Childhood Obesity and the Developing Media

Obesity has been defined by the World Health Organization as a condition that involves an excess accumulation of fat. An individual is considered to be obese if they have a body mass index (BMI) equal to or greater than 30. Individuals suffering from obesity increase their risk for various health problems such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. According to former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona obesity poses the biggest threat to public health. Also, the American Medical Association reports that in the year of 2007 mortality rates were higher for obesity than those rates combined of AIDS, cancers and accidents. It has been reported that obesity rates have increased by 50 percent per decade since the 1960s. Facts such as this prove that obesity is a large epidemic, which is still on the rise, in the United States.  Doctors have become so concerned with the increasing, and quite alarming, rates in obesity that they have focused their attention to solving this problem. Research and doctors have linked this large increase in obesity rates to the developing media. Access to various media sources such as television, computer, iPods and videogames has become easier and made of more use over the past few decades. However, this increase in use of media availability has contributed to an increase in sedentary lifestyles. Rather than going outside and playing for an hour, children are sitting in front of a computer screen or television for countless hours. For reasons such as this, and many more, the developing media has played a large role in the obesity epidemic in the United States.

The media plays a large role in advertising everything from cereals and snacks to laundry detergent and deodorant. Advertisements serve a purpose of trying to get the audience to buy the product. Over the past few years, more and more advertisements have been directed towards promoting unhealthy food choices for children. Research composed by the Kaiser Family Foundation, “a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S.”, discovered a correlation between media targeted towards children and childhood obesity rates. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, during the period in which childhood obesity has increased at such alarming rates, too has media targeted towards children. On average, children will spend 5 ½ hours a day using media sources—television, computer, video games. This is the 2^nd activity children dedicate most of their daily living too—the first being that of sleeping.

A child is exposed to 40,000 ads a year on TV and most of these ads are promoting candy, soda, or unhealthy snacks. Advertisers use fun colors and characters to attract the children to these unhealthy snacks, thus leading them to ask their parents to buy them that particular product. For this reason, many researchers have found that these advertisements may be leading to unhealthy food choices and weight gain in children. Distributions for advertisements break down into 32% directed towards candy, 31% cereal and 9% fast food. Research on advertisements during Saturday morning television programs for children found that a child can be expected to be exposed to a food commercial every five minutes. Since the 1980s the advertisements of high fat and high sodium foods during these Saturday morning hours have nearly doubled. Ironically, as these commercials have increased, too have the rates of childhood obesity. Studies composed on children from grades 7-12 discovered that those individuals who ate fast food more frequently also watched TV more often. Shocking studies revealed that 70% of children between the ages of 6 and 8 were hindered with the misconception—from advertisements—that fast food was more nutritious than a home cooked meal. Facts such as these represent a strong link between the media’s influence in childhood obesity rates.

Doctors know that there is a simple cure to this obesity epidemic—a change to a healthier diet and addition of exercise. However, this cure has become more difficult with an increase in both the use of media sources by citizens and advertisements of unhealthy foods throughout the United States. According to Obesity and the Media it may seem ridiculous to assume that advertising can cause someone to become overweight. People have a decision of choosing what they want to eat and what they do not want to eat.  However, advertisers use sly methods to hint at not only what people should wear or how they should live, but also how to eat. Children get the idea from fast food advertisements—which can be found on TV, billboards, internet sites and many other places—that the food is healthy for them. Younger children even begin to link the fun characters such as Ronald McDonald or Colonel from KFC with their decision making in what to eat. As they continue to do this they generate an idea that the food is good for them and continue to eat it—contributing to the escalating obesity epidemic. 

A studied composed in 2004 by the American Psychological Association (APA) found that there is a link between children changing their food eating habits based upon what they see on TV. According to Dr. Brian Wilcox—who worked as a head of this study—“Such advertising of unhealthy food products to young children contributes to poor nutritional habits that may last a lifetime and be a variable in the current epidemic of obesity among kids.” A peer-reviewed article by the journal Progress in Pediatric Cardiology entitled “The role of television in childhood obesity” too found the same information studied by the APA. Progress in Pediatric Cardiology states that the increase in advertisements directed towards children marketing high fat, sugar and calorie foods have changed children’s preferences of foods. This study has also found that children are likely to snack while watching TV. These snacks children are eating tend to be more unhealthy and high in calories rather than fruits or vegetables—something rarely advertised on television. Cross sectional studies have proven that a dose response relationship exists between media exposure and obesity. In children between the ages of 12-17 a 2% increase in the prevalence of obesity was demonstrated for each extra hour of TV viewing. This trend was also noted in preschool children with a 6% increase in prevalence of obesity for each additional hour of TV viewing. Larger studies have revealed that over 60% of obesity incidence can be contributed to too much TV watching. Also, children who have a TV in their bedroom and watch more hours of television per week are more likely to be overweight than those without a television set in their bedroom. Not so ironically, as the childhood obesity epidemic has increase, too have the percentages of TV sets in children’s rooms. Increase TV viewing has been linked with increase meal frequency, snacking and caloric increase. It has been found there was a 167 caloric intake increase for each additional hour of TV viewing. Facts such as these reveal that television viewing has a strong influence upon unhealthy eating behaviors. These eating behaviors eventually contribute to this overwhelming increase in childhood obesity epidemic rates.

