I Have Commented On...

Google Street View by Kim Abanador

http://kimm-allison.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-know-where-you-live.html

Ads of the Past by Debbie Lee

http://dreeebbie.blogspot.com/

Social Awareness Contradiction by Sarah Brown

http://mystique-rose.blogspot.com/2010/01/re-social-awareness-contradiction-1-i.html

The Changing Face of Video Games by Fionna Chui

http://chewyfionna.blogspot.com/2010/03/advancement-of-video-games.html

Photoshop Manipulation on Hiatus by Mary Chiu

http://maarychiu.blogspot.com/2010/03/photo-manipulation-on-hiatus-in-media.html

Is Taxing Pop Really a Solution? by Alex DePompa

http://wittyinahat.blogspot.com/2010/01/pop-tax.html

Re: Is Taxing Pop Really a Solution?

Today in society, more and more people are becoming aware of the importance of health in attempt to live our lives better and healthier. Over the years, many scare campaigns have been released in attempt to influence viewers to become more health conscious. The “Are You Pouring on the Pounds?” campaign is a good example of how the New York Health Department is making an effort to influence us to make healthier choices by turning away from pop.

After watching the video, I would probably think twice before drinking a can of pop. The campaign won’t effect my overall consumption of pop, but at least, I’ll reconsider whether if I’d want a healthier alternative (e.g. water, milk, etc) next time when I have to make a decision. But as much as I hate to say it, I’ll probably only have the habit of thinking twice for only a short period of time. Soon, when the campaign “dies down”, I’ll probably starting drinking pop again, without bothering to reconsider a healthier alternative. In other words, I think this kind of campaign is only effective for short while. Yes, it’s effective because it lists facts of how it’s unhealthy, how it effects our life, it lists healthier alternatives we can choose from, and it puts a bad light on pop. But its effectiveness is only for a short while, because soon we’re all going to forget about it. For example, when Supersize Me was first released in 2004, it caught a lot of viewers’ attention, and most of them had reduced their visits to McDonalds during that period of time. However, I’m quite sure that the same people who had reduced their visits to McDonald during that period of time, doesn’t go by that anymore, since most of them don’t think of the documentary as much or as often anymore.

Like many other scare campaigns regarding health concerns, the video makes me want to become a healthier person, but only for the time I'm watching it. It was disgusting how the man was chugging down the fat, but it’s not scary enough for me to stick to a healthy diet. 

I don’t think that the growing obesity in our nation is an epidemic of large proportions. It’s true that eating unhealthy can lead to weight gain, but so can technology and the lack of self-control. Over the years, it’s evident that our technology has drastically changed our lives – it has made life easier for us, but it had also made us lazier too. For example, many people don't bother walking or biking to their destinations anymore because they think it's a waste of time and energy. Although taking the car or bus is more convenient and less tiring, it's one of the reasons why people these days are extra lazy and unhealthy. The lack of self-control is a factor too because no matter how many calories a certain food contains, we can still eat it – just as long as we know how to limit ourselves. If an obese person drinks five cans of pop a day, then it’s that person’s fault for not knowing how to control himself.

If the new tax goes through in America, then it would probably sooner or later happen here in Canada as well. If the new tax does happen, I would of course still continue to buy pop and chips, but not as often maybe. In terms of health, I guess it’s not a bad idea. At least consumers would take a moment and reconsider about buying pop or chips. 

Picture Credits:

•  http://www.forwardlife.net/no_junk_food.jpg
• https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGrOgfKaZPqPPV-bYKrLhQpIXK1kU52PiZ4I85XJL36pf9Mu8lPM4aatB6ageHzLNzYuqr52nsY0fSTk1dShu0kVcCugl6s3dW5XRDuSiCs29DpV3PpKRYVlsapveoDDAdUwyvBg-oXOeh/s400/killerfood.jpg

Re: Photo Manipulation on Hiatus in the Media

Whenever we look at models and celebrities in magazines or advertisements, most of us, if not all, always wonder why they’re so “beautiful” and “perfect”, and why an average person in society isn’t. Well, that’s because of Photoshop. Photoshop is a popular software used to manipulate and to alter images – it’s such a powerful program, that it can make photos that it has heavily distorted, look real. It’s amazing, but the media has been over using it recently to alter pictures shown in advertisements and magazines. Back then, Photoshop was only used to touch up a few blemishes here and there, but now editors use this software to make models/celebrities look flawless.

Today, most of the images shown in a magazine are photoshopped one way or another, and it’s becoming a problem. The media is setting an unattainable image of perfection, making many young girls and women to feel depressed and to have lower self-esteem. We’re all aware that these pictures have been retouched and photoshopped before they’re shown to the public, but most of us don’t remind ourselves that when we see it initially. Looking at all these heavily manipulated images, I think that it’s sad how our standards are becoming so unachievable and unrealistic. It has come to the point, that some images have been so ridiculously exaggerated, that we can tell right away that it has been heavily altered. For example (to the right), can your head actually be bigger than your waist?

