We've all heard about the scandal surrounding athletes like Tiger Woods and Ben Roethlisberger. We've also heard that despite their more than questionable behavior and apparent disregard for women, Nike has not dropped their endorsement deals with these two.

In an article from the New York Times, Timothy Egan brings to light that Nike is sending the wrong message by continuing to sponsor two men even after their string of infidelities, sexual assault cases and general indiscretion have long since overshadowed their successful athletic careers.

Why is Nike glorifying two men that obviously have no idea how to treat women? There is no arguing that these two are excellent athletes, but should that take precedence over their character?

Why doesn't Nike strike a deal with one of the hundreds of amazing female athletes instead of merely supporting those that degrade women? What kind of message is Nike sending by continuing to work with those like Woods and Roethlisberger while cavalierly disregarding many world-class athletes that are women? Egan believes that Nike is saying, "It’s O.K. for a buffoon of a man to disrespect women, so long as he continues to throw a football well."

So do we really want one of American's most popular brand names saying that it is not only okay to disrespect women but also to ignore them? Our country has come so far regarding the issues of equality and sexism but, sometimes, it does not appear to have come far enough.

"Ms. Moore’s situation is both odd and typical, Mr. Schumacher said. 'Middle-aged women can have huge careers on television but not as much in movies. It’s like they celebrate you when you’re the pretty young thing, then there is a dead zone until menopause, when they rediscover you and give you an Academy Award.'"

Demi Moore, now a wife to Ashton Kutcher, has returned to the big screen after a time of rest for the sake of her children. Because Moore was once portrayed on screen as G.I. Jane, Jennifer Steinhauer wrote an article for the NYTimes about how this mother put her children first.

The fact of the matter is that our culture is not career-woman friendly-- not nearly as much as it claims to be. But because of the large push against this attitude, it is not very domesticated-woman friendly either. Women are often caught in the middle of trying to gain recognition for the work they do during their middle age, but also trying to raise a respectable family out of motherly love.

The article works at making Moore sound approachable but also very wise. She believes that she made the right choice in taking time off for her kids-- and apparently everyone else also approves.

"'She’s happily married, her kids are grown and seem fabulous, and she’s very active in politics,' Mr. Schumacher said. 'So let her be Demi Moore.'"

Click here to view article

Gina

In the article “The Mean World Syndrome”, the author talks about the multiple adolescent shootings that have occurred throughout the years such as the Columbine High School shooting, Virginia Tech and other killings in Arkansas, Kentucky and Illinois. What could have affected these people, these adolescents, to do such horrific acts?

A possible answer came in the form of the ‘mean world syndrome’, as offered by Sprague. Sprague is a co-director of the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behaviour. He says that by viewing heavy amounts of violence and cruelty through the media such as movies and video games it can “become their reality”. There is too much violence in the media, it enforces an unbalanced view of what is really going on.

To support this, Gerbner and his Cultivation theory state that heavy media use can cultivate attitudes that are more consistent with the TV world than the real world. Heavy violence watching can homogenize or level a person’s perception of actual violence that goes on in the world. It is as though the perception is blended with the raised level of violence shown on TV and the actual lower level that exists in the world. This is the basis of the mean world syndrome.

Resonance can also help influence an individual’s susceptibility to violence. That is, if a person’s environment is similar to the TV’s representation of the world, then they will have stronger feelings towards it. It will become more realistic for them because it is similar to what they live through every day. This can lead to first and second order effects. First order effects are those that are generalized views of the world. These are basically emotions that come from watching violence or crime-filled TV such as fear, anxiety or paranoia. These first order effects can lead into the second order effects, or the attitudes held about violence or crime. Such attitudes can show themselves through thoughts on crime punishment or acceptance of law enforcement brutality. These in turn can be the foundation to an individual’s actions.

It is important to remember that the mean world syndrome did not cause these adolescents to commit these horrific acts. There can be multiple factors that could contribute to influence these people to act in a certain manner. Correlation does not prove causation. But the mean world syndrome provides a plausible factor in negatively influencing our youth.