Although studies have revealed a weak correlation between physical inactivity and extensive television watching, a small relationship does exist. Typically media use involves that of sedentary behaviors. Whether it be playing videogames, watching a television show or surfing the web most of the time is spent sitting down on a couch or chair. Sitting down, watching TV, and snacking on unhealthy snacks all combines to contribute to the obesity epidemic. According to Progress in Pediatric Cardiology television viewing is a sedentary activity thus promoting a sedentary lifestyle. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that a telephone survey of parents with children between the ages of 4-6 found that those children who spent more than two hours watching TV spent an average of a half hour less playing outside. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “The fact that most studies have failed to find a substantial relationship between the time children spend watching TV and the time they spend in physical activity may suggest that the nature of television viewing—that is, how children watch and what they watch—may be as or more important than the number of hours they watch. This statement supports aforementioned material that what children are watching is strongly influencing their eating habits. However, this does not mean to forget about physical inactivity. A report in 2002 by the National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education states that children are more often choosing to participate in “sedentary leisure-time activities”. More than half of the adolescent population is failing to meet recommended physical activity guidelines. This report states that television watching is associated with less time spent in performing moderate-vigorous physical activity. Also, the media has not been found to promote physical activity for children. In fact, children Saturday morning programs depicted characters participating in physical activity less than 10% of the program—equivalent to 2 minutes. Information such as this correlates with the idea that an increase in media use has influenced physical inactivity—contributing to increased obesity rates.

An ABC documentary segment with Michelle Obama highlights the importance of getting children up and moving. Michelle Obama’s program “Let’s Move” – which promotes healthy eating and an active lifestyle for both children and the parents of children—has just celebrated its year anniversary. This documentary highlights what she hoped to achieve with this program. She also discusses the role television has played in decreasing physical activity rates in children. Furthermore, she links this use of the media to childhood obesity rates. With her program she hopes to lessen this growing epidemic around the United States. However, it has been noted that Michelle Obama has made use of the media to stress the importance of eating healthy and being active. It is not uncommon to find the First Lady on commercial breaks on Disney Channel promoting her program and what children should be doing to lead a healthy lifestyle. Her initiative has represented a positive influence the media can potentially have in lessening obesity rates. The link to this documentary is provided here—'Let's Move' on Childhood Obesity Segment.

An NPR segment with First Lady Michelle Obama, Margo Wootan—a director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public interest—and Dr. Darcy Thompson—assistant professor of pediatrics at the John Hopkins University School of Medicine highlights the link between advertising and obesity. Dr Thompson is noted for stating, “I think research shows that there is a strong link between the impact of advertising, particularly food and drink advertising, on children’s food preferences, their food request, the request they make to their parents and the beliefs that they have regarding food. And all of these together have an influence on the prevalence of obesity in children today.” This statement helps to further the belief of a link between advertisements and obesity rates as it pertains for the aforementioned material. The First Lady has stated within this interview that she believes the media plays a large role in childhood obesity. Dr Thompson reports that fast food and sugar drink advertisements are played much more during after school hours than in school hours. This proves to be a tactic to attract more and more children to these unhealthy foods. A YouTube video entitled “Media’s Heavy Impact on Childhood Obesity” helps to further highlight the influence of the advertising media world on childhood obesity rates. The link to this video can be found provided below:

Media's Heavy Impact on Childhood Obesity

This video helps to highlight the constant role the advertising media has played in the food that children chose to eat. Sly tactics attract children to food that they believe is healthy, when in actuality it is not.

The UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital helps to support these ideas provided in the YouTube video and NPR segment. According to the UCSF television continues to dominate children’s free time and the media takes advantage of this with the constant exposure of children to high-sugar and high-fat foods. They also state that media use “displaces” physical activity. UCSF states that displacement includes the abundant use of the media that other activities become replaced.  This idea incorporates TV watching interfering with the amount of time children should be spending being physically active. Greatschools.org reports that children between ages 8-18 spend on average 44.5 hours a week with some sort of media source as opposed to 8.75 hours exercising. Also, a preschoolers risk for obesity increases by 6% for every hour of TV watching. Within this TV viewing, 80% of the commercials are for fast food, candy cereal and toys. Clearly, the media has put much time and effort into attracting children towards unhealthy food choices.

Facts such as those mentioned above pose the idea that the media has had such a strong influence in the alarming childhood obesity rates. Although it may not be correct to say using the media causes obesity, it does make sense to link the two together. Research backs up the idea that the developing media can be linked with increased childhood obesity rates. It is not just ironic that as media availability and use increased so did obesity rates. It is proof that a link does exist. If children are not encouraged to go outside and remain active or eat healthy foods, the rates are going to continue to increase. Parents must help children in making the correct decisions and children must learn how to balance their media exposure and physical activity. The media has played a large role in the current obesity epidemic in the United States and without some sort of change, it will continue to develop.

Works Cited

Clocksin, Brian D., Doris L. Watson, and Lynda Ransdell. "Understanding Youth Obesity and Media Use: Implications for Future Intervention Programs." QUEST 54 (2002): 259-75. Print.

Dennison, Barbara A., and Lynn S. Edmunds. "The Role of Television in Childhood Obesity."Progress in Pediatric Cardiology 25.2 (2008): 191-97. Print.

