggressive impulses surface from the unconscious" (266). The notion that we could be looking to analyze how we see the writer's humor may be accurate. However, this also coincides with the problem that believing tv producers want to make us behave a certain way is really not a likely concern of broadcasting executives. The argument Peacocke gives may convince viewers to look at the show in a new light, instead of seeing just the crude attempt for humor many people will see.
Works Cited:
Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.
Peacocke, Antonia. "Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and their relation to the unconscious." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Will, George F. “Reality Television:Oxymoron” They Say I Say with Readings. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
Perceived response to Reality Television: Oxymoron by George F. Will:
Watching television should be about what you like to watch, and not what is going to make you smarter or dumber. In “Reality Television: Oxymoron” People have the choice to pick what they watch based on what they want to watch. The only time people don’t get the choice what they want to watch if it is for class to teach something. People don’t have to watch something based on the educational factor in the show. Some shows like Fear Factor exist for entertainment only, or sports are there for people to watch. Even though you know you might see a fight during the game. Watching these shows will not necessarily make you smarter or dumber.
Perceived response to Family Guy and Freud by Antonio Peacocke: Peacocke intends to credit the show Family Guy with an agenda to make good humor out of our inherently human ability to find humor with letting our "animalistic and aggressive impulses surface from the unconscious" (266). The notion that we could be looking to analyze how we see the writer's humor may be accurate. However, this also coincides with the problem that believing tv producers want to make us behave a certain way is really not a likely concern of broadcasting executives. The argument Peacocke gives may convince viewers to look at the show in a new light, instead of seeing just the crude attempt for humor many people will see.
Works Cited:
Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.
Peacocke, Antonia. "Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and their relation to the unconscious." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Will, George F. “Reality Television:Oxymoron” They Say I Say with Readings. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence
In "Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence", Douglas Rushkoff takes a look at how a show like The Simpsons is more than what it seems. It would appear that Rushkoff has followed along the same lines with his title. Rushkoff does not believe that Bart Simpson is simply irreverent, rather, "Bart embodies youth culture's ironic distance from media its willingness to disassemble and resplice even the most sacred cultural and ideological constructs" (Rushkoff 245). In other words, Bart is disrespectful, but it isn't without reason-he's the voice of a very prominent culture. Rushkoff explains this by saying that Bart can easily be written to take a current event in society and change it or point out its flaws (Rushkoff 245), which often engages the audience and satisfies a growing societal trend towards being skeptical. Furthermore, the writers of The Simpsons often use the show to demonstrate the various biases we are bombarded with on a daily basis. This approach is especially evident in the episode in which Bart creates Timmy O'Toole. In short the episode is about the age-old warning tale of "crying wolf"; however the spin in the story is that the media is criticized for not taking interest when the story is actually true (Rushkoff 251). The arena of advertising is also another common target for the show. In an episode mimicking the Super bowl it becomes clear that companies, especially the beer companies capitalize on the event (Rushkoff 249). Rushkoff believes that as The Simpsons sends out messages showing how people can be manipulated that they will become more aware that; they will be able to watch something or see an advertisement and really look at it critically- questioning its intentions and the quality of the information. The Simpsons is a great example of how some Television shows are diverting from the typical path of hypnotizing their viewers and are instead embracing dialogue that helps society become more cynical of television today.
If Rushkoff read Antonio Peacocke's article, "Family Guy and Freud", he would agree with her that Family Guy does try to show the flaws in the media and society but he would disagree that they go about it in the same way. He would say that The Simpsons is more sophisticated and subtle in pointing out taboos in society. Family Guy may attempt to convey the same ideas, but it does so in a more blatant and, often times, more vulgar way. Family Guy is a much more aggressive show that can sometimes send the wrong message. Often, the show has run into problems crossing the line. Rushkoff would also argue that The Simpsons is a far more layered format that enables it to be viewed and enjoyed by people of all ages on many different levels.