~Kimberly

Nike came out with a new 30-second Tiger Woods ad recently. In it, a mute Woods stares blankly at the camera. Speaking from the hereafter, his father, Earl, says: “I want to find out what your feelings are. And did you learn anything?” Nike refused to offer context for Earl Woods’s words. When did he say it? What were the circumstances? He sounds disappointed in his son when he made these comments, but what had Tiger done? Earl, who died in 2006, couldn’t be addressing his son’s scandal. How deep did Nike dig to find these paternal nuggets to justify their use in an ad that debuted less than 24 hours before Tiger teed off Thursday at the Masters? And why did the son consent to having his father’s words repurposed to push no just a personal message, but also Nike Golf? The last image of the ad is the swoosh. Natch.

“Did you learn anything?” Earl Woods asks. A valuable question, and one that his son has attempted to answer in his no-questions news conference in February; his brief interviews with ESPN and the Golf Channel last month; and his pre-Masters news conference on Monday. But the answer to the father’s question appears to be that serial philandering and addiction rehab can be positioned as a commodity – and that you can roll it out in phases leading to the Nike amendment to the 12 steps: a TV commercial. Nike wants Woods to reclaim some sort of moral high ground so that he can return to regularly representing the company and the golf division that he is crucial to. But an ethical authority Woods owned – undeserved as it turns out to have been – was lost amid the revelations of his many affairs all the tawdry text messages and the Vanity Fair takedown that starred four mistresses in various provocative poses. If Nike felt it had to interrupt the conversation before Wood’s return to play, it should have given him his pal Charles Barkley’s old slogan: “I am not a role model.” Modeling occurs simply by watching others, without any direct reinforcement for learning, and without an overt practice. So with his championships, his scandals/mistresses, as he apologized, this recent ad from Nike – what should be America’s view on Tiger? Dominant American ideas and ideals serve as resources for program development, even when the planners are unaware of them, much as we all take for granted the air we breathe is incorporated as symbolic representation of America society, not as liberal portrayals.

Nike may have thought it was barging into the Masters at an appropriate time, on the eve of Wood’s return to competitive golf. But on Wednesday, as ESPN carried the par-3 contest from the Augusta National Golf Club, Woods was nowhere to be seen, among family-oriented elders like Jack Nicklaus or contemporaries like Phil Mickelson. Having betrayed his wife, Woods may have wanted to stay away from the course, where golfers and their kids had great fun. But showing up at a friendly get-together would have given him far more good will than using his father his return from ignominy. Maybe his fans would have seen a big smile Wednesday – not a Nike-made expressionless face – when Arnold Palmer sank a long birdie putt on the ninth hole.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/sports/golf/08tv.html?ref=media

__Andrew____

Kotex has re-vamped the feminine care brand once again. Ladies, you might have seen that little black box recently on the shelves next to all the white and light blue boxes when shopping for your tampons, pads, or panty liners. This little black box filled with brightly colored wrapping is part of Kotex new look and their ads and website are a response to the lack of information provided to women and ridiculous past ads that have shown in the past.

These ads have been both parody like in the new commercial of a girl expressing her feelings about her period with clips of past commercials depicting what she is discussing she opens with, “How do I feel about my period? I love it.” Throughout the commercial she sarcastically shares with the viewer that “Usually, by the third day, I really just want to dance,” which then continues and after in text it states, “Why are tampon ads so ridiculous?” This ad to the right is a new ad released this year to promote their new U line from Kotex.

This new line from Kotex is changing the meaning of having a period, what it’s really like, how a woman is feeling, at least in the advertizing world. Women know but now they don’t have to watch an obnoxious ad of a girl twirling in the fields in her white spandex. Who does that on their period?!

This new line, essentially an apology and major correction for past feminine care ads, is a bold new step towards educating, being truthful, and transparent in advertising. On the website, UbyKotex.com, shows viewers anatomically correct pictures, helpful guides, important information for both young and older women, what a period is, and of course… the products.

