is advertising good for society?

John Calfee and Dinyar Godrej face each other on the issue of whether or not advertising is good for society. Calfee says that it is good for society, while Godrej states that it actually is bad for society. I agree more with John Calfee in thinking that advertising is good for society, although Godrej does make a good case on why advertising is not good for society.

Dinyar Godrej states that advertising is bad for society when he states that, “Advertising is a bit of a compulsive liar” he continues to explain this theory of his by stating, “Advertising today has little to do with introducing a new product or describing an existing ones virtues. It has everything to do with images, dreams and emotions, stuff we are evolutionarily programmed to engage with but which is almost without exception in the ad biz fake” (141) While I agree with him in the sense that the marketing business tries to engage consumers and get them to buy their products by appealing to them in a certain angle that guarantees most will buy the product, yet I disagree that marketing isn’t inventing new products. I think that they may be the same idea of a product that was already invented but I think most times the new product has been altered to make it more efficient and better than the products existing in the market that do the same function if not what is the purpose of releasing it to the public if it’s the same thing as what’s already available. Where is the competition in that?

I agree with John Calfee, because although I think that marketing and advertisements do get us to buy products we don’t need, yet it does give us a choice or at least a sense of having a choice. I think that advertising is important to companies to get their product recognized and ultimately bought but also to get potential customers aware that there is a product out there that they want and this is the company selling it. Calfee states, “It routinely provides immense amounts of information that benefits primarily parties other than the advertiser” (131) he continues to state that “the ability to use information to sell products is an incentive to create new information through research. Whether the topic is nutrition, safety, or more mundane matters like how to measure amplifier power, the necessity of achieving credibility with consumers and critics requires much of this research to be placed in the public domain, and that it rest upon some academic credentials” (131-132) Calfee makes a good point that there are ads that are repetitive and useless, however not all of them are. I have seen ads on the television primarily after Haiti’s incident where famous people would advertise on commercials for people to be more prepared no matter where you live. They advertised having water, flash lights and a first aid kit, now this doesn’t always appear on TV or plastered on the streets, however I agree with him that there are useless ads but not all of them are useless.

The last quote that he says in his argument that makes me take his side is when he states, “the unremitting nature of consumer interest in health, and the eagerness of sellers to cater to consumer desires, guarantee that advertising related to health will provide a storehouse of telling observations on the ways in which benefits of advertising extend beyond the interests of advertisers to include the interests of the public at large”(132) I think that this is important, it shows that yes advertisements goal is to get money for the product and those that make it but advertisement can also be beneficial to the consumers. I have seen many ads on the television for Kaiser Permanente; I know that by doing that the company is making money by potentially getting new clients/new patients however they company is also doing good for the consumers by telling them how to get a hold of them and where they are located. Same goes for Walgreens, I have seen all over the place ads to go get the flu shot there, it’s good for them because brings them customers but does a service to the community to get shots locally and cheaper or even free. I see the points that both arguments are making however I have to agree more with John Calfee in the fact that advertisement does more good than bad.

RA 2

Fabiola Figueroa

 Ms. Andrews

Media, Politics and society

October 26, 2010

Introduction:

I am conducting a survey on my peers to see if we as a younger generation are truly informed. My main purpose is to see if the form of technology that we use has any correlation with how informed we are specifically on the California Governors race.

Hypothesis:  

I believe that while conducting this survey amongst my peers that I will find that all of the ones that use their cell phone or the internet to find out about the current events will be more informed. I also believe that in my survey it will show that the most used forms of technology are cell phones and the internet.

Method:

I conducted my survey through the internet, I sent several people the survey questions through a message on Facebook. This allowed me to send it to several people at once and receive several responses quickly. This made it faster to conduct my survey than if I were to have tried to do it in person.

Description: 

The survey was made up of six simple questions, all were multiple choice. The survey questions were broken down into three questions on technology and the last three on the governor’s race

1) How many hours a day do you use technology?

            A. 0-3 hours

            B. 4-6 hours

            C. 7-9 hours

2) What form of technology do you use the most?

            A. Computer

            B. Cell phone

            C. IPod

            D. Radio

3) What form of communication do you use to get information on current events?

            A. Newspaper

            B. Television

            C. Internet

            D. Radio

4) Pick one person running for the California Governor’s race?

            A. Jerry Brown

            B. Meghan McCain

            C. Meg Whitman

            D. George Clooney

5) Pick one way you can vote?

            A. Over the internet

            B. Over the phone

            C. by mail

            D. in person

6) Do you know when to vote?