If Rushkoff were to read Dana Stevens' article "Thinking Outside the Idiot Box", he would agree that watching television shows probably doesn't make you smarter; however they may make you more aware. Such shows may not make you more intelligent in the sense of common knowledge but they give you some tools to think beyond what you are watching to see the message that the writers are trying to send. He would also agree that there are many shows out there that do nothing to benefit the viewer except entertain them in a hypnotic fashion. He would say that shows like The Simpsons are still created for pleasure but they can also yield more than just time to relax.
Works Cited
Peacocke, Antonio. “Family Guy and Freud” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.
Rushkoff, Douglas. “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.
Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.
"What's the Matter with Kids Today?" (Amy Goldwasser)
By: Jazmin & Kayla
Within the reading “What’s the Matter with Kids Today,” by Amy Goldwasser she comes across the topic of computers, cell phones/text messaging, iPods, and instant messaging and how they affect young teenagers. Her main point is that even though computers and electronics can be used for good things such as learning about history, they are more likely used to lead teenagers in abusing them by being obsessed with online chat and becoming more into a second self. We also feel that Goldwasser thinks highly of the doors the internet has opened to teenagers. She says “We need to start trusting our kids to communicate as they will online…”(239) and “Once we stop regarding the internet as a villain, stop presenting it as the enemy of history and literature and worldly knowledge, then our teenagers have the potential to become the next great voices of America.” (240)
Four major points supporting the thesis
1. “We’re talking about 33 million Americans who are fluent in texting, e-mailing, blogging, IM’ing, and constantly amending their profile on social network site” (PG. 237).
2. Teens now enjoy reading and writing more than before because it is less familiar to them and something different then being on a computer.
3. “Had a parent introduced 20 minutes of researching the Holocaust to one month of their teen’s internet life, or a teacher assigned The Diary of Anne Frank (arguably a 13-year-old girl’s blog)-if we worked with, rather than against, the way this generation voluntarily takes in information-we might not be able to pick up the phone and expose tragic pockets of ignorance” (PG. 239).
4. “The average teen chooses to spend an average of 16.7 hours a week reading and writing online” (239).
We believe that Amy Goldwasser would have to agree with Sherry Turkle in the reading “Can You Hear Me Now?” This reading goes on about how we are all connected through cell phones and blackberries and how no one thinks that connecting through physical appearance is good anymore. Sherry’s idea goes directly off of Amy in how we are all connected through technology and have become a second self. Along with Steven Johnson, author of “Watching TV Makes You Smarter,” in how Johnson explains that many new televisions shows are actually “enhancing our cognitive faculties, not dumbing them down.” (215) I think that both authors believe that technology such as the internet and television has promoted a new learning style in teenagers and young adults.
Within the reading “What’s the Matter with Kids Today,” by Amy Goldwasser she comes across the topic of computers, cell phones/text messaging, iPods, and instant messaging and how they affect young teenagers. Her main point is that even though computers and electronics can be used for good things such as learning about history, they are more likely used to lead teenagers in abusing them by being obsessed with online chat and becoming more into a second self. We also feel that Goldwasser thinks highly of the doors the internet has opened to teenagers. She says “We need to start trusting our kids to communicate as they will online…”(239) and “Once we stop regarding the internet as a villain, stop presenting it as the enemy of history and literature and worldly knowledge, then our teenagers have the potential to become the next great voices of America.” (240)
Four major points supporting the thesis
1. “We’re talking about 33 million Americans who are fluent in texting, e-mailing, blogging, IM’ing, and constantly amending their profile on social network site” (PG. 237).
2. Teens now enjoy reading and writing more than before because it is less familiar to them and something different then being on a computer.
3. “Had a parent introduced 20 minutes of researching the Holocaust to one month of their teen’s internet life, or a teacher assigned The Diary of Anne Frank (arguably a 13-year-old girl’s blog)-if we worked with, rather than against, the way this generation voluntarily takes in information-we might not be able to pick up the phone and expose tragic pockets of ignorance” (PG. 239).
4. “The average teen chooses to spend an average of 16.7 hours a week reading and writing online” (239).