Media scholars tell us that ads are geared fundamentally to sell. Sell. Sell. Sell. And various ads even demonstrate to us that we can actually purchase happiness and satisfaction by buying their product. This ideology and selling tactic is apparent in most of the past commercials for tampons, illustrating women having the time of their life while on their period, showing that once you have purchased this product your period will be wonderful. Kotex has challenged this ideology through past ads such as their adaption of the universal red dot in 2000, being quite frank and making the word period useable and identifiable to all women worldwide. Media scholars have said in the past that advertising promotes only specific values, geared to private life rather than a globalized message, yet Kotex and leading brands are beginning to change this idea. A need that all women have, though it is quite personal too, is to deal with her menstrual cycle and that is universal. Kotex fits. Period.

So what does this mean for you? Why care? Advertisers have always been tuning into their audiences but perhaps we are beginning to see more humble and honest ads. Kotex has opened its doors to look at this business critically with its audience and consumers. A leading product is also crossing over to teach their consumers and is quite frank which is helpful and shows the consumers that a company can be honest too. Can we expect to see similar honesty from other leading producers? Might this transparency begin to be the norm with other brands and product?

The articles used:

Rebelling Against the Commonly Evasive Feminine Care Ad

A new campaign for Kotex aims to send a message to women worldwide

Bill Carter recently wrote an article about CNN's plummet in ratings for the New York Times.

"CNN had a slightly worse quarter in the fourth quarter of 2009, but the last three months have included compelling news events, like the earthquake in Haiti and the battle over health care, and CNN, which emphasizes its hard news coverage, was apparently unable to benefit." This is particularly interesting because CNN prides itself in timely and engaging reporting about world news coverage.

"About the only break from the bad news for CNN was that March was not as bad as February, when the network had its worst single month in its recent history, finishing behind not only Fox News and MSNBC, but also its sister network HLN — and even CNBC, which had Olympics programming that month." Besides this being somewhat sad and pathetic, it also shows the shift that the media is making. Even television is becoming less popular than online news updates-- especially when it comes to world news.

Is all of this happening because people do not like hearing and seeing bad news? Are they too self-focused to listen to what's happening globally? No. CNN is just not offering what the public wants-- on principle. "CNN executives have steadfastly said that they will not change their approach to prime-time programs, which are led by hosts not aligned with any partisan point of view." Objectivity is the best thing for the public, but what if the public doesn't want it? At the expense of millions of viewers, CNN is holding steadfast. But who's to say what their true motives are? How can this possibly benefit them in the long-run?

"CNN has given no indication that any changes in its lineup are imminent, but recently announced that it would try a series of specials in a talk-show format at 11 p.m." Hopefully this will help. We might be witnessing the slow and painful decline of a dependable news source.

In 2007 there was a violent assault on Baghdad by the US Army that left several men dead. Recently, a website known as WikiLeaks released previously unseen footage of this fight.

WikiLeaks is a three year-old, volunteer-run site that, as the name might suggest, "posts classified and sensitive documents" according to Noam Cohen and Brian Stelter, authors of the New York Times article addressing this (to read entire article, click title above). On the WikiLeaks website (wikileaks.com) is numerous documents and things regarding issues such as 9/11, toxic waste dumping, Guantanamo Bay, etcetera. The releasing of this video is drawing much more attention to the website than it has had in the past.

This 38 minute video, along with the shortened 17 minute version that has been more widely viewed, features obviously graphic violence within this attack that the website calls "provoked" and has named the video "Collateral Murder".

This site seems to be intent on getting 'the real message' to the public and informing them of what is 'really' happening. "The site is not shy on its intent to shape media coverage", say Cohen and Stelter. Site co-founder Julian Assange considers himself to be an activist as well as journalist and asserts that he feels it is time for the media to upgrade and utilize the "high-tech investigative journalism" he and his fellow volunteers do.