In the picture above, it’s evident that the before-picture of Faith Hill has been heavily photo manipulated to fit society’s ideal image of beauty. Compared to the original photo, her eyebags are removed, she has been slimmed down, and they changed the lighting – basically everything to make her seem “perfect”. Although Faith doesn’t look completely different in the magazine cover, she does look a lot younger. Someone who normally sees Faith Hill in advertisements and magazines all the time would probably be disappointed of how different she looks in real life.

Though I’m aware that photo manipulation is wrong, and that it should be stopped, I think it’s just the way it is. The media is still going to continue to alter images in the future, even with the new trend where models and celebrities are baring their make-up free faces and saying “no” to Photoshop. The new trend may last for a little while, but it won’t last forever. Similarly, the idea of magazines and runways using “normal” people, won’t last forever either. It’s great how it addresses a positive message, but with the new trend, it doesn’t sell a product as effectively as an advertisement that has been manipulated. Photoshopped images in advertisements are often altered until they are seen as perfect, and since we all want to be perfect, a product that is in an advertisement that has been heavily altered will sell more easily. Why? It’s because we all want to be perfect, although we know what we see in the advertisement is not the same in reality. We all want to find ways to make ourselves better and more perfect. When we look at “normal” models, displaying a product in an advertisement, we don’t want it as much because we don’t see a way to better ourselves, since the “normal” model is just like us. 

To be honest, it doesn’t concern me when I look at a magazine spread that isn’t all glammed up like we are used to seeing because I’m not a person that takes the media seriously. I like to read magazines from time to time because it’s a source of entertainment. But other than that, as a viewer, I don’t think of it much. However, for viewers who do take the media seriously, I guess it would give them a break from admiring fakes, but there won’t be anything to look up to. We buy magazines, watch television, and admire them because of how perfect they are – not of how they are just like everybody else.

Picture Credits:

• http://www.boingboing.net/2009/09/29/lauren.jpg
• http://images.teamsugar.com/files/users/1/12981/29_2007/faith-hill-redbook.jpg
• http://i.cocoperez.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/v63_solve-sundsbo_04__opt__oPt.jpg

Re: The Changing Face of Video Games

Undeniably, video games have evolved over the years in terms of design, quality, variety, and so much more. Compared to the past, video games weren’t as fun or exciting – there weren’t as many genres to choose from and everything was dull in color and was two-dimensional. But today, videos games have become more interactive and more realistic. For example, the Nintendo Wii allows the player to be physically active, making the games seem more lifelike and “beneficial”. Who wouldn’t want to play a video game and be fit at the same time?

Though video games have changed over the years, I think they’re still the same – they’re only made for a source of entertainment. Those “beneficial” games that we can play on WiiFit, to help keep us “healthy” and “fit”, may seem like a really cool idea, but it’s really not. It may help a little, but it shouldn’t replace the actual activity that we play on the Wii. For instance, instead of playing soccer or jogging on WiiFit all the time, we should actually do these activities in real life. We may not be as entertained if we were to do the exercise ourselves, but at least we’ll get some fresh air and maybe meet some new people, instead of doing it at home with the WiiFit. Moreover, video games shouldn’t be taken too seriously – they’re pointless, so why bother spending countless hours to get to the next level, when you could be doing other things? They distract you from homework, from socializing with other people, and video games are bad for your vision! Violent games like Call of Duty, can be really bad for young children as well because they might pick up on the bad habits and use it towards other people.

Despite the downsides of video games, they can be good for us too, if we don’t take video games too seriously. For example, they can help us relieve stress and it gives an opportunity for people to spend time with each other. It’s nice to be able to forget about our stress for an hour or two, while enjoying a fun game on the Wii or Xbox. Similarly, games that involve two or more players allow friends and family to spend time together and have fun. In addition, certain video games can help strengthen our problem-solving skills as well.

In my opinion, video games are only detrimental, if the player takes the game too seriously and spends endless hours in front of the television. Although video games have evolved so much over the years, they’re still the same – they’re only made for a source of entertainment. In other words, its purpose is to get rid of our boredom and so, we shouldn’t take it seriously, because it’s not real – it’s only for fun.

Picture Credit:

• http://www.listicles.com/wp-content/upload/evolucion-personajes-videojuegos.jpg

Re: Social Awareness Contradiction

1. How do you feel about the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty? Do some quick research if you don't know what this is about because it is worth knowing.

