Thursday, January 28, 2016

Blog Assignment One- Let's Get This Show On the Road...


I have chosen to discuss Case Study 2-A (pgs. 37-38) and Case Study 3-F (pg.73). Both, in my opinion, are extremely relevant issues that span the generations yet they both pose ethical questions that I am sure everyone reading will want to weigh in on. I felt most passionate about 2-A just because the beginning ideals seemed so ludacris. I could not believe that any “educated” person was capable of saying the things that Missouri Senate Candidate Ted Akin did in “Can I Quote Me on That?” by Chad Painter (Eastern New Mexico University).
 
 
Akin apparently made the claim that a woman could get not get pregnant via “legitimate rape”; his reasoning was the female body knows if a pregnancy is not desired so it has a way of blocking sperm. I laughed so hard, I almost cried. This essentially negates the need for any form of birth control if the woman participating in intercourse knows that she is not ready to conceive a child. Really, that is what Akin is saying but Mitt Romney (R) put him in his place by saying that this claim was not only “offensive” but “entirely without merit.”
 
Soon, it became a question if Romney had really used the words “offensive” and “entirely without merit.” I always was taught that if it is in quotations, it must be true but as I learned, there is such a thing as Quote Approval, which is used for politicos as high as the President. A battle between journalists and politicos soon ensued as they both battled for “power” and “control,” something I feel that they should have to share. Now, press access is extremely limited when it comes to specific political events because of quote alterations and he said/she said backlash.
 
The art of journalism has suffered due to those who are unwilling to share the truth; to quote properly and to leave behind any bias they may have. I do not think that we can base any political candidate solely on what their staff releases in statements and such because we know that, the President included, does have someone who writes the words he says. Who knows how much of it is from his heart or just to appeal to the people? That is for a different day and time.
 
Society complains that we are left in the dark when it comes to the real issues so if a piece were to be submitted for quote approval, there should be an asterisk attached to said writings. As writers, it is our responsibility to bring as much truth as we can to the mainstream and it is those who cannot adhere to set guidelines that should pay the price. The problem is that even well-respected journalists have sunk so low as to create quotes or misquote so unless citizens are following the politicians around day and night with a microphone and camera, we will never see the whole truth and that is just sad.

 
 
Then there is Case Study 3-F, “Was That an Apple Computer I Just Saw? A Comparison of Product Placement in U.S. Network Television and Abroad” by Philip Patterson (Oklahoma Christian University). The emphasis is really on product placement, which is the term I have come to know it as or “brand integration,” which was used by Hollywood. Products like car companies, foods and beverages have been used on television shows and it began to cause major backlash. Here’s why and it is really ridiculous, in my opinion. For a long period of time, letters on popular beverages and snacks were blocked out to avoid any legal issues with the companies.
 
Aquafina would lose the “A” or “q” and a Lean Cuisine could become a “Ean Cuisine.” The problem was that fans and viewers instantly recognized the packaging so it took away the anonymity. On top of that, popular shows like “Roseanne” felt that they could just use bags that said “chips” or cans that said “beer” and we would just look the other way; we didn’t. It never bothered me because I understood that we had commercials for a reason and using certain products could be subject to copyright infringement.
 
Between 2004-2005, 100,000 products were shown on television, up 28% and generating 1.88 billion dollars. After the close of the season, protests began among the writers for television shows, appropriately during “New York Advertising Week.” They wanted a piece of the billions and is anyone really that surprised? I see Blake Shelton’s Starbucks Coffee cup on “The Voice” and even though he may have whiskey in said cup, I start to crave a latte. Overseas, products were allegedly being placed in exchange for favors and we all know America would never do that (insert sarcasm here).
 
 
I like when my favorite shows use real products and in fact, I prefer it. I do not see why, in 2016, when food can be delivered to you by a truck that a hit show cannot show a Pepsi can or a Fruity Pebbles. As mentioned in the case study, if it works with the plot then go for it. There is the question of TiVo’s and DVR’s where we can forward through commercials but let me remind everyone, these services are not free. And as far as reality television, it seems a lot more real, even if it is slightly scripted, if there is an actual Evian or Fiji bottle not just water in the shape of a Fiji bottle. They have a very distinct shape.
 
 
With all this being said, I think that companies should be proud to be featured on television, as long as it is in a positive light. If one of overly genius men on “The Big Bang Theory” were to use a Toshiba laptop, I might consider getting one since these characters set the bar for smarts. Or gorgeous reality stars using a specific type of mascara. It is smart and it is time that we embrace brand integration and learn to love it because it is not going anywhere anytime soon!

No comments:

Post a Comment