"Experts Say Ads Make Kids Fat : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. 

GreatSchools. "Physical Health: The Media Link to Obesity, Risky Diets - Health & Nutrition | GreatSchools." GreatSchools - Public and Private School Ratings, Reviews and Parent Community. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. 

"'Let's Move' on Childhood Obesity Video - ABC News." ABCNews.com: Breaking News, Politics, World News, Good Morning America, Exclusive Interviews - ABC News. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. 

Obesity and the Media | Patient Education." UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital. 12 Apr. 2011. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. 

O’Connor, Frances. Obesity and the Media. New York, NY: Rosen Group, 2009. Print.

"The Role of Media in Childhood Obesity." The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Feb. 2004. Web. Apr. 2011.

"YouTube- Media's Heavy Impact of Childhood Obesity." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 24 Apr. 2011.

Kaiser Health News

Going into this assignment I thought it was going to be nearly impossible to discover an independent news source among so many different mainstream sources. Although there are only six major media conglomerates I felt as if they owned practically everything. Also, not having a full understanding of exactly what an “independent” news source was, I knew it was going to be a challenge. While searching for the news source I found myself becoming a little bit frustrated because I felt as if I could not find a source that would help to begin research for my topic. However, various websites provided information with links to many independently owned media sources. These links helped me to decipher between which news sources I could use and which I could not. After analyzing many different sources I was able to recognize which ones seemed most reliable. Having a topic that focuses on the link between the progressing media and childhood obesity rates, I felt that selecting a source that focused on health was most important. For this reason, I selected Kaiser Health News as my independent news source.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is part of the Kaiser Family Foundation—“a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S.”.  Kaiser Health News is considered an editorially independent news service that covers both health policy and politics. After reading through the “About” and “Faq” information provided on the website I realized that their number one goal was to keep individuals informed about the current health status of the United States. Specifically, Kaiser Health News states a mission that seeks to “provide high-quality coverage of health policy issues and developments at the federal and state levels” along with covering trends in the “delivery of health care and in the marketplace.” KHN makes known their willingness to provide their audience with as much information possible. It is their goal to make sure that citizens of the U.S. are being provided with the most, and best information concerning health status, insurance and policy. Not only do they include information upon health care in the U.S. but they also provide daily summaries that discuss health care news across the nation. KHN will publish anything from “in-depth” news stories to shorter articles focusing upon the current health care system, initiatives and issues.

What I found most interesting about KHN was that in their “About” section they included a statement that they do not accept any advertising. The fact that KHN does not accept advertising may make it a more reliable source. They clearly want to focus, and want their audience to focus, on what they are saying without having any advertising interruptions throughout the website. Searching through the KHN website I thought it was organized in a way that was easy to navigate through. They have archives of main topics such as “States,” “Health Reform,” “Medicare” etc. and within each one of these archives there are many different articles and sources of information.  Kaiser Health News also makes it an easy task to contact them about any questions or concerns and allows readers to submit stories to them. KHN seems to have much respect and care for their audience and comes off as a very reliable resource. This independent news source and links provided on their website prove to be advantageous for my topic after searching through all the different archives. Overall, I think this appears to be a helpful site for anyone looking for information concerning health policy not only in the U.S. but around the world. 

Where do we draw the line between media and reality?

McLuhan: It’s All Going According to Marshall’s Plan

                When it comes to the media, there is no avoiding it. The media has become a part of everyday life making it hard to remember the days in which the media did not play such a large role in relaying information. “The media explosion”—as predicted by Marshall McLuhan, a professor of literature—has taken away from reality. It has created an imaginary world in which we live in. This further suggests that if people do not separate themselves from the media, they will lose all possible aspects of reality. Marshall McLuhan—a “pop prophet and media visionary”—predicted the current media explosion in our world. He stated that this explosion “is not an isolated blast, but one in a series of detonations that will probably last through and beyond our lifetimes”. Although many people refuted his statements about the negative influence of the media, many of his “theories” seem to fit the second media generation. This media generation refers to that of video games and discs, cable and Qube—a cable system playing a pivotal role in the development of American cable. These developments have given Americans the ability to enter into another world; a world that some turn into reality.

                Marshall McLuhan developed a concept known as ‘perceptual numbing’ which is referred to as a “stubborn insensitivity to all but the most extreme experiences in life”. He used this concept to help explain how individuals dwell in the media environment. This dwelling and numbness is created by the ‘depth experience of media’. These depth experiences take individuals in and make them feel as if they are in another world. It gets to the inner most part of the individual and allows them to imagine that they are actually inside whatever they may be watching or playing. The depth experience of the media causes an individual to get lost within a video game, or in a show, and develop possible emotions towards the characters. Due to this, a blur between both reality of the world and entertainment occurs. As denoted by McLuhan, ‘The medium is the message,” simply meaning, the media content doesn’t matter. What really matters was the depth experience provided by the media content—how “cool” the medium was.  According to McLuhan, TV supplied the ultimate depth experience because it required the individual to help create the image. From this, the image becomes part of the individual—“an extension of man”. With the simple click of a button an individual can be caught up within electronic media, developing a reality separate from that of true reality.

