posts i have commented on.

Google Streetview:
Debbie Lee - http://dreeebbie.blogspot.com/

Ads of the Past:
Nathaniel Cabios - http://nathanielcabios.blogspot.com/2010/01/ads-of-past-did-they-really-say-that.html

Social Awareness Contradiction
Fionna Chui - http://chewyfionna.blogspot.com/2010/03/opposing-view-of-beauty.html

The Changing Face of Video Games:
Inggrid Wibowo - http://inggridluvsmedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/re-changing-face-of-video-games.html#comments

Photoshop Manipulation on Hiatus:
Alex DePompa - http://wittyinahat.blogspot.com/2010/01/these-images-have-been-photoshopped.html

Is Taxing Pop Really a Solution?:
Angeli Marteja - http://angelibeans.blogspot.com/2010/02/66-is-taxing-pop-really-solution.html

Is Taxing Pop Really A Solution?

In recent years, our North American society has fallen victim to the problem of obesity. Not only are we eating more often, but the food we eat is becoming unhealthier, too. Due to the fact that obesity is becoming an increasingly large problem, health care services are being overwhelmed by the need to address this national epidemic. If only obesity were a single problem, the economic burden being placed on the government wouldn’t nearly be as severe as it is now. Unfortunately, the fact remains that obesity is indeed more than just one problem – this medical condition is the very beginning to a hospital-bound life. Obesity is known to lead to cardiovascular problems, diabetes, kidney failure and some types of cancer. Already, obesity is a common medical condition among many Canadians – and the numbers continue to rise. As more and more money has to be placed into the healthcare services to address the problem of obesity, its economic burden on the government continues to rise. For this reason, the government is attempting to stop this epidemic from becoming an even larger problem by acting quickly and preventing the consumption of such unhealthy foods.
Supersize Me and the Taxing Pop video are examples of the many scare campaigns that are out there. I’d say that scare campaigns are one of the most effective ways to aware the public of a particular problem, but unfortunately, even this isn’t enough to prevent the obesity epidemic from worsening. Judging by similar occurrences in history, humans are generally unwilling to change their established lifestyles. Global warming, animal extinction, overfishing – we’ve all been warned about the effects of these global issues through many scare campaigns, and yet it seems that these problems are only getting worse. As knowledgeable of the effects as we are, we never realize the need to act until it’s too late, and I’m afraid the same will happen with this epidemic. However, scare campaigns do something that many other campaigns can’t – at the very least, they make us think. Humans are naturally selfish creatures. We care about our own survival more than anything else, which is why scare campaigns work so effectively on us. When we hear that something is going to significantly harm us or shorten our lifespan, we immediately reconsider our actions. As to whether or not we continue to carry out our plans is an entirely different story, but at the very least, we take that extra step to consider the results of our actions.
For example, I still haven’t been able to stop eating at McDonalds in spite of having watched Supersize Me. However, before lining up and plunking down my money for a few thousand calories, I always reconsider whether I could choose a healthier alternative, and the result is a few less visits to McDonalds every month. As small of an action that is, it still makes a difference, and each change begins with a small step. The Taxing Pop video had a similar effect: I’ve still drank pop after having watched it, but when I remember the image of that guy chugging down a cup of fat, I’m immediately rid of the desire to drink anything of the sort.
As much as I oppose of the constant and unreasonable increase in taxes, I actually think this one would make a noticeable difference in the consumption of pop. The higher prices of the pop would be another reason not to buy it, on top of the health concerns that are already involved. Like the scare campaigns, it can’t be hoped that everyone will change immediately, but at the very least, it will give customers an incentive to quit drinking carbonated sugar water. At least customers will actually reconsider whether or not the pop is worth that extra amount of money and an additional ten pounds a year.

Photo Manipulation on Hiatus in the Media.