            A. December 3^rd

            B. November 2^nd

            C. November 15^th

            D. October 31st

Result summary: 

After conducting my survey I noticed that most of the people that I surveyed were very informed. The ones that were informed were those that used their cell phones, internet or watched TV. I noticed that the higher percentage of people that knew when the election date was and at least one person running has said that they use the internet or phone with capability for the internet. The few that had no clue who were running or when the election was seemed more to have said they use their IPods more than any other form.

Conclusion: 

My hypothesis is correct, I was certain going into this survey that the majority of the people would get the answers right. I also assumed that those that said they used their cell phones or the internet would be the most informed, however that was never a guarantee. I was surprised to see how low some people were in their awareness and noted that the majority of those people had used their IPods. It is never absolute, yet it would seem now that the form of media more so then the time spent on using that media is the real factor on how informed someone is.

Are people better informed in the “information society?”

Mark Bauerlein stands for the no side, and Linda Jackson and her colleagues try to prove yes. Linda Jackson argues the side to the issue. Her article is titled “Does Home internet use Influence the Academic Performance, of Low-Income Children?”, Although she was trying to prove that people are better informed I found it odd that she would being by stating that her “findings were inconclusive” although this may be true to know that as the first thing she informs me as she tries to pursue me to believe her I must say it does the opposite. I start to think well if she doesn’t even know her point then why should I take her word for it. Even with that mishap she manages to state some good points, “the benefits of computer-based instruction are clearer for mathematics and science that they are for other subjects” she continues to state that “positive effects are more likely to emerge when technology is used to support the four fundamentals of learning; active engagement, participation in groups, frequent interaction and feedback, and connections to real-world contexts” I think that she in incorporating something that most people already know which if you give someone the tools to learn they are more likely to succeed. The argument continues to state that, “Having a home computer has been associated with higher test scores in reading” this would be a good thing if it weren’t followed by a statement stating that the survey could not be positive on this since they couldn’t monitor what was used on the computer. This makes me think that they haven’t proven anything, the students that have access to a computer and tools could be cheating while using the computer, the ones that are not using a computer could not really be doing worse just because of the factor of not having a computer. This entire argument to me is more about the possibility that the internet could potentially have some kind of effect however unknown what kind. It has not proven much, having a computer is associated with higher scores and “higher GPAs” but how can they be one hundred percent sure that this is true that having internet or not truly impacts a student’s education for better or worse. They assume that the ones that don’t have a computer are doing poorly because of this factor but don’t truly measure in other factors that could result with failure or success.

Mark Bauerlein, covers the no side. His article is titled, “The dumbest generation: how the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future” This article I thought proved more what the side they were representing was with facts unlike the first one that left me confused. The article states that, “young adults have absorbed digital tools into their daily lives like no other age group, grown up with more knowledge and information readily at hand, taken more classes, built their own web sites, enjoyed more libraries, bookstores, and museums” the quote continues to state, “the world has provided them extraordinary chances to gain knowledge and improve their reading/writing skills, offering financial incentives to do so, young Americans today are no more learned or skillful than their predecessors, no more knowledge, up-to-date, or inquisitive except in materials of youth culture. They don’t know any more history or civics, economics or science, literature or current events; they read less on their own both books and newspapers” the rant goes on to say “ Fewer books are checked out of the library and more videos. More kids go to the mall and fewer to the museum. Lunchroom conversations never drift into ideology but web photos pass nonstop from handheld to handheld”. I have some negative aspects to say about both sides and some positives too to begin the first article had no evidence to back anything they were saying so really didn’t mean anything, however they stated that their was a possibility that students with access to a computer and certain tools could do better in school, I agree with this, I think that technology has allowed us to move forward in the sense that it makes studying, getting access to information and people faster which in the end can help with your grades and knowledge. The second article I liked that it stated how we have information available immediately making it easier to advance in the technology world and with homework. I disagree when it states that we go less to libraries, museums and bookstores, I think that if students had the time now to go to these places more they would, I think many students go to the libraries especially in universities since they are booked with homework, just because when we go we don’t enjoy it due to other priorities like class does not mean we lack the interest to go to these places. I have to disagree with the last quote since just like they are quick to state that we know less or careless about subjects like history and the news does not make it so. There are young people that lack knowledge on certain items but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t care. If students now had the time to do those things I think they would, these surveys are not to old but they have to think that students are worked to the max during school hours and when time comes to relax they don’t think of going to a museum to learn more no they think I want to rest, sleep, turn on the tv and listen to noise. We are placed into this never ending cycle of wanting to but never having a chance to, and when we don’t we are condemned for not doing so. The section states that many students use the internet for fun and not to learn when I personally have seen so many doing work and stressing of deadlines which makes me wonder where these students are with so much free time to lounge. There is no time to lounge so to condemn us for not picking educational alternatives for our down time when we don’t even have down time is contradictory

