There are times when I watch television at night and just cannot believe some of the shows that are put on the air. The language, the sex, the violence and most of all, the values. Or should I say lack of values. Any morals and values that used to be found in the media have been completely lost. This prompted me to take a closer look at the way love is portrayed through reality television shows today. Through shows like The Bachelor, Joe Millionaire, Anything For Love and Date My Mom, America is given a false look at what love is. Even more importantly, teenagers are given this fake interpretation of love and forget their values for the media. After doing some research, I found just how the values of people before reality television and the values of people today have changed, but more importantly how this change and reality television affects the current teenagers of our generation.
Before the first reality dating show, which aired in 1965, Americans’ family and love values were much different than they are today. For example, divorce was not acceptable and society shamed people if they actually divorced. Premarital sex was completely unheard of and improper, not to mention teenage pregnancies. According to encyclopedia.org, “In 1950 the percentage of unmarried teenage births was 15 percent, compared with the 75 percent of today”. Although people got married at a younger age, most of the time there was no sex until marriage. When it comes to values on the television—people were always clothed, inappropriate sexual content was not aired and all of the shows were very family-oriented.
The late 1960s was exactly the time when all of this began to change. People rioted and revolted for freedom acts, and sexual expression movements. In an recent article by Joan Marsman, it was stated that “…beginning in the late 1960’s, in response to the increased sexual activity among young people and the accompanying increase in unplanned pregnancies, health professionals, educators, social workers and parents cooperated to develop sex education programs” (1). Today, the divorce rate is at almost 50%, and as mentioned, the teen pregnancy rate is at 75%. These have substantially sky-rocketed. It is now somewhat socially acceptable to have premarital sex and to have a baby without being married. The cause? I believe reality dating shows. The first reality dating show aired in 1965, right around the time when the values of love, sex and marriage for Americans and teenagers began to change. Eventually, television got continually worse and the television of 2010 has lost all of its values. People are nearly naked, curse words are used in casual conversation and nothing has a filter. Obviously, this change in the television is affecting Americans and more importantly, the teenagers watching it. CBS News ran a documentary on this idea of the media’s influence on teenagers and is shown in the following video: (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3750736n).
The first reality dating show in 1965 had three contestants that would be asked questions to be chosen to go on a date with a person of the opposite sex. A video of the show is shown here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqyx3Ed7GZw ). At the time of this first reality dating show, people began to riot, revolt and become more “free” with sexuality and expression. The media played a large role in this movement because they also supported more use of sexual content and freedom of expression, by this game show for example. This game show was an inspiration for the following popular reality dating shows which reflect the changes in societal attitudes toward sex. Some popular examples are Average Joe, Blind Date, Married by America, Flavor of Love and Next. And these are only the beginning…
These popular reality dating shows are getting continuously worse with time. The cameras are so involved, you basically get to see everything but the sexual intercourse itself. People on these shows are forced to be crazy and very open, so the corporations receive good views. Therefore, the amount of expression and sexual content in these shows is what is skewing America’s values today. For example, the most famous reality dating show, “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette”, portray lust as love for all of these couples. These men and women are forced to date and get to know each other in only a few weeks and claim after the second date that they are “in love”. Then, the whole show continues with all of the contestants declaring they are in love, an engagement is made to one of them and is most likely broken off later. These people go on “perfect” dates with the “perfect” man in “perfect” clothes—of course they are going to think they are in love, it is basically a fairy tale. Unfortunately for us, the viewers are the ones harmed because they believe it to be real. Out of the 13 seasons of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, only two couples are still currently together. At a chance of 15% at finding love, America still continues to watch and believe that what this show portrays is “love”. A perfect example is shown in the following clip: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_mKQP0Rc7A). The show is only 6 weeks long, so while the contestants rant about their love, they could only possibly be at the butterfly stage. The teenagers who watch see these people explain their love and how smitten they are, when it is completely unrealistic. They have not lived together, gone through any type of hardship or spent more than a night with the families. So, when the viewers find someone that also gives them butterflies, they believe it to be love, have sex and forget all morals. This is definitely a large part of more people having a construed view of love, the high divorce rate and the high teen pregnancy rate from teens believing their high school lusts are love.