We believe that Amy Goldwasser would have to agree with Sherry Turkle in the reading “Can You Hear Me Now?” This reading goes on about how we are all connected through cell phones and blackberries and how no one thinks that connecting through physical appearance is good anymore. Sherry’s idea goes directly off of Amy in how we are all connected through technology and have become a second self. Along with Steven Johnson, author of “Watching TV Makes You Smarter,” in how Johnson explains that many new televisions shows are actually “enhancing our cognitive faculties, not dumbing them down.” (215) I think that both authors believe that technology such as the internet and television has promoted a new learning style in teenagers and young adults.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Family Guy and Freud
Although many viewers jump to harsh conclusions about certain programs, they simply may need to open their minds to see the important messages being shared. Antonia Peacocke, author of “Family Guy and Freud”, was once turned off by the humor that is Family Guy. It’s likely that she is not the only person who would change the channel immediately, to ensure not a second’s worth of ratings go to this program which is notorious for its crude humor. However, many viewers continue to stay glued to this television program, utilizing their ability to think outside the box and appreciate the show’s content. After Peacocke’s brother and everyone else she knew were watching it religiously, she decided to give it a chance (260). Much to her surprise, she found herself embracing it’s humor and paying closer attention to the creators’ intentions. If you have ever watched Family Guy, you were probably offended by something at one point in time; after all, from the naked eye, it can come off as rude and distasteful. However, if we enhance our perception and take a deeper look into the humor portrayed on the show, we can see that it draws on real-life situations faced by society everyday.
One episode described in Peacocke’s essay features a mock 1950’s instructional video portraying women in the workplace.. It shows a businessman speaking into the camera describing how to make sure women feel comfortable in the workplace. He says to make sure you tell them how good they look and that nothing says “good job!” like a firm open-palm slap on the behind (260). It’s obvious that some people are going to find this skit sexist, given its discernible knocks on female workers. However, when enhancing our perception and thinking outside the box, it’s clear that this skit is not putting women down, but rather mocking how women were once treated in the workplace and the odd normalcies of the 1950’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2UsjBufqE
Peacocke spoke of author George Will and offered her views on his piece entitled “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence.” She agrees with Will that there are definitely times when creators do cross the line of decency. She does not agree with his statement that “entertainment seeking a mass audience is ratcheting up the violence, sexuality, and degradation, becoming increasingly coarse and trying to be…shocking in an unshockable society (266). She believes that the Family Guy humor is intelligent and that the coarse scenes have hidden merit.
If Peacocke were to read Dana Stevens’ essay called “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box,” she may relate this article to an episode of Family Guy where Brian and Stewie are discussing Stewie’s obsession with the Oprah Winfrey Book Club. In this episode, the creators were cleverly attempting to point out America’s obsession with celebrities and television, and less willing to admit doing so. This insightful part of the episode goes hand in hand with Stevens’ thesis that America is not getting any smarter because of TV. Stevens believes that watching TV teaches us to want to watch more TV, which is exactly what Stewie intends to do while waiting for Oprah to announce the next book in the book club.
There have been several episodes of Family Guy that have been misunderstood by many, and it’s caused the show to be cancelled twice (258). Viewers fought back against the cancellations and the program was brought back with a vengeance. Despite its questionable delivery, one fact remains true: Family Guy exposes true aspects of American culture. Peacocke firmly believes that we should stop dwelling on the controversy and start focusing on what the show is trying to tell us (261). There is so much more than what meets the eye.
WORKS CITED
Peacocke, Antonia. "Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and their relation to the unconscious." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Rushkoff, Douglas. "Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverance." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Stevens, Dana. "Thinking Outside the Idiot Box." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
One episode described in Peacocke’s essay features a mock 1950’s instructional video portraying women in the workplace.. It shows a businessman speaking into the camera describing how to make sure women feel comfortable in the workplace. He says to make sure you tell them how good they look and that nothing says “good job!” like a firm open-palm slap on the behind (260). It’s obvious that some people are going to find this skit sexist, given its discernible knocks on female workers. However, when enhancing our perception and thinking outside the box, it’s clear that this skit is not putting women down, but rather mocking how women were once treated in the workplace and the odd normalcies of the 1950’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2UsjBufqE
Peacocke spoke of author George Will and offered her views on his piece entitled “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence.” She agrees with Will that there are definitely times when creators do cross the line of decency. She does not agree with his statement that “entertainment seeking a mass audience is ratcheting up the violence, sexuality, and degradation, becoming increasingly coarse and trying to be…shocking in an unshockable society (266). She believes that the Family Guy humor is intelligent and that the coarse scenes have hidden merit.
