http://youtube.com/watch?v=vFL0w1ruiCM
Goodness Gracious Me: Typical Asian Parents.
This short 2 min clip is a stereotypical representation of what Asian parents are like. Noting that stereotypes are based on some truth, many would argue that this clip offers a true representation of the expectations parents have from their children.
As the clip opens, it becomes instantly recognisable that the parents have a ‘freshi’ accent, -or more commonly known as a heavy Indian accent on the English language. ‘Goodness Gracious Me’ stereotypes the parent’s speech to create authenticity; whilst this is promoting a generalisation in speech, there is of course a truth behind this – the immigration of Indians into Britain created this type of speech that is common in older Asians.
As the clip progresses, the results in the post signify the importance of education to these parents. There is a clear divide in the expectations from the mother and the father; the mother is happy to see her son’s results, whereas the father notices the single B amongst the four A’s, not appreciating the quality of the grades. This mother/father reaction is the generalised distinction in what occurs in Indian households and ‘Goodness Gracious Me’ plays on the binary opposition well to drive the narrative forward.
The father then compares his son’s grades to that of his friends. This is another comparison that is often found in the father’s reaction; he is never happy with the grades and the constant comparison with other children determines the son as a failure. There is social emphasis placed on what other parents in the community will think.
In terms of education, the clip conforms to almost every Indian parents expectations; that is to have their son become a doctor and this is certainly what the son aims for too. The profound influence of parents upon their children is unnoticeable, and what is further interesting is that during this entire conversation there is the absence of the son. –A symbolic entity highlighting the pressure of parents to the extent where their son is denied a voice.
Friday, 14 December 2007
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Pluralism/ Marxism Consequences.
Marxism is society are told what to do according to class therefore people face inequality and there are types of media which are suited for that class.
However this is wrong so pluralist give choices to their audiences.
I agree with the person above, i do believe that there is a social class division, which splits the society up. The rich will stay rich and the rich will stay poor.
There is only a social class division if you think there is. And if you do then there are ways to stop that. Individuals split themselves up into social 'classes'.
Yeah, individuals are to express there opinions through ther media without restrictions. Such as google setting up blogger.com, as the audience get more literate they become more demanding and selective.But like you said, google owning blogger.com is an example of big companies owning small companies. Rupert Murdoch for instance owns many companies, and although he provides variety, he chooses what goes on and what doesn't in his companies and therefore his underlying message(if he was one) can still be approved throughout.
Firstly on blogger.com you can set up a blogger.com you can set set up a blog on anything so no ideologies ae fittered to us. Yes Murdoch will channel his opinions to us but in todays society there are so many sources to gain info from.
What's missing from this debate is the extent of ifluence from a Marxist viewpoint and a Pluralistic view too. This debate focuses heavily on factors for and against each view without explaining the 'how' successfully though towrads the end the media ownership of Murdoch does come to light. To make this more stronger, their also needs to be confident use of media terminologu suh as 'media conglomerates' and audience theories.
Marxism is society are told what to do according to class therefore people face inequality and there are types of media which are suited for that class.
However this is wrong so pluralist give choices to their audiences.
I agree with the person above, i do believe that there is a social class division, which splits the society up. The rich will stay rich and the rich will stay poor.
There is only a social class division if you think there is. And if you do then there are ways to stop that. Individuals split themselves up into social 'classes'.
Yeah, individuals are to express there opinions through ther media without restrictions. Such as google setting up blogger.com, as the audience get more literate they become more demanding and selective.But like you said, google owning blogger.com is an example of big companies owning small companies. Rupert Murdoch for instance owns many companies, and although he provides variety, he chooses what goes on and what doesn't in his companies and therefore his underlying message(if he was one) can still be approved throughout.
Firstly on blogger.com you can set up a blogger.com you can set set up a blog on anything so no ideologies ae fittered to us. Yes Murdoch will channel his opinions to us but in todays society there are so many sources to gain info from.
