What the f***? September 30, 2007

So what’s the deal with censorship?

In the United States we have a thing called the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the freedom of religion (and to practice that religion freely), freedom of press, freedom to protest peacfully, and most well-known, the freedom of speech. Anymore it seems as though institutions have been taking the right to free speech away from the American public.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is responsible for tagging films with a letter to “warn” the public of the content. The rating system consists of 5 rankings.

G      “General Audiences”- All ages permitted

PG    ”Parental Guidance Suggested”- Some material may not be suitable for children

PG-13  “Parents Strongly Cautioned”-Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

R “Restricted”- Under 17 requires accompanying parent or guardian

NC-17  “No Children Under 17″- No one under 17 admitted

This system restricts the quality of language and imaging allowed in each film. Ratings G through R are common. Being slapped with an NC-17 could mean the death of a great film.  If the ratings board decides that a movie is NC-17, most studios will not release it until the director has edited it enough to get a R rating. Hundreds of films are changed so they can be released. An NC-17 film would get little, if any, advertising opportunities and therefore would lose out on millions of dollars. Directors and producers have to compromise their art for money.

In This Film is Not Yet Rated, a movie about the MPAA’s rating system, different directors and professionals comment on the controvery of the ratings. First of all, there does not seem to be a complete set of guidelines for making the rating decisions. It’s sketchy as to what is appropriate and what is not. Oppossite sex couples are allowed to be shown doing more sexual activity than same sex couples. The amount of thrusting and f***s can send a film up a level. Secondly, the board of raters is completely unknown. The raters are supposedly “average” American parents looking out for the welfare of the public. Who’s to say what an “average” or “normal” parent is? From the little information discovered, there does not seem to have ever been any gay or lesbian parents on the panel. Race and religion is just as unknown. Basically a minority of the population is making decisions that effect the majority of the public. The public deserves to know who the raters are. I understand that the raters need their confidentiality in order to be saved from bribery or criticism, but giving out statistics of the raters could do no harm. If anything, it would reinforce the public’s confidence in the rating system.

In a democracy it is rare for a government to step in and take part in censoring. For films however, it may be more beneficial than the current sytem. The government would back the First Amendment in every case (except child pornograpgy) and great movies would not be limited to advertising and such because of a certain scene. It would be more of the parents’ responsibility to restrict children, not the theatres and studios. Parent restriction is how it should be. Every parent wants to raise their children differently, therefore they should say what their child can and cannot see-not a board of unknown people.

In order for America to recapture it’s freedoms of speech and expression, the MPAA and rating system need a major makeover.

The Importance of Photojournalism in Wartime September 21, 2007

A picture is worth a thousand words. Cliche, but true.

Ever since war photography hit the main media there has been controversy. The argument is whether it is necessary to publish gruesome photos of war in order to portray the real horror, or if words can do the job.

Some people believe that posting images of war can scar people forever. But I believe that people cannot hide behind their ignorance anymore; images of war ARE necessary. A huge percentage of the American population aren’t following the current war we are in. Some don’t think that it’s even a rule war. Well it is, and it’s been a horrid one. While casualities may not be as high as in past wars, the warfare and techniques are much more influential.

The wars in the Middle East are jam-packed with terrorism. American soldiers are being burned and tortured. Journalists are being kidnapped and beheaded. I believe that it is the job of the American media to not only relay the stories, but the photography to back it up. People respond more the pictures. Something about a picture can twist a heart more than text can. We are a visual society, therefore our news should be visual as well.

I understand the concern that parents want to protect the “innocence” of their children; Or that some people aren’t emotionally stable enough to handle the pictures. However, I do believe that the media has been doing a good job of protecting and informing the public, at the same time. Newspapers tend to put the more gruesome war images on the inside pages and warn the reader. News programs wait until later hours to post pictures. But most importantly, most media wait until the family of those in the picture are informed before showing it to the public.

No one is trying to harm anyone by showing images of war. The public needs to know what is going on in order to have a well-informed opinion.

Why can’t I look like that? September 21, 2007

 Why is it that women constantly seem to be obsessed with their physical appearance?

Magazines have been criticized for promoting unnatural images of women for years now. Photos have been a part of magazines since the 1850s; as of the 1990s, photos have elevated women’s insecurities. Fashion magazines show women who average 5′10” in height and less than 120 pounds in weight. The average woman is 5′ 4” and 144 pounds.