If Peacocke were to read Dana Stevens’ essay called “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box,” she may relate this article to an episode of Family Guy where Brian and Stewie are discussing Stewie’s obsession with the Oprah Winfrey Book Club. In this episode, the creators were cleverly attempting to point out America’s obsession with celebrities and television, and less willing to admit doing so. This insightful part of the episode goes hand in hand with Stevens’ thesis that America is not getting any smarter because of TV. Stevens believes that watching TV teaches us to want to watch more TV, which is exactly what Stewie intends to do while waiting for Oprah to announce the next book in the book club.
There have been several episodes of Family Guy that have been misunderstood by many, and it’s caused the show to be cancelled twice (258). Viewers fought back against the cancellations and the program was brought back with a vengeance. Despite its questionable delivery, one fact remains true: Family Guy exposes true aspects of American culture. Peacocke firmly believes that we should stop dwelling on the controversy and start focusing on what the show is trying to tell us (261). There is so much more than what meets the eye.
WORKS CITED
Peacocke, Antonia. "Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and their relation to the unconscious." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Rushkoff, Douglas. "Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverance." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Stevens, Dana. "Thinking Outside the Idiot Box." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Fat as a Feminist Issue
Fat as a Feminist Issue
Susie Orbach
Why are women so obsessed with weight these days? A woman’s weight has become the center of her attention in her everyday life. Society has decided that an overweight or obese woman is basically diseased and has invalidated and isolated her because she does not fit the stereotype of the “normal” woman. The worst part is that women believe that being overweight is their own fault for not being able to control their appetites and impulses. Susie Orbach wants us to know that fat is a feminist issue, and we should not let this take our life over. We should embrace our fat and love the fact that we are not living as a stereotypical woman. We want to be fat in response to the inequality of the sexes. Yves Engler, author of “Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations” says that advertising fatty foods and putting delicious looking pictures for all to see is the cause of our fat. Where Orbach may agree partially with this, because it takes the blame away from us, she would still argue that women don’t eat bad foods because of the lack of willpower, but more so just to rebel against the social norms of the way a woman is portrayed in media. Randy Balko, author of “What You Eat is Your Business,” would like you to believe that the main cause of obesity lies within a person’s own responsibility, so if you get fat, it’s own your fault. Susie Orbach on the other hand believes that obesity is a feminist issue and “that being fat isn’t because of a lack of control, it’s from the inequality of sexes.” Everyday women have to deal with the pressure of having the perfect body. Everywhere we go all we see is skinny models in revealing outfits and diet plans on every magazine and it’s no wonder some women just want to rebel from that everyday norm and be themselves and not what the magazines want. These women don’t care if being fat is being themselves, as long as if they are true to themselves that’s all that matters. That is Orbach’s reasoning behind everything, the pressure of being skinny, leads women to gain weight just to escape all the pressure the world puts on us.
WORKS CITED
Engler, Yves. "Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Graff, Gerald. “What You Eat Is Your Business.” They Say I Say. Comp. Balko, Radley. Ed. Norton & Company Inc. New York, 2006. 157-161
Graff, Gerald. “Fat as a Feminist Issue.” They Say I Say. Comp. Greff, Berkenstein, Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print.
