America's Media Vs. the Rest of the World's Media

America's media is very self centered. Most other countries have their own media influences but most of the time this never reaches Americans because most Americans are not interested in these things so our media does not cover them. In other countries on the other hand, American media and influence is everywhere. When I was in France over the summer, most of the time when my family turned on the radio in the car, American music was played. I find it kind of annoying when my American friends cannot appreciate foreign productions just because they are not American. It makes it seem like Americans have some sort of superiority complex even though foreign media productions can be just as good as the best media productions in America. Even foreign news does not interest many Americans. The only reason that I am now more interested in current events that occur in other countries is that I've had to do current event write-ups for my history class every week. I find it somewhat disappointing that creations that appear on foreign media are ignored because of this superiority complex. For example when Gary Johnson was interviewed and asked about Aleppo, Syria, he had no idea what Aleppo even was. This is a little bit of an extreme example, but to a large degree it portrays this narcissism that American's have, that clouds the rest of the world from their view. I also think that American media influences foreign media and vice versa. I've found that foreign music often sounds a lot like mainstream American music, which could benefit the foreign artists because America has such a big influence on popularity. It is hard to determine which influenced the other because in America, it would be so easy for an American musical artist to copy the work of a foreign artist and label it as their own, because Americans don't pay attention to foreign music at all. There are so many talented musical artists from other countries that get ignored because of the American superiority complex in media. Some examples include Stromae, who has been recognized in America for his talent but is by no means widely known, MZ, and Nekfeu. All of these artists are French because even I am guilty of only paying attention to American media sometimes and my dad, who is an immigrant from France, is the one that exposes me to foreign musical artists a lot of the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cm-78-LqFY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIrI_MOfxG0
       

Anyone Can Become a Publisher Now

With the help of media, anyone with a device that connects to the internet can create content, just like I am right now. I think that this can aid creativity and originality, as well as hinder it. Since there is so much content and entertainment on the internet presented through different media outlets, it is difficult to get bored. It is so easy to get lost surfing the web because there are so many people that post content everyday. The same goes for news stories and books, although it is harder to publish a book. posting on the internet is so easy, so the amount of content available there is exponentially larger than the amount of books available, which is already a lot. there is also a large amount of media that is just repetitive and covers the same thing, which adds the unoriginal aspect of the large umbrella of media. The media can also be beneficial and aid creative minds because of the fact that anyone with a device that connects to the media can publish their work. For example, when Sylvester Stallone wanted to sell his script for the movie Rocky, he went to several studios to find one that would let him play the lead role for the movie and many of them declined his offer. eventually he found one that agreed to his conditions and the movie became extremely popular. it would have been so much easier if sites such as "Youtube" were around because anyone with a device that connects to the internet can create content on these sites. This can also cause problems within the creative community because with all of this content and media, valuable productions can be swept under the rug and things like click bait and advertisments can overcome the more insightful posts that more creative people make. There is so much content to see that it is difficult to distinguish yourself as a creator of content because your work will forever be compared to the work of others. There is too much to watch out for in terms of copyright and attempts at being original in creations, that it is difficult not to submit to mainstream media and post the same kind of things as most other content creators. sometimes I wonder what kind of things get swept under the rug that could have been the next big thing or could have been admired by many people if not for the content overload that media presents people with.

           

Coke Advertisement

In recent years, Coca-cola usually has advertisements that display bottles of coke that have peoples names on them, and say to share a coke with whoever has that name. I think Coca-cola usually appeals to our need for affiliation. The kind of message that I get from advertisements like the one pictured is that I will be friendly if I consume Coca-cola, or share Coca-cola. The drink is also very popular so, as mentioned in the video, "the persuaders", by PBS, Coca-cola consumers are in a tribe. I also get the feeling that the advertisement is getting people to believe that if they share Coca-cola, they will have a larger group of friends. Coca-cola is also personalizing their drink by putting mostly common names on their bottles. This makes a sort of challenge as well, because people constantly try to find their name on a Coca-cola bottle. If you can find a friend's name on a bottle then it makes it special for them, because it could have taken a while to find a bottle with their name on it. This also makes people feel as if they're part of some group and it makes Coca-cola have more of an ethos because they are connecting with their consumers. Consumers of Coca-cola connect Coca-cola to having fun with their friends, or meeting new people. Coca-cola uses the bandwagon advertising technique. Their catchphrase is "open happiness." This implies that since Coca-cola helps you make friends, you will be happy when you get to drink it. Coca-cola wants to make it seem as if having their product helps you make friends and that if you don't have Coca-cola, you won't have friends. This advertisement is probably aimed towards people that find it hard to make friends or that just want to be part of a group. These people believe that even just drinking it will make them be a part of a group. Giving people Coca-cola bottles that feature their names on them makes them look more meaningful so giving them one can seem more meaningful than giving them a generic bottle of some other brand, like Pepsi. I also think that Coca-cola uses the advertising technique of repetition. People always know what you mean if you refer to a "Coke." Coca-cola makes consumers associate the drink with happiness and fun times with friends.        