A perfect example of how these reality shows have affected teenagers is the new current craze, “16 and Pregnant” on MTV. This show highlights about five different girls and their journeys through their pregnancies and lives afterwards. Although it does not always show these pregnancies in a good light, there are people who look at these shows and decide that they want to get pregnant. Back in the 1950s, there would NEVER be a show like this on television! It just supports the high teen pregnancy rate, by showing these girls that they are going to make them celebrities for doing something that used to be against Americans’ morals. These values have obviously changed and are going to prompt even more change with every new season MTV releases. These girls are not in love, are not married and do not have any of the values that we used to see on television. For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qmtRyxl5RY – Farrah has premarital sex with a guy she no longer talks to, leaves her baby to go out and is completely disrespectful to her parents. This does nothing but teach fellow teenagers that these behaviors are okay.
Face it, these reality dating shows are affecting the morals and values of our teenagers every day. One of the biggest problems with these shows is the name “reality”, because that is just it—it is not real life. We watch these shows and assume that everything in it is real, but it takes time and maturation to realize that these shows are everything but that. As more television shows came out with more vulgar content, it became socially acceptable in America to also repeat what is seen. In a study done on teens and the media by several doctors, “Male and female students indicated that sex was everywhere in the media and that they felt the pressure to develop sexual behaviors because ‘it was encouraged’ and ‘it was expected’” (Polacek 5). Once television started to lose its filter, it has only gotten worse and worse. So now, looking at a channel like MTV, it is hard to see any morals and values at all. When television used to have family sitcoms and dramas, there is now “reality” dating shows because it is cheaper and more appealing. These teenagers are being affected by this tremendously and eventually, there needs to be an end to this nonsense. In the conclusion of the previous study, the doctors found:
The media, as one of the students stated it, taught them…how to kiss, date,
perceive sex and romance, have sex, dress attractively, behave as a sexual
male/female, behave with a girlfriend or boyfriend, perceive a woman’s
body, and also obtain information about rape.They acknowledged that they
feel pressured to participate in sexual activity and that sex is an
everpresent focus in the media they consume. The casual attitude about sex
portrayed in the media makes them feel unsusceptible to the risks and the
realities of sexual behavior.(14).
This is a prime example of how the media affects teenagers and their actions in today’s society. The statistics are even here to prove it. Teenagers mistake these reality shows for real life and lose their morals with each episode they watch.
As a whole, these reality dating shows have no positive impact on America. They have been included as a part of our culture and have done more damage than one can see on the surface. These shows have been a part of the loss of values in American television and in teenagers of the 21st century. Because of these shows and the loss of values, teenagers mistake love for lust and are caught in premarital pregnancies and future divorces. From this research and investigation of this subject, I can honestly say the teen pregnancy rate and loss of morals in teens would never be the way they are now if it were not for these reality dating shows.
Works Cited
Marsman, Joan C. and Edward S. Herold. “Attitudes toward Sex Education and Values in Sex Education.” Family Relations 35.3 (Jul., 1986): 357-361. JSTOR. Web. 19 Apr. 2010.
Johnston Polacek, Georgia N. L., et al. "Media and Sex: Perspectives from Hispanic Teens." American Journal of Sexuality Education 1.4 (2006): 51-69. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Apr. 2010.
Couric, Katie. “Eye To Eye: Teen Pregnancy.” CBS News. 24 Jan. 2008. Web. 26 Apr. 2010.
“Divorce Rates in America.” Divorcerate.org. 2009. Web. 19 Apr. 2010.
Lindenmeyer, Kriste. “Teen Pregnancy.” Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society. Encyclopedia.com. 2004. Web. 19 Apr. 2010.