I think that the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty is really down-to-earth and inspiring. It reminds us that we’re all individually beautiful in our own way – even if we don’t fit the typical beauty stereotypes or if we don’t have the “perfect” body/features. It encourages viewers to feel beautiful in their own skin and forget about society’s narrow idea of beauty. The media’s unrealistic standards have caused many women and young girls to feel unhappy about their bodies, leading to depression and eating disorders, and it’s about time to stop. Dove makes an effort to spread positive messages about the concept of beauty and how we should love the way our body is naturally.

2. How do you feel about the Axe Effect Campaign? Does it make you laugh hysterically or roll your eyes in disgust? Tell me why?

The Axe Effect Campaign is so over exaggerated in a funny way – would women actually be all over the guy? I don’t think so, but the exaggeration makes it quite amusing. The campaign and the way it’s marketed doesn’t make me roll my eyes in disgust as I don’t see the company taking “women being crazy over men with Axe sprayed” seriously – it’s just a joke. However, it really makes me wonder if guys are naïve enough to believe that women would actually be crazy about them if they wear the spray. Although the Axe Effect Campaign is over exaggerated, and some may find the message degrading to women, I still think it’s pretty funny.

3. Do you think that a 'parent' company has some responsibility to ensure that all of their different sectors uphold the same sort of beliefs and values? Tell me why or why not.

I don’t think that a ‘parent’ company has responsibility to ensure that all of their different sectors uphold the same sort of beliefs and values because their main focus is to sell their products. Though the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty spreads a positive message onto the perception of beauty, their main point is to market their care products. They’re trying to say that, even though we aren’t as pretty as those photoshopped models on billboards (and that we should love our body), their care products can help us look better naturally – without having to lose weight, etc. Similarly, the company marketed Axe as a product that can attract women for the purpose of selling their product as well. I don’t think the ‘parent’ company cares whether if the two ads contradict each other or not, just as long as they are getting business. 

 Picture Credit:

• http://purethinking.typepad.com/pure_thinking_a_streamofc/images/2007/10/10/denver_ad_agency_unilever_dove_axe.jpg

Re: ADS OF THE PAST - DID THEY REALLY SAY THAT?

Advertisements are all around us – it’s on television, it’s in magazines, malls, bus stops – EVERYWHERE. They’re all made for the purpose of promoting products or to support a cause. Though some ads are creative and influential, some are not – in fact, they’re quite ridiculous. For example:

Judging from what this advertisement is promoting, I assume this was created quite a long time ago (maybe somewhere around the 50’s or 60’s) – back when people still thought that staying thin by eating “sanitized tapeworms” didn’t come with any strings attached. To promote tapeworms, the company created an advertisement with a women who is tempted to eat the food below her. But since eating too much can cost you a couple of pounds, the company is suggesting tapeworms, so woman can eat as much as they desire without gaining weight. Without a doubt, the advertisement is obviously sending out a bad message. Tapeworms may seem like an easy way to lose fat, but it’s a health risk. I suppose the government allowed the company to run this advertisement because people were unaware of the health concerns. Canada and many other countries still continue to promote weight lost, but the way people lose weight now, are a lot healthier than they were before.
 

Advertisements that promote smoking are never seen anymore as smoking is not supported these days. Back then, smoking was considered “cool” and many males did it to fit in. In first smoking advertisement, the company is promoting Tipalet by convincing males that smoking is a good way to chase women – all you have to do is “blow it in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere”. In my opinion, I think it’s disrespectful and degrading to women – they’re saying that women are easy to seduce. In the other smoking advertisement, the company is promoting their product by creating an advertisement with a doctor having a cigarette of their brand. I guess it was somewhat an effective advertisement back in the day, considering many people trusted doctors as they are more educated in what’s healthy and what is not. Unfortunately, people in the past weren’t aware of the many health concerns that link to smoking. Today, there are no more advertisements that promote smoking – there’s only anti-smoking ads that lists all the health issues that can result such as lung cancer, etc.

In the final ad, the company is promoting lard by creating an advertisement with a cheerful family of three to assure viewers happiness, if they consume their product. Though lard is basically pig fat, meaning that it can potentially clog your arteries if you eat too much of it, I guess the government allowed the company to run this advertisement because they weren’t aware of the health threats that comes in hand with lard. The advertisement was probably effective to those who were sad/depressed during that time period, even though the concept of ad is too plain and boring. Advertisements we see today are much more interesting, original, and colorful.

Compared to the past, advertisements have definitely changed over the years. For example, Dove have advertisements that spreads positive messages, while advertising their products at the same time – I bet there weren't any ads like that back then. Modern advertisements are now more positive, while advertisements in the past had conveyed negative messages such as slogans that degraded women (the “blow it in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere” ad), etc. By simply analyzing at these advertisements, I assume society at that time was a lot different – having good health wasn’t something they worried about, physical appearances were more important than what was in the inside, and men were “better” than women. For example, people in the past didn’t do enough research to see if the products would link to health threats; women and men relied mostly on products such as tapeworms and cigarettes to attract the other gender (they forgot that the inside is more important than outer looks), and people thought that a puff of smoke could easily attract women. Many advertisements today are more influential and they are made to spread positive messages – it really shows how society has changed over the years.