Women need to realize that the images portrayed in magazines are completely rare and most of the time, unhealthy. Some images are completely photo-shopped. Because of the recent controversies over such photos, women have been informed about the truth. However, more influential people, such as teenage girls, don’t listen to the truth. When a teenage girl sees a certain actress or model looking a certain way, they want to copy the style, no matter what. This leads to unhealthy dieting, or worse, not eating at all.

Magazines are starting to crack under the pressure of the criticism and are promising to only show average women. But honestly, how likely is this? Magazines sell based off of the images half the time. Hollywood thrives off of physical appearances  and the material world. Everyone knows that Hollywood sells, including magazines.

More importantly however, is it really the magazines’ responsibility to make sure readers don’t try to change who they are? Women should be able to look around them in the world and see that the people on magazine covers are 1 in a million, and not necessarily desirable to everyone. Women, especially in America, need to become comfortable in their own skin.

 The new images of beauty; Supermodel’s vs. the average woman.

IDK. MY BFF? September 12, 2007

 As far as college students go, I barely watch television. I’ve always found it difficult to get into a routine to catch the same shows every week. But just because I don’t watch alot of TV doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate a GOOD commercial.

“Good” advertising is hard to come by on television anymore. Personally, I think an ad isn’t good unless it makes me laugh, think, or motivate me to do something. For me, the most memorable commercial is one that makes me laugh; I think that most people would agree.

 AT& T Wireless seems to have adapted a new theme to promote their text messaging plans. In April, Verizon released a commercial of a conversation between a mother and a daughter, Beth Ann, arguing over the text message bill. Beth Ann speaks entirely in text message lingo. Subtitles run across the bottom of the screen. Sayings such as WU? (What’s up?) and NBD (No big deal) are used. When the mother asks the child who she has been texting excessively, Beth Ann answers, “IDK My BFF Jill.” This phrase has been used as the commercials title.

This memorable commercial encouraged AT& Tto make a “sequel.” To promote family texting, the mother argues with her son, daughter, and her mother (grandma). In this new commercial, released about a week ago, Grandma is the one to utter the famous IDK, my BFF line. Grandma is asked who she is texting and says, “IDK my BFF Rose.” AT&T was hoping to get a laugh or two out of the old woman’s words and attitude and I think they have been quite successful. I know it made me giggle. When I asked my two best friends if they had seen any good commercials lately, they both replied with the MY BFF Rose commercial.

How many commercials under this theme should we expect to see from AT&T in the future? Who knows. There are plenty of BFFs out there.

View the commercials —->IDK my BFF Jill      IDK my BFF Rose

R.I.P Newspapers? September 11, 2007

With all the up-and-coming technology these days, what’s keeping the good ole’ newspaper in style? Most people turn to the radio, television, or internet to gather their news. People anymore read just the bear essentials or what they’re most interested in. As a student, I don’t even have a newspaper readily available every morning. Instead, I go to my internet’s homepage and scroll through the major stories or simply enter a word into “search” to find exactly what I’m are looking for.

Why drive to the store or even walk down your driveway to get the news when you can turn on the computer or television? I know all of this sounds like laziness, but I believe that having the news presented in these new ways is actually beneficial to our society. The average newspaper reader ages over 50. Does that mean that the younger generation has become completely ignorant of today’s breaking news? No, of course not. I believe that the exact opposite is happening. Because the news is more easily obtainable, teenagers and people aging 18-25 are more likely to know what’s going on.  People are becoming more aware of national and international news because of its availability. The younger generations relate to new technology, therefore the news has to catch up, and it has. The news has gone through changes in the past to keep up with its ever-changing audience. Techniques such as sensationalism and  yellow journalism were used to get more people reading the paper. So what’s the different in using electrionic sources to capture an audience?

I’ve recently joined the campus newspaper here at LVC, La Vie. I full well know that more than half of the kids on campus won’t read this paper, let alone my articles. However, I still believe in newspapers. Even the news that is presented on the internet or T.V. originates at a newspaper publication.

I don’t see the death of newspapers anywhere in the near future. It comes down to personal preference. While some people like reading off of a screen, others enjoy print on paper. Some people find newspapers more convenient and others think the same about computers.

All I have to say……. long live credible and reliable news, in any form!