                It was believed by McLuhan that the media explosion could have taken one of two routes of exposure. The explosion could have either benefited us—creating a utopian society—or provided extreme disadvantages. It is quite obvious that the media explosion has not provided the utopian society that McLuhan believed it once could have. McLuhan believed that the depth experience provided by the electronic media may have been able to reunite individuals, bringing all senses into play. However, this seems to be the complete opposite of what actually occurred. It may have brought individuals together in the “playing” world; however, it has torn them apart in reality of the world. The electronic media has provided individuals an outlet to create a world of their own. It does not allow us to “experience one another openly and completely”. This depth provided by the media has furthered the concept of perceptual numbing. With this numbing, individuals become less and less affected by information provided by the media and electronic media. It seems as if extravagant steps must take place in order to get the majority attention of the population in today’s world. However, the media has realized this trend, developing special effects and graphics that will help to attract individuals who appear to be “numb”. All of this information makes one question, when is this cycle ever going to stop? When are people going to realize that electronic media is separate from reality?

                Swiss novelist Mac Frisch states, ‘Technology is the knack for organizing the world so we don’t have to experience it”. I think this statement helps to exemplify how much technology has altered the current world. No longer do people need to face the troubles of reality, they can escape through some sort of electronic media, or only pay attention to the information provided by the particular technology. It seems as if individual thought is fading, and technology and the media are taking over. We no longer have “first-hand experiences” because of the media. The world of communications has become that of second nature to human beings—causing the creation of “unreality”. Development of cameras and camcorders has also created this sense of “unreality”. These developments in technology and electronic media have transferred the ability to fantasize and imagine with our brains to electronic machines. These machines are taking over and causing an “atrophy” of our human capacity to think on our own. The medium is there to take one away from their conscious mind and enter into an alternate world.

                Media literacy—a reflecting technique—is something that should be developed in order to keep individuals reality separate from that of electronic media. It will allow individuals to disengage themselves as for media to no longer be considered “an extension of man”. There are many ways that this can occur and seems quite crucial for the younger population. Children should constantly be reminded that the shows they are viewing on TV are not real life. The characters are actors, the plots are made up and the special effects are just provided to grab ones attention. Also, they should be notified of the difference between entertainment and advertisement. Providing children with this concept will allow them to abstain from creating a reality separate of that of true reality. If children are not supplied with this information they may easily be taken in by the media. It is important to also recognize adults. Adults are not free from the manipulation of the media. They can also utilize these reflecting techniques by imposing critical reflections upon commercial TV. In doing so, they are allowed to formulate their own opinions—those not provided by the media. These techniques are important to prevent the loss of “first-hand experiences”. If the media takes over too much, reality will be twisted into a completely incomprehensible concept.

                

The Ins and Outs of Advertisements

All the News that Fits

                In today’s world it seems as if the news has become a source of entertainment rather than an informative TV program. An individual can no longer watch the news and know that all the information they are receiving is 100% accurate. Sometimes, the individual does not even know if they are getting all the information they should be. The thought of “Am I informed as possible?” may constantly lure in individuals minds, and if it does not, it should be taken into consideration.  As Donna Woolfolk Cross states in her article All the News that Fits, “the very name ‘television news show’ reveals its main purpose: to entertain, not to inform.” Rather than the news remaining a serious matter, it has turned into a source of entertainment, promoting the current status quo. Rather than keeping individuals informed, it has turned into an area concerned with the appearance of anchormen/women and distracting viewers from the true meanings of what is going on around the world. The original purpose of the news—to inform—has been lost, leaving individuals with less information than ever.

                In All the News that Fits, Cross states that “the news shows promote the messenger above the message”—the network has become more concerned with who the person is delivering the message rather than the actual deliverance of the message. This idea seems to reflect our current society. Today, people are mostly judged upon what they look like and what they wear. People have forgotten about the old saying, “It’s what’s on the inside that counts” and have only guided their attention towards what they look like on the outside. News programs have helped to further this idea—looks are more important than the quality of the individual/information—by hiring those individuals that are considered to be “better looking.” It is very rare that an individual will turn on a news show and see an anchorman/women, weatherman/women, or sports reporter that would be considered “unattractive.” This idea is proven when WABC-TV in New York hired an anchorwoman whose only previous experience was as a California Fashion Model. Statements such as “After that, the news could be emitted from women only if they were unwrinkled. It also helped to be blond and to have a name like Portia or Melanie,” prove how important appearance has become. News programs have become too concerned with the appearance of the individual reporting the news than the quality of the news being reported. In this sense, Americans seem to have lost their individual freedoms to obtain as much information as possible.

                Many distractions have been added into news programs to make reported matters less serious than they actually are. The anchormen/women downplay the reported information by making it seem as if everything will be okay. Elements such as music have been added to make the news seem “cheerful”—downplaying the seriousness of reported stories. Aforementioned distraction—appearance of the reporter—speaks for itself. Another distraction, Happy News has also been utilized to decrease anxiety of the individuals watching those stories that may cause them to feel this way. Happy news is considered to be the cheerful interplay between broadcasters in between news stories. Happy news provides entertainment for those individuals watching the news program but causes a loss of quality in translation of information. With this addition of Happy News the individual may forget about the story they previously listened to, which is exactly what the news reporter wants. Donna Woolfolk states, “The Philosophy behind Happy News is to keep the viewer from being too upset by the news reports he is hearing,” proving how much reporters downplay the seriousness of a story. Happy News just provides another distraction to the viewer. It tries to end the news segment on a happy note, giving the idea to viewers that nothing is wrong and everything is going to be okay—which sometimes isn’t always true.