If WikiLeak's purpose is to leak unreleased government "secrets", so to speak, in an attempt to better educate media consumers of the truths of our country, I would say they were doing a decent job, considering the lengths they must go to in order to retrieve much of that information. However, is their media, unlike much of mainstream media, unbiased? On that note I would say no. Why? Well, an example directly from this New York Times article states that "WikiLeaks did not merely post the 38-minute video, it used the label “Collateral Murder” and said it depicted “indiscriminate” and “unprovoked” killing". By using words such as these, they classify their documents, specifically this video, as something to be looked at with disdain. The site's editors are clearly telling their audience how they should feel about the clip, without actually saying 'we feel xyz towards this action or document and so should you'. Though perhaps it is not on purpose, media audience can still be easily swayed by this. On the other hand, should we hold the same opinions anyway? After all, it is a clip which depicts the killing of "our boys". To decide for yourself if this video should have been posted, if this site is a good idea, if all news should be more like this, and if the "Collateral Murder" video's content was unnecessary killing or not, view the video and other 'stolen government documents', as it were, on the WikiLeaks website.

Choosing what channels and outlets to take in media from can be very difficult and stressful for consumers. As I have mentioned above, even without meaning to media can be biased and can influence the thoughts of its audience because of it. I would suggest gathering your news updates from several different sources. This way, you can compare stories and hopefully be able to better formulate your own ideas and opinions regarding the headlines.

It's s sticky situation with WikiLeaks; aren't they essentially stealing government secrets, then broadcasting them for the world to see? Some things, not all but some, are better left unsaid and unseen. Not all journalism rules can apply to this new media either. Like the article states, whereas before judges could delay or stop the publication of some things, this "digital sphere" enables information to appear instantaneously. So consumers: 1) gather information from several sources to ensure you truly are getting the full picture, and 2) what do you think about this WikiLeaks- a good idea, to get the 'true stories' of what 'they' aren't telling us out there, or are they sticking their nose where it probably shouldn't be?

-Sheila

A lot of controversy has been around the idea that video games influence or encourage violent thoughts and behaviors, especially those of teenagers or children. Well, what about video games centered on the main character stalking and raping, yes that’s right raping, a young girl, her sister and her mother? I believe the line has been well crossed.

RapeLay, as discussed in Leigh Alexander’s article, is a Japanese video game that focuses on sexually groping and eventually raping three characters. The crime occurs in the subway as the player stalks his victim on the platform, sexually assaults the girl on the subway, and ultimately rapes her in the bathroom or in the park or some other given location. The player has to option of “prayer” which causes a gust of wind to lift up the girl’s skirt. While on the train, the player can actually grope the young girl, even while surrounded by other passengers who remain silent through the entire encounter. And finally, a “series of interactive rape scenes begin”.

The true horror lies in the fact that not only can the player rape the young victim, but the game actually portrays the crime as consensual intercourse! Based on the twisted fantasy of the main character, it is believed that the victim actually enjoys being attacked. After the rape, the player is left with three choices: a) stabbing the victim to death during sex, b) after impregnating the victim, force her to have an abortion, or c) if refusing the abortion from option b, the player commits suicide by throwing himself under a train.

The tragedy is that this actually occurs in Japanese subways where “64% of Tokyo women reported that they’d been groped on a train”. According to the 7 contextual features that can influence violence, talked about by Strasburger, Wilson and Jordan, certain features may enhance violent acts, such as the groping or eventual raping of more Tokyo women. If the reason for violence seems justified, just as the player believes that the women enjoy being attacked, then the act may become reinforced. It becomes morally acceptable. The consequence for the victim may be enough to diminish aggression by seeing the victim either murdered or the player commits suicide, but the option of abortion gives a less brutal outcome and thus an escape of any real abuse. Finally, desensitization of the severity of these attacks can occur because the individual playing the game may feel like this is a regular occurrence, and that it is acceptable in a way. If groping occurs on a subway, the individual will be less likely to intervene (just like the other passengers on the train shown in the game) and stop the act from happening.

RapeLay has been banned from America, and people believe that it will never be allowed or accepted here. But through the globalization of the Internet, it has spread to an online downloadable game that can be accessed, even more graphically than originally intended, by essentially anyone. The problem occurs when video games try to come out with stuff that is bigger and badder than ever before. But where should the line drawn and why does it have to be crossed in order to bring more attention to preventing the damaging effects of video games?

~Kimberly