What's missing from this debate is the extent of ifluence from a Marxist viewpoint and a Pluralistic view too. This debate focuses heavily on factors for and against each view without explaining the 'how' successfully though towrads the end the media ownership of Murdoch does come to light. To make this more stronger, their also needs to be confident use of media terminologu suh as 'media conglomerates' and audience theories.
Rupert Murdoch.
Rupert Murdoch is a well known media figure who owns several media institutions. Some of these include newspapers such as The Sun, The Daily Mail, and and tv stations such as Fox TV and Sky. Recently, Murdoch has brought the American Wall Street Journal (newspaper.) He is currently second in the Media 100 List. He studied economics as Oxford University.
Murdoch has in recent years extended his empire by branching out into eastern media instutitions. -He has brought Star TV from Hong Kong and Turkish TV channel, TGRT.
Rupert Murdoch is a well known media figure who owns several media institutions. Some of these include newspapers such as The Sun, The Daily Mail, and and tv stations such as Fox TV and Sky. Recently, Murdoch has brought the American Wall Street Journal (newspaper.) He is currently second in the Media 100 List. He studied economics as Oxford University.
Murdoch has in recent years extended his empire by branching out into eastern media instutitions. -He has brought Star TV from Hong Kong and Turkish TV channel, TGRT.
Double trouble for Virgin and Sky ads.
The ADA had a go at both Sky and Virgin Media for their misleading interpretations of their adverts.
Virgin's problem was with its "superfast" broadband internet that claimed to be 4 times faster than that of its competitors. The ADA recieved several complaints about the validity of the "superfast" internet connection to which Virgin replied by stating that their ad's noramlly phrase that as "up to" but some ad's overlooked this factor. The "4 times faster£ comparison was also tampered with seeing as one of their competitors had an extremely low internet connection speed that brought the whole average down.
Sky = "Sky Anytime" and not making it clear that this offer was only open to customers already with Sky.
I chose this article because it highlights the power of words and phrasing in advertising. A simple mistake like the implication of phrases, implicity rather than explicitly can cause much mayhem. It is good to see that in all cases, the ADA found in favour of the complaints.
The ADA had a go at both Sky and Virgin Media for their misleading interpretations of their adverts.
Virgin's problem was with its "superfast" broadband internet that claimed to be 4 times faster than that of its competitors. The ADA recieved several complaints about the validity of the "superfast" internet connection to which Virgin replied by stating that their ad's noramlly phrase that as "up to" but some ad's overlooked this factor. The "4 times faster£ comparison was also tampered with seeing as one of their competitors had an extremely low internet connection speed that brought the whole average down.
Sky = "Sky Anytime" and not making it clear that this offer was only open to customers already with Sky.
I chose this article because it highlights the power of words and phrasing in advertising. A simple mistake like the implication of phrases, implicity rather than explicitly can cause much mayhem. It is good to see that in all cases, the ADA found in favour of the complaints.
Monday, 5 November 2007
Google spreads its wings!
Google HQ in Calafornia
Google has confirmed plans to launch "Android", an internet medium available on mobile phones. At present, specialised engineering is required to get Google software on to handsets but with the support of all the major mobile phone companies, Google will be able to successfully see this operation through by next year.
This ofcourse is good news for advertisers, bringing potential customers and advertisers closer whilst allowing the individual to surf the internet whenever possible.
This is an important development in the new media because it highlights the power of Google but also gives a preview into how media is shaping your future for us.
Pluralism.
I agree with pluralism because in the twenty first century where new media technology is on a global expansion, the validity of a theory which suggests we are limited in media choice is actually quite an insult to media development. The growth of the internet along with globalisation means that as consumers we are no longer subjected to Marxist ideas of a mass culture but rather the individual ability of texts which enables us to be selective in out choice of consumption. -We are no longer the passive audience of 1950 where our media choice on television is restricted on channels 1-4 but the audience of an ever-growing, media literate society where our roles in choosing the media we want to consume has made our roles impressively active. We aren’t faced with cultural hygenomisation and a mass culture but the readers of a society which accepts and uses the variety of media material available to us with the choice enabling us as educated individuals to select our choices from an enormous database.