Susie Orbach
Why are women so obsessed with weight these days? A woman’s weight has become the center of her attention in her everyday life. Society has decided that an overweight or obese woman is basically diseased and has invalidated and isolated her because she does not fit the stereotype of the “normal” woman. The worst part is that women believe that being overweight is their own fault for not being able to control their appetites and impulses. Susie Orbach wants us to know that fat is a feminist issue, and we should not let this take our life over. We should embrace our fat and love the fact that we are not living as a stereotypical woman. We want to be fat in response to the inequality of the sexes. Yves Engler, author of “Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations” says that advertising fatty foods and putting delicious looking pictures for all to see is the cause of our fat. Where Orbach may agree partially with this, because it takes the blame away from us, she would still argue that women don’t eat bad foods because of the lack of willpower, but more so just to rebel against the social norms of the way a woman is portrayed in media. Randy Balko, author of “What You Eat is Your Business,” would like you to believe that the main cause of obesity lies within a person’s own responsibility, so if you get fat, it’s own your fault. Susie Orbach on the other hand believes that obesity is a feminist issue and “that being fat isn’t because of a lack of control, it’s from the inequality of sexes.” Everyday women have to deal with the pressure of having the perfect body. Everywhere we go all we see is skinny models in revealing outfits and diet plans on every magazine and it’s no wonder some women just want to rebel from that everyday norm and be themselves and not what the magazines want. These women don’t care if being fat is being themselves, as long as if they are true to themselves that’s all that matters. That is Orbach’s reasoning behind everything, the pressure of being skinny, leads women to gain weight just to escape all the pressure the world puts on us.
WORKS CITED
Engler, Yves. "Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print
Graff, Gerald. “What You Eat Is Your Business.” They Say I Say. Comp. Balko, Radley. Ed. Norton & Company Inc. New York, 2006. 157-161
Graff, Gerald. “Fat as a Feminist Issue.” They Say I Say. Comp. Greff, Berkenstein, Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print.
Lawsuits Against Fast-Food Restaurants Are an Effective Way to Combat Obesity
Within the article “Lawsuits against Fast-Food Restaurants Are an Effective Way to Combat Obesity” by John H. Banzhaf III, we see many people blaming their obesity on the Fast-Food establishments and not on themselves. Within the article it isn't jumping to one extreme but rather talking about both litigation and legislation. Taking a company to court because someone is overweight isn't right but there should be some type of laws on the amount of fat in foods and making nutritional information more readily available to the public. Even though it does not hurt to have nutritional facts open to the public we do not seem to ever see any of the sort because most places hide the nutritional facts on the back wall of their establishment. It would be best if these facts were visible allowing the public to make their own choices on what they eat. Many fast-food companies are starting to take steps in reducing obesity. They don't want to be sued and are trying their hardest to gain support by saying, “well we do offer nutritional salads”. In the article “What You Eat is Your Business” by Radley Balko, it talks about the amount of money being spent on health problems and how obesity shouldn’t be a public matter. It is safe to say that obesity should be a public matter. The rate of obesity is rising and with that so is the rate of people with loved ones being affected by obesity. Obesity should become of interest to the public if they care about the health of their loved ones and their future. The obesity problem has yet to fix itself so it is time that legislators step in to help remedy the situation. Balko argues that we should be working towards people taking ownership in what they eat. By creating laws that require more nutritional options and clearly stated nutritional information we are allowing people to make healthier choices and take ownership of their eating habits. In the article “Being Fat Is Ok” by Paul Campos he talks about how overweight people are not necessarily unhealthy and the data linking death and obesity are limited. It is true that being overweight doesn’t necessarily mean that a person is unhealthy. A thin person could have more health issues than an overweight person. The fact of the matter is a person who is overweight has a higher chance of developing health issues due to their weight than a thin person has. A report from the U.S. Surgeon General showed in 2001; there have been 300,000 American deaths annually, all obesity related (1). It is safe to say that obesity kills and it is about time that we start taking care of the problem and saving lives by implementing effective legislation.
WORK CITED
1. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/pressureleases/pr--obesity.htm
Graff, Gerald. “They Say I Say.” Balko, Radley. What You Eat Is Your Business. Ed. Norton & Company Inc. New York, 2006. 157-161
Graff, Gerald. “They Say I Say.” Campos, Paul. Being Fat Is Ok. Ed. Norton & Company Inc. New York, 2006. 206-210
WORK CITED
1. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/pressureleases/pr--obesity.htm
Graff, Gerald. “They Say I Say.” Balko, Radley. What You Eat Is Your Business. Ed. Norton & Company Inc. New York, 2006. 157-161
Graff, Gerald. “They Say I Say.” Campos, Paul. Being Fat Is Ok. Ed. Norton & Company Inc. New York, 2006. 206-210
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Don't Blame the Eater
Don’t Blame the Eater
David Zinczenko
“Before 1994, diabetes in children was generally caused by a genetic disorder. Today, according to the National Institute of Health, Type 2 diabetes accounts for at least 30% of all new childhood obesity cases.” Zinczenko’s statement according to the National Health Institute is pretty flabbergasting. His voice in this story states that not only are we as individuals responsibly for what we put into our bodies, i.e.; fast food; but the companies as well. More often than not a family that has had a long day will choose a drive through over going home and pre-paring a home cooked meal. This to Zinczenko is the reason America is over weight and unhealthy.
