As time has changed and technology has become more accessible, the world of Journalism has shifted. Journalists are delivering news through different social platforms, which means it’s not just about newspapers anymore. For this news critique assignment, I analyzed a podcast, a news web story, and tv news station to truly see how well the public is informed through different platforms in modern society. The hosts of the podcast, Pod Save America, are four guys who really care about what is going on in the U.S. These guys present the facts and story in a light-hearted way. There was cursing, but not an obscene amount. The start of the show was about highlighting the company that was sponsoring the episode. I have noticed in the past that podcasters refrain from mentioning the sponsor right away, in fear that the audience will click away. Typically podcasters wait for commercial breaks to mention the sponsor. I think that Pod Save America saved some time for their conversations by mentioning the sponsor in the beginning, even if there was a risk of losing listeners. The sound throughout the whole episode was clear, and the only natural sound I could hear was whenever the guys would touch their shirts or the table. Before the conversation started, they listed exactly what they were going to discuss in the episode, in the order that they were planning. I appreciated the organizational skills because it was beneficial for listeners who wanted to listen to a specific story and for production purposes. The topic of discussion was heavily focused on Kavanaugh’s potential position in the Supreme Court. All members of the podcast were speaking, which gave a comfortable feel for the listener. Some podcasts have one host speaking over the rest, which sounds like you are listening to a one woman/man show. Overall, the episode was well done, from the audio to the comedic hosts. I enjoyed the presentation and will be listening again. Moving to the written part of journalism, web stories, I went with a well-known publication, New York Times. I read a story about Kavanaugh because his position in politics is a topic that is all over news platforms. I personally like the New York Times because of their reputation and reliability. There were different formatting styles throughout this piece. Instead of having multiple paragraphs right at the start, the story was separated with bullet points to convey the order of events and photos that captured what was happened. The story was detailed and well written for being published the same day the story took place. Tweets and other outside platforms were linked to this story, creating more traffic to the article, which is beneficial for the journalist and publication. The issue that was being discussed was hard to read. There are multiple women coming forward to testify against Kavanaugh, and news publications are making sure the public is informed as quickly as possible. New York Times continuously present their stories in an equal way, favoring both sides, and presenting facts for both parties. Nothing to note that was negative about the way the story was written or edited. I do not favor a specific news broadcast, but I have been watching Fox and CNN throughout my childhood. CNN is more liberal and Fox aligns themselves with the conservative party. Analyzing CNN and Fox, one can tell that there are clear similarities. There is more than one host and there are multiple conversations about the topics that are being discussed. I am currently watching CNN, on the T.V. and I am viewing how the hosts are delegating who speaks. Throughout the segment, there are headlines constantly running along the bottom of the screen saying “Breaking News” or facts about stocks or any political matter that is currently happening. I’ve noticed that this type of news is traditionally on all news stations, but since CNN is “political” an audience member would expect to see more about current political events. Currently, President Trump is in the spotlight on CNN. The shots are clear and consist of a single individual speaking with other individuals that are not present at the studio. This tactic gives the viewer the ability to see these bodies together, without being together in the present. There is a lot of natural sound due to where the mic is clipped on the hosts. A quick move of the jacket, the audience can slightly hear it. Since this is life, there is not a lot of room to edit those sounds out. Since CNN is a large platform, there are no technical errors during their shoot. The storytelling to me feels argumentative, which is common, but the whole segment consists of the hosts going back and forth on their opinions on the matter. I am again, not typically on these news platforms because of how one-sided they can be. Production wise, CNN knows what they are doing in regards to the audio and shots. The shots are clear and move to each speaker at an appropriate time. The viewer doesn’t feel like they are watching a tennis match. It is interesting to see how there are little things, like audio, natural sound and types of cameras that are used can really make any content more enjoyable. After viewing and analyzing multiple news platforms, I can easily see that I enjoy podcasts over visually watching people discuss important matters. Why is that? As a consumer and as someone who values sounds, I can connect more with the content when there are little to no distractions. When I analyzed the tv news platforms, there were so many things that were happening all at once, my mind wasn’t able to function. When I analyzed the simple web story, I was able to focus a little more, even though photos would break up my reading throughout the piece. Lastly, analyzing podcasts and paying attention to the production behind how it is all made, it makes the most sense to stick to simple audio and tell a story that way, in my opinion. Luckily, there are so many platforms for viewers and listeners to choose from. Soon there will be more.