                Although we may have access to more information than ever in today’s society, it seems as we are less informed than our country has ever been. We have access to all this information, but still do not have the knowledge we should.  Cross states, “Seven out of ten people now get their information about the world exclusively from TV. Yet one recent study revealed that these people can no longer give even one reason to justify their choice of a particular political candidate or policy,” leading one to question, why? Why can we not formulate a reason? Why, with all this information, are we still unable to create justifications? This could be contributed to the fact that we are being denied information that does not fit the news “entertainment standards.” If the story doesn’t have the wiggle, and doesn’t fit the way that the news reporters want it to, then it does not get any attention. If the reporter cannot create a visual, entertainment appeal, then the story is ignored. As stated, “Stories about banks robbing people cannot be made as ‘entertaining’ as shots of people robbing banks.” This proves that although one story may be more serious, if it doesn’t meet the entertainment standard, then it is “lost in translation.” This reveals the idea of how under informed this country actually is. It seems to me as if there is so much information out there that we are not getting and that could be helpful to us. So much thought goes into reporting the story and making it entertaining—with the use of a tease, attention-grabber, hook/incitement, then finally the story with some sort of dramatic conflict, and a snapper closer—that if the story does not fit all these aspects, it is forgotten about. To me, this storytelling use is not news at all. It is just a distracter, a way to calm us and forget about the big picture.

                So after all this information and analysis the number one question I want to ask is, how informed are we as a country? Are we getting all the information necessary to broaden our horizons of knowledge? The news has become so concerned with miniature stories such as helping a pet foundation, adopting a dog, local house fires, and other small news stories that they have lost the big picture. We are not being given information on big stories that are important and will influence the future of our country. Those stories are being downplayed to ease the nerves of the audience and make them less likely to change the channel. It seems as if we have lost the informative aspect of the news and it has just turned into another entertainment source. 

Virgin Vinyl, Real Counterfeit Diamonds, and Genuine Imitation Leather: With these Worlds I Can Sell You Anything

                Imagine this scenario: you’re sitting in front of the TV, have not eaten all day, and suddenly a commercial comes on for McDonald’s making their hamburgers looking better than ever. You immediately being to crave McDonald’s so you get into your car and are on your way. You get to McDonald’s order a #5 and are finally satisfied. Well, that advertisement got exactly what they wanted out of you. Advertisements have become a major source of income for Television networks. As the years continue on television advertising becomes more expensive and television networks make more and more money off them. As William Lutz states, “Of all the media used by advertisers, television remains the most important, the most dominant, the most influential, and the most expensive” proving how influential TV advertisements have become in today’s society.”

                Over a life span, an individual will be exposed to millions of advertisements. All of these advertisements have one thing in common—get the customer to buy the product. No matter how alike two products may be, the supplier and advertiser will say/do anything to get the product sold. The use of deceptive words and cliff hangers about the product make the individual more likely to buy the product. Much time and effort is put into advertisements of particular products with their major concern being that of making money. The advertiser seeks to get you in a trance that takes you so much into the product that you could not imagine not having the product. They lure you in with bright appearances and catchy words giving you a sense of what it could feel like if you had the product. Advertising has become a large source of information, proven by eight-twelve year olds who were able to identify more brands of beer rather than presidents of the United States. To me, this seems like a problem, especially the fact that it is beer they more know about than presidents. So much information about new products is obtained through these advertisements and we fail to realize how deceptive these advertisements are being. 64% of teenagers have reported getting information on new products from the Television and 36% of teenagers report buying the product after seeing the advertisement. Once again, the advertisers achieved their goal—get the viewer to buy the product.

                Although many people may claim that they are not influenced by advertisements it is quite obvious that a majority of people around the world are. Truth is, if we were not many businesses would probably no longer be running. Advertisers use strategies to attract a customer to their product. Viewers may not realize it, but most of the time advertisers are relaying a message that doesn’t even have a meaning behind it. Advertisers make use of “Weasel Words” in order to act as if they are making a particular claim about a product when in reality they are making no claim at all. Weasel Words are heard in almost every advertisement consisting of those words such as “help,” “virtually,” “new and improved,” “acts,” “works,” “like” and many others.  With every single one of these words, the advertiser uses some sort of deception. When the advertiser states a product is “new and improved” the audience is lured into the product thinking it is better than the previous version  However, the only thing that happened to make it “new” was that it underwent a material functional change. But how do you know what this change is, and how do you know if it was a good change? This is pure deceit. Also, “improved” doesn’t mean the product was necessarily made better; all it means is that a change was made to make it different from before. Advertisers use these two words to make individuals think the product is going to be better now since it is “new and improved” when it fact, there is no proof that is actually is. The use of these weasel words gets the individual to think about a product in the way the advertiser wants them too.