The fact that photo manipulation has reached such an extreme degree is evidence of how unattainable society’s standards of beauty are. If famous supermodels are being tweaked and altered through Photoshop, imagine how imperfect we would be perceived by the media! In fact, I hardly think that there’s anyone in the world who naturally lives up to the unattainable standards of the media. Everyone – tall, short, fat, slim, dark, pale – would be manipulated through Photoshop regardless of their original appearance. This just goes to show that nothing short of flawless is acceptable in today’s society. In the past, the media has done nothing to change this problem except to further aid and abet the artificiality of what’s broadcasted to the public. Not only does this discourage the person whose photo was manipulated, but it also sends out a negative message to the viewers. Although we’re all aware of the fact that anything broadcasted in the media must have been fixed and manipulated before being put out there, how many of us actually think of that when we see a beautiful face on a poster? How many of us actually remind ourselves that the models we see aren’t as perfect as they appear? And most importantly, how many of us instantly feel worse about ourselves as we flip through one flawless face after another? I’m sure nine out of ten people are dissatisfied with their own appearance, and this discontent is most likely a result of what they see in the media. Now, photo manipulation has reached such popularity that photos are being exaggerated to ridiculous extents. To be honest, I’m doubtful as to whether that’s a good thing or not. It’s unfortunate that the standards of beauty are becoming so unachievable that the alterations made are actually incredibly obvious, but at least now, we’re given the knowledge that what we see in the media really isn’t the reality.

I think the photoshoot was a great way to aware the public of the difference between appearance and reality, but do I think the idea will stick? – Not really. It’s something innovative and fresh that will catch the attention of viewers, and there’s no doubt about it that people will look and applaud its attempt at delivering a positive message. But when it comes down to purchasing a product, which one will they buy? The shirt modeled by someone beautiful and thin, or the shirt worn by the average everyday girl? In trying to model ourselves as closely to today’s standards of beauty as possible, I’d say most of us – if not all – would choose the first shirt. We know that the first model has most likely undergone a great deal of photo manipulation, but that doesn’t stop us from wanting to look the same. It’s human nature to be constantly dissatisfied and in search for something greater, which is why a regular looking model would never appeal to us. There would be nothing to entice us into purchasing the product if the end result was as regular and plain as the model who was displaying it.


Honestly, it doesn’t bother me much when I flip through magazines and see nothing but flawless faces. Maybe I’ve become immune to the fact that only perfect faces are sufficient for the pages of a magazine, but I don’t think too much of it, nor does it discourage me in any way. I’ve just accepted the truth – or lie – that there are incredibly beautiful people in the world, and that I’m much too far from their standards of beauty that I dare not compare myself to them. In fact, I actually look forward to the exaggerated ‘glam’ that we see in magazines. Just the same, I would enjoy flipping through a magazine with regular faces instead of the photoshopped ones we’re familiar with, but there’d be nothing to aspire to – nothing that would leave us in awe or admiration.

(I LOVE PATRICK CHAN AND ALL, but you've gotta admit he's not much without the help of photoshop.. D:)

The Changing Face of Video Games

I’m usually seen holding either a Nintendo DS or a Wii remote, so I know I might sound a bit self-contradictory or even hypocritical by saying this, but I’m really not liking the idea of video games becoming such a significant part of life – whether they’re evolving into something greater or not.
In the past, there was always that huge concern over the lack of exercise that came with playing video games. I’m sure we all remember being yelled at for playing video games, and even more distinctly, our pathetic response, “I’M EXERCISING – EXERCISING MY FINGERS!!” It’s insane how quickly we’ve reached an entirely new stage where we actually achieve physical activity while playing video games. With the Nintendo Wii, it’s possible for us to be physically involved in the game that we’re playing. I remember playing a similar game at the Science Center when I was 5, and at the time, I thought it was the most fascinating and advanced piece of technology. It’s hard to believe that these games have reached such an extent of popularity that we can enjoy this type of entertainment in the comfort of our own homes. Never again will we have to think of a response to that get-up-and-do-some-exercise argument – nope, we’ll be doing it while we play! With video games evolving into such healthy and beneficial toys, I just pity the parents who’ll undoubtedly have trouble thinking of legitimate reasons for getting their kids to stop playing.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t entirely oppose of the idea of exergames. In fact, I think it’s great that kids can have fun while doing physical exercise. It can – to some extent – replace the need for outdoor activity, and since it isn’t influenced by the weather, it can also be much more versatile. However, I just find it a bit unnerving that our society’s becoming more and more focused on these virtual lives that exist behind a monitor. Isn’t it reaching ridiculous extents? Really, VIRTUAL PETS? It sounds nice when you describe it as a convenient alternative for kids who can’t own real pets, but what will this lead to? Virtual friends? Virtual family!? As technology advances, we become more independent, which then lessens the need for our interaction with other people. As much as technology is making life convenient for us, it’s also cutting the ties between humans and other living things.
At the same time, as much as video games are improving in the sense that they now involve physical movement, they are still – if not more so – revolving around a lot of violence and negativity. It’s true that through exergames like the Wii, it’s now possible for us to be fully immersed in the game – but what good is this of us if we’re being immersed into such negative and unhealthy ideas? As video games are being more common and prominent among young children, it’s only reasonable that the children are going to be largely influenced by the themes that are expressed through the games. Some of this mature content consists of fighting, reckless driving, shooting and inappropriate language -- all of this is picked up and absorbed by the children to whom these themes are exposed. I have to confess that the games I enjoy playing most are of the violent and aggressive variety, but when looking at the situation from an objective position, it’s disappointing and honestly disturbing that children as young as four are taking lightly what others are dying for. As society progresses, it seems that we’re becoming desensitized to the horrors of war and violence. Moreover, it’s becoming something so distant and incomprehensible to us that the idea of violence no long has an effect – except for maybe further enticing our interest in such games. There are people out there who sacrifice their lives in order to defend their country, people who unwillingly kill for the sake of war – these are tragedies, and yet we still have the heart to boast and laugh over the number of people we’ve killed.
Therefore, as much as I support exergames and the evolution of video games in this particular direction, I still can’t say that video games are a beneficial addition to society. It’s great that we can get our daily exercise from playing video games, but I’m afraid the themes of war and violence will only worsen from here. Besides, why would you prefer staying at home playing on the Wii when you could go outside and take a walk? Being an extreme naturalist, I can’t see the day where I’ll ever prefer a video game – no matter how much physical activity it involves! – over a nice and quiet stroll. Maybe I’m just full of old-fashioned and rigid ideas, but personally, going outside just seems like the best and most natural solution to lack of exercise.