“Teen Mom: Farrah Fights for a Social Life.” Youtube.com. 05 Jan. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2010.
“The Bachelor Season Finale: Jason and Melissa.” The Bachelor. Youtube.com. 02 Mar. 2009. Web. 19 Apr. 2010.
“John Ritter on The Dating Game.” The Dating Game. Youtube.com. 14 Jun. 2007. Web. 19 Apr. 2010.
Clarke-Copeland, Judi. “Television of the 1960s: Nostalgic Family Values.” JCE Enterprises. InformationandEntertainment.com. 2009. Web. 19 Apr. 2010.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
McLuhan: It's All Going According to Marshall's Plan
"McLuhan: It's All Going According to Marshall's Plan" by Mark Edmundson is a fantastic article with a lot of insight into our generation and the way the types of media are affecting us. Through reading about the depth experience and depth participation, I could not help myself but to think of a few of my own examples of this from 2010.
A perfect example of a role-playing game where one takes on the view and persona of an animation, is the game The Sims. With the newer versions of this game, you can actually make the Sim look so much like yourself, down to birthmarks, pimples and freckles. After creating a virtual person that can look identical to the real you, one then commands it to do things, as if they were living that life themselves. This really intrigues the player to be right in the game, as "one self-contained unit".
Another quote from the reading that reminded me of something from the 21st century was, "Some day, perhaps, a clothes shopper will be able to see, beamed into his living room, a three-dimensional image of himself in a suit before he buys" (66-67). Although I have not heard of this, I have heard of a game that allows you to upload a picture of your face, and then try on different styles and colors of hair to see how a new hairdo would look. Sounds pretty similar, and pretty scary. These interactive systems really get the player involved in the game and are extremely reflective of real life.
This all goes in hand with Edmundson's idea of perceptual numbing. With all of the types of video and computer games today, nothing phases us. If a baby is shown at two years old how to virtually play with a Dog on Nintendo DS, or is shown how to shoot people on Call of Duty at age three, by the time they are teenagers, nothing can surprise them. He is absolutely correct when he says, "...perceptual numbing may be the loss of our individual capacity to respond to anything but the most violent stimuli" (68). We have become so accustomed to the different types of games and all the violence found on them, that nothing causes a response anymore. Many kids and teenagers have a better time living their life through a virtual reality game than actually going out into the real world. And this is exactly what the biggest downfall of the 21st century generation is.
A perfect example of a role-playing game where one takes on the view and persona of an animation, is the game The Sims. With the newer versions of this game, you can actually make the Sim look so much like yourself, down to birthmarks, pimples and freckles. After creating a virtual person that can look identical to the real you, one then commands it to do things, as if they were living that life themselves. This really intrigues the player to be right in the game, as "one self-contained unit".
Another quote from the reading that reminded me of something from the 21st century was, "Some day, perhaps, a clothes shopper will be able to see, beamed into his living room, a three-dimensional image of himself in a suit before he buys" (66-67). Although I have not heard of this, I have heard of a game that allows you to upload a picture of your face, and then try on different styles and colors of hair to see how a new hairdo would look. Sounds pretty similar, and pretty scary. These interactive systems really get the player involved in the game and are extremely reflective of real life.
This all goes in hand with Edmundson's idea of perceptual numbing. With all of the types of video and computer games today, nothing phases us. If a baby is shown at two years old how to virtually play with a Dog on Nintendo DS, or is shown how to shoot people on Call of Duty at age three, by the time they are teenagers, nothing can surprise them. He is absolutely correct when he says, "...perceptual numbing may be the loss of our individual capacity to respond to anything but the most violent stimuli" (68). We have become so accustomed to the different types of games and all the violence found on them, that nothing causes a response anymore. Many kids and teenagers have a better time living their life through a virtual reality game than actually going out into the real world. And this is exactly what the biggest downfall of the 21st century generation is.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Week #9 Assignment
The independent news source I have found and will continue to use for this semester is the Star Ledger Newspaper, which is the largest newspaper in the state of New Jersey. It is based in Newark, New Jersey. I have always enjoyed reading this newspaper because it gives a good amount of information on what is happening all over New Jersey, while sometimes having different perspectives than the large ownership companies that seem to be everywhere today.