What's Next?
From my personal blog
Focusing on the representation of women in media, how will I make an impact and make a change? Realizing the number of sexual innuendos that lies in the music, T.V., and movies that I enjoy makes me sick. Yet, I still take part in enjoying this form of media. Growing up I never felt like I was being represented incorrectly. I know now that I felt that way because of how society conditioned me to view the women I saw in movies and in commercials. Today, I have seen countless ads that are for women, lifting them up instead of tearing them down. In the year 2017, women of power have helped guide women to stand their ground against the media’s perception of the female body.
An example is with Beyonce, a popular musician, who uses her voice and position of power to shine a light on issues like police brutality. She took back the power that media has by showcasing her views at the halftime performance during the Super Bowl. The companies that have media ownership were not happy, even worse, many were disgusted. There was a large audience that appreciated what she did and what social movements she stands for. Women have taken the streets and have protested for many different reasons.
Like Beyonce, there are countless artists and actors that are for women. Music has changed, especially by female artists, that give women more respect. There still is sexist music being produced, but having a couple artists change the game is making an impact. Sally Hanson, a nail polish company, released a commercial titled "Shetopia". A distant reality, hopefully, that has women in different gender roles. I laughed the first time I watched it because the commercial had women in powerful leadership roles, like the president of the United States. I watched the commercial over and over again until I felt that this really could be obtained in my lifetime. Why not?
Another commercial that had an impact this year was one from Always, a tampon company. This commercial had men, women, boys, and girls talk to the camera one by one. The person behind the commercial told the actors to do actions like "Throw like a girl" and "Fight like a girl". The men, women, and boys did the typical, stereotypical, action for each thing the person said. I was surprised when the young girls went in front of the camera. The young girls did exactly what the person behind the camera told them what to do. They didn't see the stereotype that everyone else thought to be true. Strange or heartbreaking?
These commercials and the music that artists are creating have pushed our society to view women differently. Some cannot go against what they have always known, but others are willing to change. I am excited to see what 2018 has in store for women in media and women everywhere.
Sex Sells
From my personal blog
How does sex sell? Media uses sexual innuendos and sex appeal to lure in their target audiences to purchase a certain product or have a small control of the content that is fed to them. Identifying the motives that the media has when it comes to representing women is important. The motive behind the intense and eye-catching displays of women as sex symbols is clear and simple, it is all about the money. Money is constantly poured into ads, movies, and television in hopes that there will be an increase in views and profit. Women are mainly used as bait for the buyer and the viewer because sex sells. The motives behind mainstream media’s portrayal of women are clear and are somehow socially correct. Women, without a doubt, have experienced the effects that commercials and films of risque women can have in many ways. This includes, catcalling, sexual assault, verbal assault, rape, and violence. It is interesting to look at the advertisements from various outlets like fast food companies, cologne companies, alcohol companies, video games, and clothing lines companies that help accomplish the sexualization of women.
Axe commercials are selling the idea to young boys that if they purchase their cologne, women will be begging to have sex with them. Commercials that Axe produces is socializing young boys to think that they are in control and that women are another thing to obtain in their lives. The famous Carl’s Jr. commercials have women dressed half naked, laying on cars, soaking wet, while they are taking a huge bite out of a burger. It must be true when people say that the best way to get to a man’s heart is through his stomach. Ironically, these types of products do not need these objects, like women, to entice their viewers. Since sex sells well in this industry, the amount of money these companies receive is baffling, especially that their target audiences are primarily men. Through these advertisements, media is showing men that it is okay to view women as objects and increases patriarchy. These companies are programming and conditioning men to think that they are in full control when it comes to women.
When did this conditioning begin? Looking back, one can see how the sexualization of the female body. From the beginning of time, women have been trying to achieve the "ideal" body and the feeling of acceptance among their peers. This way of thinking can be traced all the way to the present day. When women are vulnerable and insecure, there are people that take advantage of that way of thinking. Starting closer to the present, in the 20s women were trying to "wash away" their insecurities. There were ads for bath salts, scrubs, and creams that would help women try to slim down. Looking back at those ads, one can see that it is impossible for those products to work. This was the start of promoting products that appealed to a certain demographic, women. As time goes on, the demographic is aimed towards men In the 50s, household appliances were booming. There were ads based on women using and promoting products. Some of the ads were aimed towards women, but one could see that the media was also showing men that what they were selling was for them too. There have been ads for Folgers coffee that shows a woman being spanked by her husband for making a bad cup of coffee. Another famous ad is from Volkswagen, where they show a woman's head on an animal skin rug with a man standing above her. The messages that these big companies were sending to their audiences was clear and sexist. Women were now being viewed as submissive and told that their roles were only found in the kitchen.