Paul Campos, author of the article titled "Being Fat is OK" states that,” According to the U.S. Government, your health in terms of weight is measured by using the Body Mass Index (BMI) tool. This tool uses your height and weight to determine whether you are normal, overweight or obese.” I think that this article was not as supported as Zinczenko’s. In the terms that Campos has little facts to back up the government reasoning, as well as over all aspects of using the BMI for dieting.
Many fast food companies have made great strides in converting children to their side of thinking. Take McDonald’s for instance; in 1997 they introduced the Beanie Baby as part of their free toy with a Happy Meal. McDonald’s averaged 10 million Happy Meals sold in an average week. After the introduction of the Beanie Baby their sales skyrocketed to 100 million sales in just a week. Many of those children wanted those Beanie Baby’s as we all remember how fascinating they were. Everyone wanted a Beanie Baby, thus they were going to eat at McDonald’s to get one. There was a huge influx of new people eating at McDonald’s just to get their hands on that Beanie Baby. Society as a whole has made the decision to consume the bad for you food that McDonald’s hands out with all their special toys.
While it is your own choice as a teen or adult to place a fast food burger in your mouth, sometimes as college students you have no other alternative. McDonald’s dollar menu says; “eat this, its cheap, fast and simple.” Whiling driving to class count how many McDonalds will you pass, now count how many fruit and veggie spots you passed. The fast food industry is sucking us in with every commercial, billboard, and radio ad. You find a very small amount of healthy choices at these fast food joints; therefore we are left with terribly fattening choices that will kill us in the end.
In conclusion, the government, fast food gurus and American culture are responsible for our children becoming obese. In the end, we as a society can only do so much to limit our intake of fatty foods, while still keeping up with the hustle and bustle of every day life.
Works Cited
Schlosser, Eric. “Your Trusted Friends” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182
Campos, Paul. “Being Fat Is OK” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 206
Zinczenko, David. “Don’t Blame the Eater” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 153
David Zinczenko
“Before 1994, diabetes in children was generally caused by a genetic disorder. Today, according to the National Institute of Health, Type 2 diabetes accounts for at least 30% of all new childhood obesity cases.” Zinczenko’s statement according to the National Health Institute is pretty flabbergasting. His voice in this story states that not only are we as individuals responsibly for what we put into our bodies, i.e.; fast food; but the companies as well. More often than not a family that has had a long day will choose a drive through over going home and pre-paring a home cooked meal. This to Zinczenko is the reason America is over weight and unhealthy.
Paul Campos, author of the article titled "Being Fat is OK" states that,” According to the U.S. Government, your health in terms of weight is measured by using the Body Mass Index (BMI) tool. This tool uses your height and weight to determine whether you are normal, overweight or obese.” I think that this article was not as supported as Zinczenko’s. In the terms that Campos has little facts to back up the government reasoning, as well as over all aspects of using the BMI for dieting.
Many fast food companies have made great strides in converting children to their side of thinking. Take McDonald’s for instance; in 1997 they introduced the Beanie Baby as part of their free toy with a Happy Meal. McDonald’s averaged 10 million Happy Meals sold in an average week. After the introduction of the Beanie Baby their sales skyrocketed to 100 million sales in just a week. Many of those children wanted those Beanie Baby’s as we all remember how fascinating they were. Everyone wanted a Beanie Baby, thus they were going to eat at McDonald’s to get one. There was a huge influx of new people eating at McDonald’s just to get their hands on that Beanie Baby. Society as a whole has made the decision to consume the bad for you food that McDonald’s hands out with all their special toys.