OWNERSHIP
The Star Ledger is owned by Advance Publications, an American media company owned by the Newhouse Family. They own over 30 different newspapers, different business journals, periodicals and magazines,some internet websites and even a few Cable television news channels. Advance Publications owns Condé Nast Publications, Parade Publications, Fairchild Publications, American City Business Journals and the Golf Digest Companies.
CREDIBILITY
The Newark Star-Ledger's daily circulation is larger than the next two largest New Jersey newspapers combined and its Sunday circulation is larger than the next THREE papers combined. It was founded in 1832 and has won the Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Reporting in 2005 for its coverage of the resignation of the Governor of New Jersey Jim McGreevey, after he confessed to adultery with a male lover. The paper awards the Star-Ledger Trophy each year to high school teams that end up as the number one team in their respective sport in the state of New Jersey. Overall, the newspaper has been around for a while and has always been ranked as one if not the best newspapers in New Jersey. It is also very credible for its large and well-known ownership.
CONTENT
The Star-Ledger is a daily newspaper reporting on news of all 21 counties in New Jersey. It contains the sections of: opinion, sports, business, high-school sports, obituaries, entertainment, and home and garden with columnists and staff blogs. There are also news sections by towns and by county. The Star-Ledger also has a website, where news can be found everyday, 24 hours a day. There are videos, blogs, photos and local updates.
MY COMPARISON
The Star-Ledger newspaper can be compared to The New York Post, owned by News Corporation. It is a newspaper that reports on the news for certain sections of New York and has the same type of sections and areas of news.
OWNERSHIP
The Star Ledger is owned by Advance Publications, an American media company owned by the Newhouse Family. They own over 30 different newspapers, different business journals, periodicals and magazines,some internet websites and even a few Cable television news channels. Advance Publications owns Condé Nast Publications, Parade Publications, Fairchild Publications, American City Business Journals and the Golf Digest Companies.
CREDIBILITY
The Newark Star-Ledger's daily circulation is larger than the next two largest New Jersey newspapers combined and its Sunday circulation is larger than the next THREE papers combined. It was founded in 1832 and has won the Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Reporting in 2005 for its coverage of the resignation of the Governor of New Jersey Jim McGreevey, after he confessed to adultery with a male lover. The paper awards the Star-Ledger Trophy each year to high school teams that end up as the number one team in their respective sport in the state of New Jersey. Overall, the newspaper has been around for a while and has always been ranked as one if not the best newspapers in New Jersey. It is also very credible for its large and well-known ownership.
CONTENT
The Star-Ledger is a daily newspaper reporting on news of all 21 counties in New Jersey. It contains the sections of: opinion, sports, business, high-school sports, obituaries, entertainment, and home and garden with columnists and staff blogs. There are also news sections by towns and by county. The Star-Ledger also has a website, where news can be found everyday, 24 hours a day. There are videos, blogs, photos and local updates.
MY COMPARISON
The Star-Ledger newspaper can be compared to The New York Post, owned by News Corporation. It is a newspaper that reports on the news for certain sections of New York and has the same type of sections and areas of news.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Week #7 Assignment
Net Neutrality
What is it?: Net neutrality is the principle that says all information flowing across the internet should be treated equally. This allows the network to carry every form of information and support every kind of application. The theory behind the network neutrality principle, which the internet sometimes gets close to, is that a neutral network should be expected to deliver the most to a nation and the world economically and socially. The argument is whether companies for the internet should be allowed to charge providers for the privilege of reaching viewers.