As time goes on, the ads that media was producing became more sexual. Since media was letting their male audiences know that they were in control and that they can have whatever they wanted when they wanted, why couldn't they have more of the female body? By the time the 80s came around, women were stripped and oiled for commercials They were used as bait for the male audiences. The sexual innuendos were at an all-time high at this time because that was what the time called for, according to the ads. This was a big jump for the concept of "sex sells". Before this, there were small hints of the concept by providing women in unusual or submissive roles throughout media. Now, it is out of control.
From the early 2000s to the present day, the sexualization of women has been at an all-time high. Some feel that the commercials they see are borderline "pornographic", which means it is actually pornographic. There seem to be no lines for media to cross over. With these ads still at large, women, especially young girls, are taught to view their own bodies as an object. An object that men will follow and want. Is this what the media wants? The answer is sad yes. More sex means more money for media. That is why sex sells.
"Nasty Women" use Facebook too
From my personal blog
Ever thought of how fast a group can gather through the power of the Internet? It can start with a tweet, a YouTube video and simply a Facebook post. Let me tell you, it's almost instantaneous. When an idea goes viral, there is no going back. The Women's March on Washington in 2017 is a crystal clear example of how the Internet and digital media can cause a group to come together to produce democratic participation. It all started with one woman who created a Facebook event page, calling all women to band together to march on the day after Trump's inauguration. This page was created by Teresa Shook, a woman who was among many who were upset about the finalization of Trump's presidency. Like many, the feeling of betrayal and absolute shock covered the population in sorrow that rebuked President Trump. Where did this feeling of resentment come from? Many have felt it before, especially women of color. For some, like me, their eyes were open to the misogynistic world around them during the past election. Hearing a candidate tear the image of a woman apart by stating it was only "locker room talk" was not a candidate that many could not get behind. The talk of ending Planned Parent Hood and constricting women's rights caused Trump to only fuel the fire that would soon erupt. The organized march that took place on November 8th was an example of how good digital media is to unite different walks of life. One the initial Facebook group page was created, word spread, women clicked 'joined' and many more group pages were forming. There were 673 Sister Marches that went on alongside the originally planned march, plus the amount of attendees is estimated to be 4,946,422 according to the Women's March official website.
hat were these women trying to accomplish? Each attendee each came for a different reason. Whether it was for women rights, the LGBTQ+ community, the anti-Trump and "For Her" supporters, each individual made a statement. They were enforcing a change in the democratic system. Their voices were heard and so were their feet as they stomped throughout the streets. Many well-known celebrities and activists came to support the march. Spoken word was delivered by actor Ashley Judd, powerful speeches by America Ferrera, Scarlett Johansson and Alicia Keys. There was one speaker whose appearance started a fire in the young and old women in the crowd. Gloria Steinem long-time feminist and writer came to give a speech, an encouragement to those who were keen on listening.
The question, to be frank, is who was listening? The march was seen and experienced by those who attended, but where was the news coverage? How were there voices supposed to be heard? There was a divide on news broadcasting that day because of the other event that was taking place at the same time. Trump and his family were heading to the National Prayer Service that was being held across town and Fox News was covering it. To be fair, the big broadcasters, CNN and MSNBC were covering the march. Fox was there, but many noticed how there was rare on the scene coverage whenever Fox decided to shoot the event. Some say that they didn't want to realize the reality, the impact that the march was made on the democratic system. It's plain and simple, participation rocks the boat. Trump didn't even bother to acknowledge the commotion that was brewing beneath him. That only fuels the fire.
So, where do the women and men who marched go from here? Luckily the journey is not over, there is so much to be done. The participation and the rage have just begun for my generation. It's time for the women who feel affected by the Glass Ceiling, the classic Tampon Tax, and the constant cat calling to rise up and let our voices be heard. Will it be through another Facebook page or will it be from a simple tweet? Regardless of how it is done, when an idea sparks a fire in people, there will be a change that is too hot to handle. Don't underestimate a group, especially a group of NASTY WOMEN.