While it is your own choice as a teen or adult to place a fast food burger in your mouth, sometimes as college students you have no other alternative. McDonald’s dollar menu says; “eat this, its cheap, fast and simple.” Whiling driving to class count how many McDonalds will you pass, now count how many fruit and veggie spots you passed. The fast food industry is sucking us in with every commercial, billboard, and radio ad. You find a very small amount of healthy choices at these fast food joints; therefore we are left with terribly fattening choices that will kill us in the end.
In conclusion, the government, fast food gurus and American culture are responsible for our children becoming obese. In the end, we as a society can only do so much to limit our intake of fatty foods, while still keeping up with the hustle and bustle of every day life.
Works Cited
Schlosser, Eric. “Your Trusted Friends” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182
Campos, Paul. “Being Fat Is OK” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 206
Zinczenko, David. “Don’t Blame the Eater” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 153
Friday, February 5, 2010
Your Trusted Friends
Today, the issues of obesity have been argued left and right. However, Eric Schlosser, author of Your Trusted Friends, seems to have discovered the very core of this epidemic. In his article he provides a tremendous amount of insight on the major corporations McDonalds and Disney and how they have been able to have a tremendous impact on the lives of millions of people around the world through their successful advertising campaigns. Schlosser would likely agree with the arguments of Yves Engler, author of Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations, and David Zinczenko, author of Don’t Blame the Eater. All three authors are united in the idea that fast food companies such as McDonalds and their persistent advertising and promotions have negatively influenced the eating habits of consumers. However unlike Engler and Zinczenko, Schlosser provides detailed insight on what specifically these companies have done to be so successful in not only strengthening their executive's pocketbooks, but inadvertently contributing to obesity. To do this, he examines the various marketing tactics that have enabled the fast-food empire to become what it is today.
Engler was on the right track when he put the problems simply by stating, “The main reason that people are consuming more, especially unhealthy products, is the food industry's relentless advertising, especially to children (Engler, 175)”. Schlosser would certainly agree with this statement but would also consider how and why advertising campaigns and promotions, such as the Teenie Beanie Baby giveaway which was "one of the most successful promotions in the history of American advertising"(Schlosser, 194), have been so profitable. On the flip side of profits and costs, Zinczeko was also accurate in arguing that “it may be only a matter of time before state governments begin to see a direct line between the $1 billion that McDonalds and Burger King spend each year on advertising and their own swelling health care costs"(Zinczenko, 155).
The thing that sets Schlosser on a higher level of argumentation in comparison with Engler and Zinczeko is that he considers the interests of the corporations. Like all businesses these colossal corporations are looking out for their profits- which coincidentally soar with effective advertisements. It's been said before, "It's not personal, it's business".
Works Cited:
Engler, Yves. "Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print.
Zinczenko, David. "Don't Blame the Eater." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print.
Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations
Yves Engler believes that food corporations and even capitalism itself are a major cause for the obesity problem in America. With the astronomical amount of money spent on advertising it is no wonder people are eating more. Engler states fast-food outlets promote their larger portion size and it is shown when people are served larger portions they eat about thirty percent more. The government needs to start putting marketing limits on junk food and fast-food companies. They could also subsidize healthy products and provide increased funding for physical education programs. If what you eat is your business, Radley Balko says to put more emphasis on personal responsibility, this makes sense, but the points Engler makes about regulating junk food and giving people clear and defined healthy alternatives are far more complete, and as a whole would give people the tools to be more responsible. In Fat as a Feminist Issue, Susie Orbach states that women rebel against society’s stereotypes by becoming overweight. Engler’s approach to marketing would take care of this by regulating the very marketing that can make women feel they need to rebel. If the marketing had less emphasis on image and more emphasis on how to live healthy, this would promote a more beneficial message. Over all Engler makes perfect sense in his views on obesity. If healthy alternatives were as present as fast food, people would have the opportunity to live a healthier lifestyle.
Being Fat is... OK?
