My relationship with media has been changed, as I see more of the positive aspects in being connected to the world. As a teenager, I am constantly exposed to media, as it is all around us whether we like it or not. This causes to me to consciously and unconsciously conform to the ideas of my peers and popular figures in media to and be aware of current trends. Overall, being aware of techniques that big name companies and advertisers use to attract such a large audience is helpful for me to consider things with a grain of salt and to constantly question the true intentions.
As my first post about my relationship of media stated that media has more negative effects than positive effects on people, I am leaning towards the positive side, thinking that media helps others stay connected and measure themselves to their peers and the rest of the world. This semester, I have noticed that I did not heavily rely on as much media as I have before. Instead, I catch myself analyzing actions of media in order to see what the true intentions are that lie underneath the surface. It's important to have media literacy to become aware of techniques and patterns that are ever-present in our lives in the twenty-first century, a modern and technologically advanced era. With media literacy, there is self-awareness in peoples' actions, like consuming products that are heavily advertised in media. Being media literate and an educated consumer helps the world as a whole grow, as well as to prevent an individual from being manipulated and shaped by media.
Overall, this blog has opened my eyes to schemes and techniques that advertisers and companies do in order to money. Additionally, this media blog assignment has caused me to look for patterns and trends in media, keeping me updated on social norms in media. Keeping this blog has caused me to become more media literate, allowing me to view things with an open-mind and from multiple perspectives. Media literacy is extremely important for a person to survive in this world, especially when this world is engulfed with advanced technology and revolves around influential companies such as Apple, Microsoft, and many more media outlets.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Rio Olympics 2016
While the 2016 Rio Olympics is anticipated to happen this summer, it may not be the best time to do so. In response to the highly anticipated 2014 World Cup, the country experienced controversial success in an exciting tournament. The drawback to the 2014 World Cup was ultimately what was going on behind the scenes. Ultimately, the problem with Brazil hosting the 2016 summer Olympics is that they are trying to use a short-term solution for a deep problem within their country. The rationalization behind is that it's not hurting anyone directly by hosting the Olympics. However, by using most of the country's resources to fund a sporting extravaganza like the Olympics, it shows that the country justifies itself to spend a lot of money on stuff that could be used for better interests of the country.
The disparity and wealth gap between the rich and poor has been a crucial problem in maintaining a stable economy. In addition, a struggle to find cultural identity for the lower class has always been a problem. While a temporary solution to the problem was to "white-wash" most of Brazil, it did not ensure long-term success. Before the 2014 World Cup that was hosted by Brazil, neighborhoods in shantytowns were raided and people were essentially arrested for simply living there. The government did this in order to "clean up" and "whiten" the atmosphere for the incoming tourists and spectators visiting for the World Cup.
The fact that the World Cup may have been a success for the organization and provided a temporary solution to the country's problems through tourism and revenue, hosting events like the Olympics and World Cups are not a great way to build a stable economy. Underneath the superficial surface of the Olympics that may seem spectacular, there is a large gap between the rich and poor as well as a large majority of the population are young, poor, and unemployed. In the end, hosting these world events will only lead to more problems with the country as the rationalization is that it's not unethical because it doesn't harm people directly,
Brian Banks and Brock Turner: Ever-Present Wealth and Race Privileges
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3630119/Brian-Banks-wrongfully-convicted-rape-teen-cites-privilege-Stanford-rape-case.html
http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/brock-turner-the-sort-of-defendant-who-is-spared-severe-impact/10288
Recently, I have stumbled across two compelling cases in relation to rape. The first is about a White Stanford swimmer, Brock Allen Turner, who raped an intoxicated woman in a frat party, behind a dumpster. He is currently sentence to six months in jail. The other case I read about showed a Black football player, Brian Banks, who did not go to a prestigious university as Stanford, but was convicted and forced to serve five years in prison for rape that he did not commit. Both of these incidents are horrid, but in different ways.
These cases illustrate not only privilege from race, but also of wealth privileges. While Brian Banks served six years for a crime he did not commit, Brock Allen Turner was charged to go to prison for up to six months. The judge's reasoning behind was to spare "severe impact" for Turner. This reasoning is unjustified, as the sentencing is obviously biased in favor for Turner. People should not be treated differently because they are more well-endowed than their peers or they are of different ethnicity. If another person who did not fit the demographics of Brock Turner was convicted of the rape, the punishment would not be spared because of "severe impact." The fact that a White Division 1 swimmer was spared time from prison because it would be "too harsh" on him, shows the privileges present in the justice system. If this was not a White Stanford swimmer, I wonder if the consequences would be different.
The gap between race and wealth is incredible between these two cases. On one side, you have Brian Banks who was originally convicted to 41 years to life in prison for rape that he was accused of in high school. The recent case for Turner is minuscule compared to that of Banks, only up to six months. The father of Brock Turner stated that his son should not be incarcerated because "he had no prior criminal history and has never been violent with anyone." This statement does not hold water because by committing a rape on a student, that person is violating another's right to their body and taking advantage of an intoxicated person. This lenient sentencing for Turner is a danger to the world, as the justice system does not do a well enough job to punish a him.
http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/brock-turner-the-sort-of-defendant-who-is-spared-severe-impact/10288
Recently, I have stumbled across two compelling cases in relation to rape. The first is about a White Stanford swimmer, Brock Allen Turner, who raped an intoxicated woman in a frat party, behind a dumpster. He is currently sentence to six months in jail. The other case I read about showed a Black football player, Brian Banks, who did not go to a prestigious university as Stanford, but was convicted and forced to serve five years in prison for rape that he did not commit. Both of these incidents are horrid, but in different ways.
These cases illustrate not only privilege from race, but also of wealth privileges. While Brian Banks served six years for a crime he did not commit, Brock Allen Turner was charged to go to prison for up to six months. The judge's reasoning behind was to spare "severe impact" for Turner. This reasoning is unjustified, as the sentencing is obviously biased in favor for Turner. People should not be treated differently because they are more well-endowed than their peers or they are of different ethnicity. If another person who did not fit the demographics of Brock Turner was convicted of the rape, the punishment would not be spared because of "severe impact." The fact that a White Division 1 swimmer was spared time from prison because it would be "too harsh" on him, shows the privileges present in the justice system. If this was not a White Stanford swimmer, I wonder if the consequences would be different.
Brock Turner |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)