Questions about it?: The biggest question about net neutrality seems to be the simple question of, "What is neutral?". Everyone's ideas of neutrality seem to differ, causing this issue to have several problems. Another question is what business models are the phone and cable companies attempting to preserve by opposing Net Neutrality. Most of the questions surrounding this issue seem to be directed towards the companies themselves and ask about motives and where this issue seems to be heading.
Who is for/against it?: Companies that are FOR net neutrality such as Google, Yahoo, Vonage, Ebay, Amazon, IAC and Microsoft. Some companies that are AGAINST net neutrality are large hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries. Other companies against net neutrality are Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Goldwater Institute and Americans for Tax Reform.
My thoughts: I would have to say that I am for net neutrality. I think it makes sense to have everything equal on the internet and that in the end, all these raising of fees will all come down to the consumers, us. I do not like the idea of telecommunication companies controlling what sites can be visited and when it is allowed to view them. I feel like if the internet is not broken, why fix it? The net is safe, fair and neutral the way it is right now--with our choice of websites, our choice of when and where to visit and our choice of the experience we receive from them. The more government intervention and regulation that comes about, the less neutral and free the internet is going to be. I use many sites such as Google, Amazon and Youtube, and though it sounds horrible to say - I would definitely have a hard time without them. I also do not agree with the censorship that would change if there is not net neutrality. My beliefs have sparked from these 3 outside sources:
ARTICLE: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/newmark.internet/
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iqw2tgw5mE
INTERVIEW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE48TqymnR0
What is it?: Net neutrality is the principle that says all information flowing across the internet should be treated equally. This allows the network to carry every form of information and support every kind of application. The theory behind the network neutrality principle, which the internet sometimes gets close to, is that a neutral network should be expected to deliver the most to a nation and the world economically and socially. The argument is whether companies for the internet should be allowed to charge providers for the privilege of reaching viewers.
Questions about it?: The biggest question about net neutrality seems to be the simple question of, "What is neutral?". Everyone's ideas of neutrality seem to differ, causing this issue to have several problems. Another question is what business models are the phone and cable companies attempting to preserve by opposing Net Neutrality. Most of the questions surrounding this issue seem to be directed towards the companies themselves and ask about motives and where this issue seems to be heading.
Who is for/against it?: Companies that are FOR net neutrality such as Google, Yahoo, Vonage, Ebay, Amazon, IAC and Microsoft. Some companies that are AGAINST net neutrality are large hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries. Other companies against net neutrality are Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Goldwater Institute and Americans for Tax Reform.
My thoughts: I would have to say that I am for net neutrality. I think it makes sense to have everything equal on the internet and that in the end, all these raising of fees will all come down to the consumers, us. I do not like the idea of telecommunication companies controlling what sites can be visited and when it is allowed to view them. I feel like if the internet is not broken, why fix it? The net is safe, fair and neutral the way it is right now--with our choice of websites, our choice of when and where to visit and our choice of the experience we receive from them. The more government intervention and regulation that comes about, the less neutral and free the internet is going to be. I use many sites such as Google, Amazon and Youtube, and though it sounds horrible to say - I would definitely have a hard time without them. I also do not agree with the censorship that would change if there is not net neutrality. My beliefs have sparked from these 3 outside sources:
ARTICLE: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/newmark.internet/
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iqw2tgw5mE
INTERVIEW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE48TqymnR0
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Week #6 Assignment
February 23, 2010
http://bluegrassfilmsociety.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html
I thought this image concerning the issue with the Pentagon propaganda and military analysts was extremely strong and relevant. The quote is a perfect representation of how Americans felt after hearing the news about the Pentagon's program. It is an image obviously against the way the media is informing the public and giving biased information about the war, according to the way the Pentagon wants it. So, the "compared to what lies right to our faces" is a clear blow to these military analysts. What happened yesterday and what is going to happen tomorrow does not even matter if we are getting lied to with the wrong information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQP7ASBdwdo&feature=player_embedded
I chose this interview/video from YouTube because of the different angle it gives on the topic by seeing people live and hearing interviews. It does oppose the Pentagon's military analysts and explains how these men are supposed to be giving objective assessments of the war and instead are just giving biased information. I like how it ties into the New York Times article we were supposed to read and used quotes from it for support. Since I had not seen this issue on the news, I thought it was important to be able to watch some coverage on this link.