RA #1

BBC Audience
PO Box 1922
Darlington DL3 OUR

BBC audience services,

I have currently been reading and looking at your website, and wanted to compliment you on your many achievements and also inform you of where I feel your site could do better. To begin I wanted to compliment you on the ability to manage a great news site, after observing your site a few days now I have noticed some positive aspects of your site. I like that your site has the news it presents to the reader in categorizes making it easier to find. Having a section for the general topics and individual stories within these categorizes slows the viewer to pick what they want to read before actually doing so. Having your stories categorized also provides space for extra sections that are not news but are still available for personal choice. The website manages to provide pictures that connect with a story in an enticing manor that ties in the picture with the story. Ads appear on your site but I would say that they are few, which doesn’t take away from the sites important news stories. The pictures and titles or your articles appear small and clumped together, however since you have titles that are thought provoking most of the time even if we were to skim through the site we are bound to stop and look at, at least one of your stories. The fact that the site gives the viewers the option of editing the site is more likely to get the viewer to stay longer on your site since it gives them the power to avoid things that could differ them from wanting to continue looking. The website took the time to incorporate other accessories like the weather, travel and the option of reading the news in thirty-two different languages. These extra features make your site stand out from the other sites, since readers like myself like to have many options.
I must state that your website is not just organized but also well categorized. Since you have different sections on your website it makes it easier to balance the amount of information being presented in your articles to not over talk about a certain subject. Having your contact information on the website gives people a greater access toward the new site and makes it more personable, and also gives the people the power which I commend you on. Since your giving people the chance to critique your site it allows them to do it in a effective, productive and efficient manner, which in return allows you to improve your site according to what the reader wants. Your site provides a search engine which makes it simple for people to be able to go back a read a story they had previously read and now need to recall or simple stay updated on the newest events. The last positive aspect of your site is that you manage to constantly be updating your site, which allows the reader to know the current events as they are occurring and stay updated with the current events of an unfolding story. While your website layout had a lot of positive characteristics it also has its negative aspects.
I noticed that your ads on your site are more mainstream and of well known companies like Mercedes-Benz and AT&T rather than of a product that is specific and local to only European countries. I appreciate the fact that you talk about what is occurring in the world however I would like to see more stories of what is occurring in Europe since this is a European site, or at least make the main article of something occurring in Europe. This also brings up a concern I have, several times that I have logged onto your site your main story is of something occurring around the world and not in Europe. Your website also uses some negative words which leads one to believe that the story is a negative one, such as articles titled “Second Nigerian Fails drug test” or “French protest biggest so far” and lastly, “Kim eldest son opposes dynasty” these titles make you think that the article that you are about to read are of negative occurrences. Although your website is even in the break down and separation of information and articles the vast majority of them are about the U.S or of something the U.S has a part in than of any other topic or country.

Overall I applaud you for having an informative, balanced and current website. The BBC is located in London, which is parliamentary democracy although it has a constitutional Monarch as the Head of State. This setup in government and power allows sites like yourself to write certain things on your site although it makes me think that there must be certain things not allowed. Even with the pros and cons of your site, I think that your site is not bias and for the most part very informative. I do not believe that your site is bias since it covers many sections and topics occurring around the world however, I would like to have seen your site have more stories of events occurring in European countries since it is located in London. I would rate this site higher than others since it seems more balances and informative, however the titles of your articles are leading and provoking in various ways for example the article titled, “Obama will not ban home seizures” for only reading the title it leads for one to think that Obama has approved random home seizures of any and everyone whenever anyone wants. The article title is misleading since when I clicked on it the title changed stating “Obama will not ban home repossessions ‘fraud’” while the article may be important the change in title and the misleading of the title turns the reader off to whatever is in the context of the article after seeing the change in title. The change in article names and the negative critique of the story makes one think that the BBC is not indeed neutral but in fact has a standing point on various subjects and then projects them through the stories to the readers.