Social Awareness Contradiction.

1) I think it’s really great that there’s finally something being done to promote ‘Real Beauty’. Especially in our society today, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find campaigns that aren’t about fitting ourselves under the false standards of beauty. Over the years, forms of media have taken a significant part in forming these standards. Through forms of media like the television and magazines, young women in particular have been the recipients of the false idea that you must look a specific way in order to be beautiful. In recent years, it seems as if the standards of beauty have become incredibly thin – not to mention, more difficult to attain than ever. In fact, many of the women we see in the media have gone through the work of makeup artists and photo manipulators before being published in the media -- which is just more evidence of how unreachable these standards are. It’s not like any of this information is new to us, but when all of these photos and clips are compiled into one video, we really realize the weight and significance our society places on the idea of beauty. The same goes for the Evolution video; we’re all aware that the women who appear in billboards and posters have gone through hours and hours of photo manipulation, but when we see the drastic difference between the ‘Before’ and ‘After’, we can’t help but to stop and reflect on the authenticity of what we see in the media. However, in spite of my support for Dove’s campaign for Real Beauty, I think of it as another way for Dove to receive positive attention from its consumers. By delivering such a positive and influential message, Dove has gained an immense amount of popularity, publicity and support – all of which are things that Dove knew would be achieved through this campaign. For customers who might not have thought much about the company before, Dove has suddenly become that good-hearted, philanthropic company that’s deserving of our support – And what better way to show our support for the company than by plunking down our money for their equally goodhearted and deserving products! So do I think Dove is a malicious company who organized this entire campaign without the slightest intention of delivering a nourishing, influential message to its customers? No, not at all; I wholeheartedly support the message of Real Beauty, but it also can’t be denied that such campaigns are common advertising tactics used by companies to publicize their brand name and leave healthy impressions with their customers.

2) I know the majority of the class would disagree and insist on how disgusting the Axe Effect Campaign is, but to be honest, I don’t think much about it at all. I don’t find it disgusting, nor do I think it degrades women in any way. In fact, I think this Campaign was a rather ingenious and interesting way of advertising their product. The message being delivered through the commercial was exaggerated to such ridiculous proportions that there’s no way Axe expected their customers to be persuaded. It’s an entirely different situation from the Tipalet ad we analyzed earlier in the year where they advertised the brand as a way to entice women. That ad genuinely tried to target their customers by objectifying women, whereas this Axe campaign appeals to customers through humour. Humour – that’s really all I think there is to this campaign. The commercial shows hundreds of women -- all acting in an animalistic behavior -- racing towards this one man because of his scent: like all you have said earlier, somebody would have to be really stupid to fall for that – and you’re absolutely right. Customers aren’t foolish enough to fall for such a ridiculous idea – but neither are the companies. Being in the advertising sector where they have to constantly conduct market analysis, don’t you think that they’d know well enough what ideas consumers would and wouldn’t buy? That’s why the Axe Effect Campaign doesn’t try to reach their customers through persuasion; rather, they take the situation and turn it into something lighthearted and fun – something that will remain embedded in the minds of the viewers. And honestly, just from all of the attention they’ve received from their Axe Effect Campaign – including this heated debate – I’d say that they were pretty successful.