I agree with pluralism because in the twenty first century where new media technology is on a global expansion, the validity of a theory which suggests we are limited in media choice is actually quite an insult to media development. The growth of the internet along with globalisation means that as consumers we are no longer subjected to Marxist ideas of a mass culture but rather the individual ability of texts which enables us to be selective in out choice of consumption. -We are no longer the passive audience of 1950 where our media choice on television is restricted on channels 1-4 but the audience of an ever-growing, media literate society where our roles in choosing the media we want to consume has made our roles impressively active. We aren’t faced with cultural hygenomisation and a mass culture but the readers of a society which accepts and uses the variety of media material available to us with the choice enabling us as educated individuals to select our choices from an enormous database.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
“Is the dominance of a few global media organisations a good thing or dangerous?”
a. How is it possible to have the domination of a few global media organisations? Does the word ‘domination’ not suggest that these organisations entirely rule the media scene? How is this possible if there are only a few of them?
b. Well, take for example big organisations such as newspapers. The newspapers are dominated by The Sun and The Mirror.
a. I see. But I don’t see how this can be dangerous.
b. Well, if these global organisations are in the hands of one person then that gives him/ her unlimited power to choose what he/she wants in these organisations. This allows him/her to sometimes manipulate the media and present bias views.
a. Like Rupert Murdoch. I understand. So in some ways this is a bit like ‘cultural imperialism.’ This is currently the case with the US. Today, many critics argue that the current US media domination amounts to cultural imperialism whereby their culture is forced on us through our own media consumption.
b. Yes, and that can be dangerous for smaller organisation because it undermines their position in the media. Similarly, this is threatening to national media organisations and especially for smaller independent organisations.
a. That reminds me of a term called “McDonaldisation.” This refers to the growth and profound influence of the largest media organisations who are supplying us constantly with lots and lots of this media that is sometimes politically incorrect.
b. And this can be even more dangerous through ‘cultural homogenisation’ because it means that our cultural perceptions, -which are naturally and unconsciously formed through the media, are constructed through the ideologies and values from the media texts we consume.
a. However, is there really a true domination of these organisations? I mean, we still have these smaller media organisations. The thing with the dominance of these larger organisations instantly suggests that its audience are passive, when this cannot be said for all its readers. I believe in the end it comes down to the actual interpreter. If he/ she plays a passive role to the texts it consumes then surely this domination can be a dangerous thing. But, if you have an active audience that draws its opinions from a range of media texts then this is not necessarily a bad thing.
a. How is it possible to have the domination of a few global media organisations? Does the word ‘domination’ not suggest that these organisations entirely rule the media scene? How is this possible if there are only a few of them?
b. Well, take for example big organisations such as newspapers. The newspapers are dominated by The Sun and The Mirror.
a. I see. But I don’t see how this can be dangerous.
b. Well, if these global organisations are in the hands of one person then that gives him/ her unlimited power to choose what he/she wants in these organisations. This allows him/her to sometimes manipulate the media and present bias views.
a. Like Rupert Murdoch. I understand. So in some ways this is a bit like ‘cultural imperialism.’ This is currently the case with the US. Today, many critics argue that the current US media domination amounts to cultural imperialism whereby their culture is forced on us through our own media consumption.
b. Yes, and that can be dangerous for smaller organisation because it undermines their position in the media. Similarly, this is threatening to national media organisations and especially for smaller independent organisations.
a. That reminds me of a term called “McDonaldisation.” This refers to the growth and profound influence of the largest media organisations who are supplying us constantly with lots and lots of this media that is sometimes politically incorrect.
b. And this can be even more dangerous through ‘cultural homogenisation’ because it means that our cultural perceptions, -which are naturally and unconsciously formed through the media, are constructed through the ideologies and values from the media texts we consume.
a. However, is there really a true domination of these organisations? I mean, we still have these smaller media organisations. The thing with the dominance of these larger organisations instantly suggests that its audience are passive, when this cannot be said for all its readers. I believe in the end it comes down to the actual interpreter. If he/ she plays a passive role to the texts it consumes then surely this domination can be a dangerous thing. But, if you have an active audience that draws its opinions from a range of media texts then this is not necessarily a bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)