Blog Post About "The Persuaders"

In the video titled, "The Persuaders" that I watched along with all of my classmates, I found topics such as, the techniques of creating an ethos in advertisements, and narrow casting, interesting. In the video, they used Cheerios as an example for the ethos that companies create. The advertisement that they showed portrayed a baby and a grandma telling it a story with Cheerios. By using this heartwarming moment along with Cheerios, people associate Cheerios with cute moments like this. Cheerios really has nothing to do with a grandma telling her grandchild stories, but since the brand name was put in the video, people think of this when they buy their cereal. In the video, they also talked about how some advertisements are unclear about the product their selling and the risk that this can be to companies. They made an example out of the airline "Song" and the confusion that their advertisements created. When trying to create an ethos, companies sometimes try too hard to add meaning to their product, that the advertisement has little o no correlation with what it is trying to sell. According to Mr. Maxwell, "Song" ended up going out of business. This further proves that companies take huge risks, especially when they are advertising a new product that people don't already know about, when they don't explicitly state what the product is that they are selling. I found it interesting that companies can make it seem as if consumers are part of a special tribe if they have products from specific name brands. If you think about it, all the "hip" teens that wear Nike or Adidas, are kind of like a tribe because they all wear the same kinds of things. Because these products are so desirable in order for people to fit into tribes, name brands like Nike can hike up their prices and make their products sell for much more money than generic brands. In the video, they also talk about narrow casting and how companies use data about individuals to sell products to specific demographics. I found it especially interesting that companies can find ways to hide advertisements from some demographics while explicitly displaying them to others. They use voting season as an example of this. Potential voters are shown statistics and advertisement about the candidates based on what demographic that they fit into. Overall, the video, "The persuaders" was very insightful about advertising techniques.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/

How My Use of Media is Changing

I use media now mostly to connect with people and watch television shows or Netflix shows. sometimes, usually between classes if I have no messages, I will scroll through Instagram, or snap chat just to pass time. Almost every time, I will see a click bait title that says something about a celebrity or other and something interesting that they could have done. It doesn't even have to be something very believable about the person or topic that they are talking about, and I will usually want to see the story. The title is almost always used to hype up the bland story that the news source is about to present, or to take you through a series of advertisements. I used to use media almost exclusively to talk to friends or find news sources and articles on research papers I had to write. Now media has become a way to constantly entertain myself without necessarily having to actually speak with people around me, and instead being able to communicate with certain people that are not around me at the moment. In the past, when I did find articles for homework, I would usually find more click bait titles and even posts that were posted by random people online and most of the time, I would believe the title or the post and go on with my day. Now when I see posts or titles saying things like, "5 Ways You Could be Poisoning Yourself Right Now!" I am more skeptical and I usually don't believe anything that the post is saying. Sometimes I even see things that are commenting about things I've researched before and that I know aren't true and I still see plenty of people commenting on that post taking about how "scary" or "amazing" the post is and I just get frustrated because of ow oblivious they can be. I usually ignore titles that I know will bring me to another website or to advertisements and I just focus on the website that I am reading at the moment. Other than for school work, I usually use media to entertain myself with television shows and connecting with friends rather than looking at "10 Things That Will Help You Lose 5 Pounds Every Day!"

          

Comparing Two Articles Written About Donald Trump's Tweets

I read Two articles written about Saturday Night Live's skit on Donald Trump's tweets. One of the articles was from a french news source called LeFigaro and the other was from an american news source called RollingStone. On LeFigaro, they called SNL's skit an "imitation" of Donald Trump. On RollingStone, they wrote that SNL's skit was "teasing" Donald Trump. "Imitation" has more of a denotative meaning because in the SNL skit, an actor literally imitated Donald Trumps scandals and tweets. describing the SNL skit as "teasing" Donald Trump makes the whole situation seem more lighthearted and playful. Later in the RollingStone article, they describe the skit as "mocking" Donald Trump. This makes the situation seem a bit cruel rather than actors innocently poking fun at Donald Trump's tweets and scandals. On the french news source, LeFigaro, the comments from the writers was more neutral towards the SNL skit while on the American news source, RollingStone, the writers were making fun of the situation and Donald Trump's reaction towards the skit, commenting on how ironic it was that Donald Trump criticized the skit on Twitter given that the skit made fun of his continual usage of Twitter. On the comment section for readers of LeFigaro, many people commented things like "poor America" or generally about how funny the skit was. I find it interesting how the French news source was more neutral in their wording (other than the readers' comments) than the American news source. Its almost as if Americans are just making fun of their own situation while the rest of the world seems a bit more concerned for the decisions that Donald Trump will be making while in office. LeFigaro also commented on how popular Saturday Night Live is. I think that this could be due to the fact that France is not always that familiar with american television shows, but it could also be trying to make the article look more important. It is interesting to see how different media sources, as well as different nation's news sources, respond to current events in America that relate to Donald Trump or other political scenes. It is also funny to see how the general public from these two sources react differently to the same story.

http://video.lefigaro.fr/figaro/video/les-imitations-qui-ne-plaisent-pas-a-trump/5235210762001/

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/see-snl-tease-donald-trump-over-twitter-habit-w453693