3) No, I don’t think that a parent company has the responsibility to uphold the same beliefs and values in all of their separate sectors. What I mean to say is, as a morally conscious human being, we should always strive to be the most honest and truthful people we can be. Having separate values and beliefs for each of the different sectors could easily be compared to telling one person one thing, and turning around to tell someone else the complete opposite. It would obviously be wrong, but we’re not obligated to do otherwise, just as a parent company isn’t obligated to uphold the same beliefs and values for each of their ‘kid companies’. As a company, their only concern and responsibility is to earn money. Anything that falls outside of this – whether it be moralities or values -- isn’t of much importance to the company. In any case, I don’t particularly agree that Axe and Dove have opposing views. Dove tries to deliver the message that beauty takes no particular form and exists within each and every one of us. A contradictory campaign would be an advertisement for plastic surgery or weight loss. In my opinion, all Axe does is sell their product – which doesn’t even contradict Dove’s Real Beauty campaign – by utilizing humour. If anything, Axe can be penalized for the vulgarity of their commercials, but for having opposing views to those of Dove’s Real Beauty campaign? – I hardly call advertising a deodorizing product a violation of ‘Real Beauty’.

Ads of the Past.

To be honest, I have no doubt at all that these ads were effective during the 50s and 60s. Yeah, it’s true that when I first glanced at them, I couldn’t help but imagine what these people were thinking in creating such ridiculous ads, but really, after getting through the initial 5 minutes of shock and disbelief, I looked in deeper and remembered that this is over fifty years ago we’re talking about. Obviously, if we saw these ads floating around today, the reactions of the viewers would be very much different from how they were fifty years ago, but that only shows us how much society’s changed over the passage of time.

Let’s take a look at the first ad for example: a woman stands in front of an incredibly large pile of food with the words “EAT! EAT! EAT! AND ALWAYS STAY THIN!” blazoned across the top of the poster. Clearly, that’s one thing that hasn’t changed in these fifty years – people are still as concerned about their weight and body size as ever. I’m sure all of the people during that time period who were bothered by their own body size (virtually everyone) would’ve had their eyes glued to the poster at this point. What catches my attention the most, however, is the irony in the message to the right of the image: “FAT, the enemy that is shortening your life, BANISHED!” Okay, yeah, obesity is becoming an increasingly large issue throughout the world, but when it comes down to ‘shortening your life’, what could be more lethal than having a worm squirming inside of your intestines, taking all of your nutrients and POSSIBLY EVEN MIGRATING TO YOUR BRAIN WHERE THEY COULD TAKE OVER YOUR ENTIRE BODY!!!!!!!!!! Okay, so maybe not, but that doesn’t lessen the danger and risk of swallowing tape worms!
The next ad promotes a brand of cigarettes called Tipalet. Just by looking at the image of a man exhaling smoke into the woman’s face, it’s obvious that this advertisement tries to entice the viewers through romantic or sexual appeal. This aspect of the ad doesn’t deviate much from what’s seen today, where sexuality is becoming increasingly exploited in advertising, but what really falls out of the norm of modern ads, however, is the message “Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere.” What’s surprising isn’t in the message itself; it’s how blatantly the advertisers delivered this point to the viewers. The thing is, even today, women are constantly being displayed in music videos and movies as sexual objects. The difference is that, however much we objectify women, the idea we try to project on the surface is that women and men are of an equal status. These ads from the 50s and 60s that blatantly display gender injustice, however, show that branding women as inferior creatures who ‘followed’ men around was an accepted and established fact in society. It only goes to show how much humans and the definition of justice have evolved over time. I have no doubt at all that if this slogan were to be circulated in today’s society, hundreds of feminists and gender justice committees would instantly come rushing to the advertisers demanding for the immediate removal of the ad.

As for the next ad, I really have no idea as to how it would have influenced anyone into buying their product, which judging by the ad, is lard. All of the ads were pretty ridiculous, but this is probably the only one out of the four that makes me wonder if the advertisers were joking. Especially after reading everyone's responses to the ‘Taxing Pop’ video, I would’ve thought that the idea of consuming lard would’ve been more of a punishment than anything. The heading is even more ridiculous – “They’re happy because they eat lard!” What, so there’s no explanation as to why the consumption of lard would make people happy? No further proof or evidence to back up this false claim? What kind of ad is this!? – or even more, What kind of people would be so easily persuaded into purchasing lard because of this extremely unreasonable and far-fetched ad!?