http://captainplaid.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html
I also thought that this image was a great representation of the issue at hand. The media images on the ball and chain just go to show how much the government and the media controls our eyes. These military analysts can (and do) literally omit anything they choose while only informing the public on the biased information that they feel necessary. It is as if America is wrapped right within this ball and chain. There is no better way to show how far the media and the Pentagon has taken advantage over the people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/pentagon-military-analyst_n_242305.html
I chose this article because it gives a different perspective on this issue: that the Pentagon did NOT break the propaganda rule. It is said in the article that although the Pentagon did try to influence the public opinion, there is no proof that they tried to conceal it. There was also no evidence that these military analysts were paid for this positive commentary. Since the New York Times article was an article against this Pentagon propaganda, reading a different view of the issue helps to see the problem from both angles.
Overall, this issue only added to my anger about the biased news we get from the media. However, it did not surprise me in the least. I actually hate watching the news, simply because I know whatever they are reporting on is either half of the story or is going to give me nightmares. Sometimes, I would rather just not know. I was not surprised because the government can do whatever they want. They can completely make up stories on the media and the American people would have no idea. I do not agree with these military analysts reporting on only positive aspects of the war and I think it is absurd that with a war concerning OUR country, we are not getting the right information. In my opinion, they were completely against the federal law.
http://bluegrassfilmsociety.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html
I thought this image concerning the issue with the Pentagon propaganda and military analysts was extremely strong and relevant. The quote is a perfect representation of how Americans felt after hearing the news about the Pentagon's program. It is an image obviously against the way the media is informing the public and giving biased information about the war, according to the way the Pentagon wants it. So, the "compared to what lies right to our faces" is a clear blow to these military analysts. What happened yesterday and what is going to happen tomorrow does not even matter if we are getting lied to with the wrong information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQP7ASBdwdo&feature=player_embedded
I chose this interview/video from YouTube because of the different angle it gives on the topic by seeing people live and hearing interviews. It does oppose the Pentagon's military analysts and explains how these men are supposed to be giving objective assessments of the war and instead are just giving biased information. I like how it ties into the New York Times article we were supposed to read and used quotes from it for support. Since I had not seen this issue on the news, I thought it was important to be able to watch some coverage on this link.
http://captainplaid.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html
I also thought that this image was a great representation of the issue at hand. The media images on the ball and chain just go to show how much the government and the media controls our eyes. These military analysts can (and do) literally omit anything they choose while only informing the public on the biased information that they feel necessary. It is as if America is wrapped right within this ball and chain. There is no better way to show how far the media and the Pentagon has taken advantage over the people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/pentagon-military-analyst_n_242305.html
I chose this article because it gives a different perspective on this issue: that the Pentagon did NOT break the propaganda rule. It is said in the article that although the Pentagon did try to influence the public opinion, there is no proof that they tried to conceal it. There was also no evidence that these military analysts were paid for this positive commentary. Since the New York Times article was an article against this Pentagon propaganda, reading a different view of the issue helps to see the problem from both angles.
Overall, this issue only added to my anger about the biased news we get from the media. However, it did not surprise me in the least. I actually hate watching the news, simply because I know whatever they are reporting on is either half of the story or is going to give me nightmares. Sometimes, I would rather just not know. I was not surprised because the government can do whatever they want. They can completely make up stories on the media and the American people would have no idea. I do not agree with these military analysts reporting on only positive aspects of the war and I think it is absurd that with a war concerning OUR country, we are not getting the right information. In my opinion, they were completely against the federal law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