Picture Credits:

• https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOOYllNjjmdUmTQo4os200Zwte7T68GdARJQq9YSrexK9U8uFMUCssa5zniol5bkVIqqxCE9GT4b6ZcnYsmqyXSBDApdC3HdwEbgLWsUsXhYRYO02DWC3RSsxdsmc-6PJJbnWDYvR0nrw/s320/image0066.jpg
• https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisaZUEMZkd6f7gc0_Ul7HofHMXZ2JfQHJb8tIxt1V_WEXBGe3jic3_YKaGSHK-35JWt-OwMB78DGzcChYLE00-kerAHvEjWY28SU5hP-i4PbxS96FUgkMOQDlbsCAND1_KYkjACalkCdM/s320/image0077.jpg
• https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKSpQTyCmupyCPLEcxJ8od0mWsbDzX-qRkpuvfqtpm3r50hcFbclplfdUvvZqqwl27n5_r8GCuS0cje03jH2scGl4VdY9-RwFJqyhrq5xOqDinjjvMFqlRLyAl6skjOK8nD45LgKpHU2I/s320/image0033.jpg
• https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgonVMRWWNvRThK77dFGldf3WZVayWDTkLpIvgwiQWWFnGFAm5YRsct2PxH9TxGjlfABJoizA_MBw7YcB0cGN0KRqTXHDeceqxI_XhbH8oYvUFwaznPQpxIezkVk0pmmAxVozx9-rkt8OA/s320/image0022.jpg
• http://www.wolverton-mountain.com/articles/sexism__masquerading_as__liberat_files/image001.jpg

Re: Hey, Guess What? I Can See You...

Not too long ago, Google released an innovative application called Google Street View. It’s an exciting technology designed to show high-resolution street-level images on the Internet. But not long after the launch, Google received hundreds of complaints about the violation of privacy. Though Google has already made the effort to blur out faces and license plates, there are still many who are not in favor of this fascinating tool. With this new invention, there are definitely disadvantages and advantages, but in exchange for convenience of the application, the negatives involved will have to be accepted.

Similar to many other new inventions, there are definitely downsides. Google have blurred out license plates and faces in attempt to prevent identification, but they haven’t done a very good job. For example, there are still a few images that aren’t blurred out properly – I am still able to recognize some people’s faces on the streets. But it’s not something that can’t be fixed – Google allows you to report privacy concerns such as reporting a face that has not been blurred properly, your legible license that has not been blurred, etc. Even though there are many privacy concerns regarding Google Street View, I don’t see the problem with it – they’ve only compiled images that have been taken a long time ago. Though Google has taken pictures without permission or consent, many social networking sites (e.g. Facebook) have thousands of images uploaded often without the consent of the person being photographed as well. In other words, I don’t really think there are any privacy laws being broken. With technology constantly improving and growing, we’re slowing losing more and more of our privacy and personal space. 

Despite these “flaws”, Google Street View is truly amazing. It’s simple to use, it’s convenient, gives easier navigation, it can be a source of entertainment, and it’s so much better than the traditional map. You can easily find directions or look around an area by simply typing the address in the search bar – it’s self-explanatory – you don’t need any specific lessons or tutorials to “learn”. With images and the 360° angle, it’s so useful to see your destination in advance and familiarize that area to avoid getting lost, etc. Also the images are better to direct someone from one place to another compared to the old-school lines and symbols – at least the visuals are “worth more words” than simple lines and symbols. Though Google Street View was made for the purpose of finding directions, it can be fun as well. I can search up other areas such as New York, and look around without having to actually go there. With all these awesome factors, how can you not like love Street View?

Of course, I curiously looked up my address and I virtually "walked" around my neighbourhood, to see if I could spot myself or any of my friends that might not have been blurred properly. Although I wasn’t able to spot anyone I knew, I came across a few people on the streets, and their faces were all blurred. Even if I was unluckily captured by Google, I don’t think my likeness would become a public domain because my face would be blurred by Google. Besides, I don’t think the person using Google Streetview would care anyways. They probably won’t even be able to recognize me. And so what if they can? It’s not like they can stalk me by using just one simple image of me on Streetview that was taken months ago.

Even though there are many people who oppose this new application, I think it’s great. There are certainly privacy issues involved, but is it really worth removing Street View just to satisfy those who are overreacting about stalkers? It’s not like it’s a live video feed – Google only compiled images taken in the past. We should keep Street View – after all, there are more advantages than disadvantages.