“Help” is the number one weasel word used in advertisements. The advertiser strategically places the “claim” of the product after using the word help in hopes that the individual will forget they said “help” instead of stop/eliminate and focus only on the so called claim. Until now I did not realize how often the word help was used in advertisements. And now that I know of this weasel word I have realized how much it is used to get a “claim” across. Not until now did I notice the use of help in medicine commercials. Rarely does a commercial promoting medicine use the word stop or eliminate the sickness but always “helps” the sickness. Individuals forget the meaning of “help” when watching advertisements, and this is exactly what the advertiser wants. Having an idea of this weasel word helps to reveal what the ad is truly saying—nothing at all. In fact, advertisements constantly use unfinished words or incomplete statements leaving the individual with no information at all, which is something we as an audience fail to realize. Countless times in car commercials the announcer will state “5 times faster” or “5 times better quality.” But 5 times faster then what? 5 times better quality then what? This leads to the idea that we are left uninformed about particular products for a particular reason—so that we will buy it.

               

                Advertisers use so many tricks and words to advertise a particular product. The use of these tricks and words leads one to imagine that much information we are given is just a lie. The fact that advertisers can do such things and deceive millions of people in order to sell a product is quite baffling. This leads me to question, how much of this information we are given on a product is true? It seems to me that all trust in media advertisements is slowly diminishing.

Fits Articles

Tide Commercial

This commercial fits the idea of use of Weasel words discussed in William Lutz’s passage. This commercial utilizes two different weasel words. It highlights the words “New & Improved” by having them written within the commercial and also stating them. The commercial also uses “helps” another very common weasel word.

Dayquil Commercial

This Dayquil commercial also reflects William Lutz’s discussion of the use of Weasel Words in advertisements. Dayquil uses the statement “help get back your energy” and also the word “relieve” many times. These two words—help and relieve—insinuate that the medicine will relieve symptoms but not necessarily get rid of them. It is also noticed that help is used in areas where it can easily be missed and seems as if it is stated faster than the rest of the commericial.

Strongly affected by

Yaz Birth Control

Before 

After FDA Involvement

These two Yaz commercials highlight the Yaz birth control pill before and after FDA involvement due to so many problems that were occurring with this pill. This commercial strongly affected me because being a woman it is essential to know—if you choose to—what pill you are putting into your body. The fact that a commercial had to be re-made to address problems with this pill highlights the idea that not enough information was given to begin with. This ultimately affected me in a positive way for it gave me the knowledge that I cannot only pay attention to commercials for a particular birth control medication and that further research on it may be needed.

Can’t believe they’re on TV commericials

Sleepy's Commercial: Sealy Afterglow

I think this commercial ultimately speaks for itself. I never thought Sleepy’s would advertise a Sealy’s mattress in a way such as this. The fact that this is promoting “just a little lovin’, early in the day” to attract viewers to a mattress, and is aired on TV shocks me. The “Sealy Afterglow” title of this commercial reveals the sexual connotation of this commercial and I’m amazed it is actually on TV.

Axe Wash Your Balls Commercial

Once again, this commercial speaks for itself. A play on the word “balls” is used to attract viewer’s attention and make men think that this axe shower gel and detailer will make them irresistible. The use of this outrageous sexual connotation seems to be what would draw the audience into this commercial. However, I am surprised it was even aired on TV. 

Freedom of Speech Becoming Not So Free: The Conflict of Net Neutrality

 

Have you ever gone onto the internet and wondered, what if this information I’m looking for was not so easily obtained? What if I was charged money for access to this information? What if the internet just wasn’t this simple? Well, if you have, you can thank Network Neutrality for the ease of internet research. Network Neutrality is a concept that encompasses the idea of a free and open internet. As a CRS Report for Congress entitled “Net Neutrality: Background and Issues” states, “There is no single definition for net neutrality,” however, they define it as “The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and non-discriminatory treatment.” This concept seeks to eliminate internet discrimination. It holds the idea that internet services should treat all sources of data the same, no matter what they may be. According to www.freepress.net, “Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.” This concept of Net Neutrality allows us—the general public—to obtain information needed in a seemingly free and non-complex way—as www.freepress.net states, “without any interference of the network provider.”  An open internet, free to all, has existed since the internet began, but not written into law—posing potential problems that may arise with net neutrality and unwanted changes.

The concept of Network Neutrality is one that has been long part of our countries history. However, this concept is recently being brought to the public’s attention.  As www.cybertelecom.org states, opponents of network neutrality seem to argue that there is no history of net neutrality, while those who support net neutrality argue within the development of the communication system there does exist a history of net neutrality. Proponents argue that Net Neutrality is the “evolution of a long communications policy debate.” Eli Noam, a Professor of Economics and Finance at the Columbia Business School states that this history is created through a three part cycle—wildcatting, backlash and control and loosening of control. The history leading to the emergence of Net Neutrality can be dated back to 200 years ago with the development of the postal service. The postal service was developed in hopes to create a communications service free from the monitoring of the British Military. To do so, Congress asked current President Benjamin Franklin to create a postal service where messages could be sent with full privacy on its journey to its destination. This trend towards Net Neutrality was noticed again, 50 years later, when the importance of telegraph messages being “transmitted securely, in the order received, accurately, and without discrimination.” This lead to telegraph carriers becoming “Common Carriers”—which still exist today—defined as “carriers of goods, people, and information”—who have played, and still do, a large role in the development of Net Neutrality. Another part of this evolution of Net Neutrality was the FCCs announcement in 1966 that stated telecommunications carriers should be opened to computer networks. A further timeline of the years 2003-2005—provided by www.cybertelecom.org  and shown below– represents the final communication policy debates leading to the emergence of Network Neutrality.
         2003: FCC rolled back UNE rules, making local telecommunications competition difficult
         2004: The FCC ruled that new fiber installs did not have to be unbundled to permit competition
         2005: The Supreme Court ended the long open access debate - affirming the FCC's ruling that Internet-over-cable service providers were not telecom carriers and did not have to be open their physical networks to permit competition in higher level services and applications
         2005: The FCC ruled that Internet-over-DSL service providers were not telecom carriers and did not have to open their networks
This timeline and aforementioned information helps provide an insight into the development of Net Neutrality.