Are you at a healthy weight? Your answer to this question might be completely different than the government's answer. According to the U.S. Government, your health in terms of weight is measured by using the Body Mass Index (BMI) tool. This tool uses your height and weight to determine whether you are normal, overweight or obese. Is this an accurate gauge for your health? I don't think so, and neither does Paul Campos, author of the article titled "Being Fat is OK". Each of our bodies are unique in shape and size; we were not made with a cookie cutter! Certainly there are people who truly are overweight; however, physically fit people can add a few more digits to the scale simply by exercising and gaining muscle. Unfortunately, muscle mass doesn't play into the BMI calculation, resulting in a terribly flawed tool.
Regardless of this issue, the BMI is considered to be accurate by many, including our government. Consequently, many people are falsely labeled as being overweight or obese. In fact, obesity is now considered today's biggest health problem. Two-thirds of the U.S. population is labeled as overweight, half of which have been diagnosed with clinical obesity (Engler 172). Whether or not the people in this group actually deserve to be there is controversial.
We are told that obesity is the second most important and expensive preventable health problem (Banzhaf 163). Expensive is right! Fifty-billion dollars per year has been generated by the diet industry due the fact that countless Americans believe they have severe weight problems (Campos 207). Banzhaf may be correct in saying that this health issue is expensive; but, is the problem really preventable?
In order to answer this question, we must determine if the fifty-billion dollar per year diet industry actually helps those looking to lose weight. In actuality, dieting has a very steep failure rate - trust me, I speak from experience! According to Campos (208), between 90-95% of dieting attempts fail. Regardless, the diet industry continues to push their weight loss miracles onto our so-called overweight citizens, whether they need the products or not. Furthermore, these dieters are lead to believe that they are less healthy than thin people, and that if they lose weight, they can achieve excellent health. Are these facts accurate? Not necessarily. These so-called facts are merely speculations that have yet to be proven (Campos 208).
In summary, the problem of obesity may not be as valid as the U.S. government and the diet industry want you to believe it is. I echo Campos' opinion that "Being Fat is OK," especially when it comes to the government’s standards. After all, our unique bodies cannot be measured by a simple tool, and our level of health cannot be solely based on what the scale reads.
Works Cited
Banzhaf, John H. III. "Lawsuits Against Fast Food Restaurants Are An Effective Way to Combat Obesity." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print.
Campos, Paul. "Being Fat is OK." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print.
Enger, Yves. "Obesity: Muct of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print.
Regardless of this issue, the BMI is considered to be accurate by many, including our government. Consequently, many people are falsely labeled as being overweight or obese. In fact, obesity is now considered today's biggest health problem. Two-thirds of the U.S. population is labeled as overweight, half of which have been diagnosed with clinical obesity (Engler 172). Whether or not the people in this group actually deserve to be there is controversial.
We are told that obesity is the second most important and expensive preventable health problem (Banzhaf 163). Expensive is right! Fifty-billion dollars per year has been generated by the diet industry due the fact that countless Americans believe they have severe weight problems (Campos 207). Banzhaf may be correct in saying that this health issue is expensive; but, is the problem really preventable?
In order to answer this question, we must determine if the fifty-billion dollar per year diet industry actually helps those looking to lose weight. In actuality, dieting has a very steep failure rate - trust me, I speak from experience! According to Campos (208), between 90-95% of dieting attempts fail. Regardless, the diet industry continues to push their weight loss miracles onto our so-called overweight citizens, whether they need the products or not. Furthermore, these dieters are lead to believe that they are less healthy than thin people, and that if they lose weight, they can achieve excellent health. Are these facts accurate? Not necessarily. These so-called facts are merely speculations that have yet to be proven (Campos 208).
In summary, the problem of obesity may not be as valid as the U.S. government and the diet industry want you to believe it is. I echo Campos' opinion that "Being Fat is OK," especially when it comes to the government’s standards. After all, our unique bodies cannot be measured by a simple tool, and our level of health cannot be solely based on what the scale reads.
Works Cited
Banzhaf, John H. III. "Lawsuits Against Fast Food Restaurants Are An Effective Way to Combat Obesity." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Greff, Cathy Berkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print.
Campos, Paul. "Being Fat is OK." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print.
Enger, Yves. "Obesity: Muct of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations." They Say I Say. Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)