The last advertisement promotes ‘Camels’, another brand of cigarettes. The company attempts to reach its customers by claiming that doctors smoke this brand of cigarettes more than any other brand. First and foremost, the ad doesn’t offer any additional information regarding the statistics (More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette!) which makes me doubtful as to how accurate this information could be. Not only would that cause consumers to doubt the credibility of that company, but it would also be, not to mention, ILLEGAL. Alright, so supposing that the information provided was correct – does that really make a difference? Just because Camels are ‘The Doctor’s Choice’, it doesn’t give me the impression that they’re any less lethal than other brands of cigarettes. Cigarettes are cigarettes; no matter what brand, they’re still as harmful and likely to cause damage to the human body.

Judging by these ads, there’s no doubt about it that society’s progressed over the past fifty years. With time, we evolve: as humans continue to become more knowledgeable day by day, it’s inevitable for our society’s views on morals and beliefs to undergo constant changes. In spite of the fact that we live in the same place and speak the same language as the people who were once persuaded by these advertisements, the difference in time and education really acts as a boundary between our culture and theirs’.

Hey, guess what? I can see you...

Unquestionably, Google has created an application that has raised the interest of many Canadians. Already, there have been concerns about the violation of privacy associated with this 360 degree photographic map. How can Google deal with the legal issues and privacy concerns that are brewing up as a result of this controversial innovation? Google has made several of changes in response to these concerns, but honestly, I’m sure we’re all doubtful as to how much improvement these slight alterations can provide. However, with all the negatives involved in the introduction of a new invention come the many benefits; this invention will undeniably bring us much convenience in the future.

To be perfectly honest, I’ve been spending the past half hour or so fooling around with this new application. In just that amount of time, I’ve already searched through my own address, places I might be found on a daily basis and most of my friends’ addresses as well (Sorry, guys). This application is truly the easiest thing to use. No complications, no confusing steps, nothing that would make it too difficult for even a three year old to use; it’s the same thing as the other features of Google Maps with the sole exception that the landmarks serve as much better visuals to direct someone from one place to another than the typical lines and symbols. Moreover, it’s fun. I don’t mean that in the sense that I rush home from school all giddy and excited that I can search up all the addresses of my classmates ... no, that’d be rather frightening, actually. What I mean is that people will want to initially browse around the maps looking for possible pictures of themselves or maybe see how their house might look from the eyes of a stranger. The novelty and freshness of it is definitely what attracted me to the site, and aside from all the privacy concerns, I was actually really impressed and fascinated with the map of photographs Google had compiled.

However, there are undoubtedly many concerns regarding the privacy and security of the public. With regards to social networking sites like Facebook, people generally don’t like having pictures of themselves uploaded onto the internet without their consent, let alone an entire composition of them. Google has taken images of people without even notifying them, and I don’t know about you, but I would definitely hate to stumble upon a picture of myself on Google Maps. Recently, Google has been attempting to address the privacy concerns of the public by blurring out all faces and license plates. One, there are obviously some glitches in Google because not all of the pictures have been blurred out. Second, they’ve reacted too slowly; many of the most embarrassing pictures have already been pointed out before Google stepped in. If you type in “Embarrassing Street Views” into the Google search engine, hundreds of sites with a list of the ‘worst photos’ will show up. I even came across this photo of a man picking his nose openly on a bench. His face is so clear and recognizable in this picture that I wonder how he can have the courage to even step out on to the streets. Society has definitely been evolving through time – from television celebrities to YouTube celebrities … and now Google Street View celebrities, too! With the invention of all these internet applications, it’s undeniable that we’re gradually losing more and more of our privacy and personal space.

Although I realize that many privacy issues are involved with this invention, I can’t say that I really oppose of it. Yes, it’s disconcerting that all this technology is giving us less privacy than we want, but at the same time, we have to realize that this is the price of our convenience. We want to keep the Google Street View application because it provides easy and recognizable directions to our destinations, but at the same time, we don’t want them to violate our privacy. The truth is, there are advantages and disadvantages that come with every new invention, and unfortunately, the loss of privacy is just going to have to be an accepted fact that comes hand in hand with the convenience of the application.