The idea of Net Neutrality has become a common issue throughout the United States since 2005. With Net Neutrality being something that was always part of the internet, the idea for change of this concept has caused quite the uproar. In 2005, the FCC created a policy statement consisting of four different principles (CRS Report for Congress):
1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful internet content of their choice
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice (subjects to the need of law enforcement)
3.  Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
4.  Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers

These four principles seek to maintain and uphold Net Neutrality. However, many companies did not agree with this policy and were actually found violating this. In 2008, the FCC stated that Comcast Corporations violated the policy by “selectively” blocking peer-to-peer connections in order to maintain traffic. As the FCC stated it, “unduly interfered with Internet users’ right to access the lawful Internet content and to use the applications of their choice,” and this right here is what is causing the conflict with Net Neutrality. Big cable and telephone companies are now looking to charge money for access to internet website, speed to run applications, and permission to plug in devices. This means that no longer will the ease of maintaining information on the internet exist and no longer will any of it be free. Another stress to be added to American lives.  The internet is a place where one can easily maintain information on anything possible, for that to be stripped from us, would be stripping our legal freedom to access information. Due to this issue, a Non-Profit Organization—Save the Internet—was created in 2008. This coalition—coordinated by the Free Pres—is composed of hundreds of groups—from different political standings—that seek to maintain free and open internet. With this attempted change in Net Neutrality, various questions arise. Questions such as, what could happen if net neutrality is lost, how much will this access cost, and how can we protect net neutrality seem to be constantly surrounding this issue. As www.freepress.net states, if net neutrality was lost “Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporations.” Also stated, “…without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV.” Consumers will no longer be able to choose what they want at the ease of the button, but rather look through a guide, determine what information they want, and then most likely pay for that information. And who knows how much this access will cost.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality? Well, that’s an easy question. The larger telephone and cable companies which already make much money are those that want to rid of Net Neutrality. Companies such as, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable seek to become “internet Gatekeepers.” Not only do they want to control access to the websites, but also how slow or how fast, or if at all, the page loads. As stated by www.freepress.net these larger companies want to “…tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.” It all comes down to money—the more the client is willing to pay, the better the speed and access to that internet site will be. These large cable providers are willing to pay millions of dollars to get rid of Net Neutrality leading to the concern of no longer having simple internet access. Although there may be these large cable and telephone providers shoveling out money and fighting for the rid of Net Neutrality, there are still many individuals and larger companies fighting against this. Many people are in support of Net Neutrality, coming forth and voicing their opinion on this situation. Individuals and companies have taken a stand for keeping Net Neutrality—one of these individuals being current President Barack Obama—who states that he will “not take a back seat to no one” in his support for Net Neutrality. Companies such as Amazon.com, EBay, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook and Yahoo are supports of Net Neutrality. Also, individuals such as “Internet pioneer” Vint Cerf, Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig and FCC commissioner Michael Corps hope that stronger protection will be brought for Net Neutrality. Papers have also been found in support and seeking to protect the internet such as, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chornicle, San Jose Mercury News, Seattle Times, St.Petersburg Times, and Christian Science Monitor. With all these people in support of Net Neutrality, it leaves hope for citizens of the United States that rely on this free and open internet.

In my personal opinion, I believe that Net Neutrality is essential for the United States to remain functional and prevent any riots that could occur with changes. Although there may not be a law protecting Net Neutrality, isn’t it our own natural right to have access to the free internet? As citizens of the United States we are guaranteed freedom of speech and given rights. I think that it should be an assumed right to have access to the internet without worry about being charged service fees. It is a way in which people maintain everyday information. It is a way for us to broaden our spectrum of information. A way for us to know what is going on in the world. I think to myself, how I would have done this assignment without such ease of the internet. The truth is, I probably would have given up and refused to pay any service fees. Net Neutrality in my opinion is a common right, and a law should be made in order to protect it. Free internet should be considered a freedom, and should not be stripped from US citizens. Linked below are sources that help to stress the importance of keeping Net Neutrality around, and what it could mean for us if we do not. 