Sincerely,
Fabiola Figueroa

news source

the website or news site that i am picking to look at and give my opinion on is the BBC. I choose this site since is the only one that found to be in english and interesting. I have yet to look at it in detail but will for the project soon

international perspectives on local/global issues

The international press sites BBC news, Australia Network News, and The Sydney Morning Herald all have the same topic in their news articles. The main subject found in an article on all three sites states about a Military drone of the U.S army has killed Germans in Pakistan. The first article titled, “’German militants’ killed in Pakistan drone attack” the article was posted on October fourth, 2010 appearing in BBC news. The article stated that “at least eight al-Qaeda militants some German nationals were killed during drone attack in Pakistan” the article continues to state that the “U.S drone fired two missiles at a house owned by a local tribesman in the Pakistani region of North Waziristan” the article continues to state that it is believed that the al-Qaeda group is creating a plot to strike against European cities, which has lead the U.S to have more drone’s armed. The house that was hit in the drone attack is stated to have been located in a Village 3km from the main town of Mir Ali. The locals referred to the dead and injured men as “Arabs, but said they did not know their identities” however, “ The BBC’s Syed Shoaib Hasan states that the local people use the word Arab to describe anyone from the Middle East or even as far as Turkey” the officials have spoken and have stated that, “five of the dead militants were German citizens of Turkish origin and others were local people” while the residents and new states that these drone attacks seem to be counterproductive and puts at risks the citizens, the article states that, “ Western intelligence officials believe that missiles have severely restricted the ability of al-Qaeda to carry out major attacks.” The officials want to prove that the drone is working and that the killings are of Al-Qaeda officials, however the last section in the article states that, “More than 150 people have died in drone strikes this year, including both militants and civilians” this leads to the question of how successful is this drone program if civilians are being killed in the search of terrorists. I understand that the drone doesn’t pick and choose a person to eliminate if in the house, however it does bring up the efficiency of the drone and the safety. The article was good at stating what occurred and really explaining what the different sides were stating about the incident.

The second article that I read was titled, “German nationals killed in Pakistan drone strike” which appeared on the Australian Network News on October 5th, 2010. The article that appears on Australian Network News states that “it is suspected that a US drone strike has killed eight militants including German nationals in northwest Pakistan” this section is the same as the first article except it does not have any reference to al-Qaeda. The article though continues to give more information about the aircraft used in the killings then the first article by stating, “Two missiles were fired from a suspected US pilotless aircraft in North Waziristan” the article not only gave the type of aircraft but also the reasons behind the killings, stating that, “The NATO chief expressed regret for the deaths caused by the air strike, describing the incident as unintended” this contradicts the first article that stated that the attack was intentional since Western officials believed that the house sheltered al-Qaeda officials.

The last article is called, “US drone hit kills Germans in Pakistan” the article was released on October 5th, 2010 and appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald. The article states the same as the res that, “A US drone strike has killed eight militants, including German nationals, in Pakistan” the article added that the location was located in “Pakistan’s lawless tribal belt near the Afghan border” the article continued to state new facts by stating that, “Five German rebels of Turkish origin and three local militants were killed in the strike” the article added that the Germans were rebels and not just German nationals, the article also differed from the rest by stating that they were still looking to investigate the militant group affiliations. The article also added that “ North Waziristan is a renowned hideout for Taliban and Al-Qaeda linked Militants” the article continues to state that Washington officials are pleased in the strikes results stating that, “The strikes have killed a number of high-valued targets including Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud, however the attacks fuel anti-American sentiment in the conservative Muslim country” the article states the struggle that the US is facing in fighting the terrorists stating that, “Washington has branded the rugged tribal area which lies outside Pakistani government control a global headquarters of Al-qaeda and the most dangerous place on Earth” I found this to be interesting for a person that has not gone to Pakistani to know more about the area. The last part of the article was something that was not told by the other article which is that “the drone attack in which German nationals were killed came hours after Japan and Sweden joined Washington and London in issuing an alert warning of a possible terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups against their citizens traveling in Europe” the fact that the terrorist groups are threatening to attack European countries is something to worry about but it is questionable since they don’t always announce threats. The last important thing that I noted is that the article states that, “US channel Fox News citing unnamed intelligence officials said militants had a list of targets in France, Germany including Paris’s Effel Tower and Notre Dame Cathedral, Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, the city’s central railway station and the Alexanderplatz TV tower” to me this was interesting since they were naming the possible targets but it is still unknown if they will carry out the threats and if they will when. To take the word of a terrorist group that they well do something is hard since you never know.





www.bbc.co.uk
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/us-drone-hit-kills-germans-in-pakistan-officials-20101005-165bs.html
http://australianetworknews.com/stories/201010/3029371.htm?desktop