           Two Million for Internet Freedom Video

           NPR Segment: Network Neutrality Matters to Movie and Music Fans

           Now Hear This: Net Neutrality is Critical Video

Pentagon, Military Analysts, and Media Deceit

Impression on this issue:


David Barstow’s article “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand” demonstrated how deceitful the American government, along with the help of military analysts, was to American citizens throughout the Bush term. After reading this article I was in shock with the idea that I never even heard about this situation during its actual occurrence. The idea that the American government paid military analyst—many whom of which were veterans or have participated in military divisions—to generate information in order to convince popular America to become pro-war stimulated various questions in my mind. I began to question if anything we ever hear in the media is actually true. Can we as a country listen to one media segment and be assured that everything about that segment is true? Or must we always sit and ponder which part of the story is true or which is not? Or must we wonder is this story just made up to stimulate our interest? This article highly influenced my impression on this issue. I believe that what was done by the American government, specifically Donald Rumsfeld—former secretary of state—and military analysts was absolutely disgracing to our country. America is a free country in which an individual has a choice to shape their own opinion on an issue. However, this rational of an opinion is severely flawed when given false information.  With the altering of information as to convince American’s to become pro-war we are no longer given full ability to formulate our own opinions on the situations. Statements are being made to sway us towards pro-war and stray us away from what we as individuals may truly believe in. The fact that an unpaid military analyst for FOX television and radio was e-mailing the station stating, “Please let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay,” proves how manipulative both the American government, military analysts, and the media were being. Information obtained by the military analysts was being told to this government and media, but not to the general public. When individuals are leaving their job because they are sickened by how deceitful they must be to the public, and how much they have to change their stories, there is an obvious problem. It was quite obvious to the American government that most Americans had a negative opinion about this war and wanted it to end. However, they did not want to accept this fact. As Lawrence Di Rita—a former Defense Department worker--states, “A ‘conscious decision’ was made to rely on the military analysts to counteract the ‘increasingly negative view of the war’ coming from journalists in Iraq. The analysts, [he said], generally had ‘a more supportive view’ of the administration and the war, and the combination of their TV platforms and military cachet made them ideal for rebutting critical coverage of issues like troop morale, treatment of detainees, inadequate equipment or poorly trained Iraqi security forces,” proving the manipulation of military analysts pro-war attitudes to encourage American citizens to become pro-war. After reading statements such as this throughout the entire article I could not help but think how shameful this manipulation—imposed by both government and those military analysts working for both government and media networks such as FOX, ABC, and CNN—truly is. I commend David Barstow for bringing this issue to America’s attention, allowing citizens to formulate their own opinions on war, government, and even the media.


Links associated with this issue:

1.) Video on Pentagon Military Analysts Program

I selected this video because it involves the use of “minor” media picking up on a story that was ignored by many large media companies—because they were too involved with the scam. This video highlights the deceit of the Pentagon with use of Military Analysts in order to convince American’s to become pro-war. Specifically, I thought this was a great video because it includes various interview and clever statements as to what the government really was doing. For example, the video uses steps on “How to Sell a War”—“Step 2: Control the News at the Output” “Method: The Military Analysts Program.” These statements prove how the Pentagon, with help of the military analysts, was trying to “sell” the idea of the war being a positive event to American citizens. This would get the “Bush Administration’s version of the War in Iraq” out to us Americans—in the most untrustworthy way. This video does a great job in highlighting all the trickery involved with this American Government run program. 

2.) Political Cartoon

This political cartoon is a great representation of the Pentagon Military Analyst Program. It exemplifies the idea that the pentagon, military analysts, and media were deceiving each and every American. With the use of a US military general—someone that many people would view as heroic or admirable—stating “Go Forth and Deceive Americans,” it proves how deceitful this program was. The political cartoon represents the idea that the Pentagon thought it would be okay to give out false information to American citizens to influence how they felt about the war. I think this political cartoon does an exemplary job in representing how shameful this program was to our country. They took advantage of US citizens who may have been unaware of the current war situation and flooded them with information that would hopefully influence them to become pro-war. 

3.) Article: "Deafening" silence on Analyst Story

This article discusses further research that was taken in regards to the Pentagon Military Analysts Program after it was brought to the country’s attention by David Barstow’s article. I selected this article in particular because it highlighted a “military-industrial-media-complex.” Many people wanted to believe that what was occurring wasn’t of this “military-industrial-media-complex” but with all the information that kept arising, it was hard to not think of it that way. I also selected this article because it too mentioned the deceit to American’s in regards to tax dollars. Senator John Kerry mentions, “There needs to be a ‘thorough investigation’ into government contracts and ‘whether American’s tax dollars were being used to cultivate talking heads to sell the administration’s Iraq policy,” furthering the thought that American tax dollars may not have been going to what citizens may think. Another reason why I chose this article is due to that fact that it brings about points not highlighted in other sources. It greatly exemplifies censorship in the media, when many major broadcasting services didn’t speak of this occurrence—“For a week after the Times story [and found that] out of approximately 1,300 news stories, only two touched on the Pentagon analysts scoop — both airing on PBS’s “NewsHour.” I think this demonstrates the idea that the mass media has a large role in downplaying certain stories that should not be. 

4.) NPR Segment: Pentagon Used Military Analysts to Deliver Message


This NPR segment does a great job summarizing and revealing more information about the Pentagon Military Analyst Program. I selected this segment because it delves deeper into the actual event that occurred. It interviewed many different people and gets their opinion on what occurred at the Pentagon. John Battis—a retired army major general—states,  “this is a very deliberate attempt on the part of the administration to shape public opinion,”—proving the tactics of the Bush Administration. I also found it interesting that it highlighted who was invited to the meeting to discuss this program and who was not—one of those people not invited being John Battis. The fact that those individuals that had an idea of what the Pentagon was doing and spoke up against it, further exemplifies the administrations manipulation in formulating American’s opinions on the war.