Who is watching you?

This week's article hits close to home, since it is occurring right here in the Philadelphia area. It appeared on the Philadelphia News Website at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/85021742.html. It is an on-going story that has been attracting a lot of media attention. Recently, Lower Merion School districts have been facing an on-going federal lawsuit. Parents of sophomore Blake Robbins claim "the district improperly used a security program on the student's school-provided laptop to spy on the boy in his Penn Valley home." There is now a new turn in recent event in the civil lawsuit. In order for Lower Merion school administrators to discuss the laptop controversy to students and parents, they will have to receive the lawyer's blessing. Not only from their own lawyers, but the prosecution as well. This includes discussion towards concerned parents and students. Although this limitation is common among class-action litigation, it is very rare for a school district to be restricted in a nationwide controversy.

Recently in class we have been discussing the first amendment as well as advancements in technologies and how they affect us. The amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The new restriction is almost challenging the right to freedom of speech. The school district is now unable to keep concerned parents and students informed, unless given prior approval. This lawsuit also brought to light the improvement of technology. We have discussed how the advancement of cell phone technology has led to a "sexting" issue. Also, how social networks such as Twitter and Facebook has changed the way we communicate. Now, there seems to be a question weather school-provided laptops, containing a "spying" program could threaten privacy rights. This lawsuit is continuing to build as it hits national news and brings up questions of privacy among the young population.

This article really hit home for me. I own a laptop, as I am sure many of you do, that has a built in camera. I am familiar with the little light that comes on when I am making a movie or skyping with a friend. It turns on when I hit start, and off when I close out of my program I am using. But imagine if the little green light turns on when you do not command it to. People could be watching and that is a scary thought. Just think who is watching the next time the light turns on, on your computer.

Are you Bot or not? Svedka's new ad campaign...

Svedka Vodka is launching a new ad campaign in which they will be featuring a female robot from the future who loves vodka. This fembot joins the ranks of ad characters including Mr. Clean, the Gieco lizard, the Pillsbury doughboy, and the Michelin man. The initial TV commercial, will double as a video clip online and is part of Svedkas new "R.U. Bot or Not?" campaign. The campaign is going to appear through mid-April, return in September, and run through most of October. The, "R.U. Bot or Not," campaign's budget is estimated at more than $20 million. This campaign includes television, print, online, and outdoor ads. These ads are being aired on Bravo, Comedy Central, E!, and FX. The Svedka is hoping that by airing these ads, that they will continue to boast sales to this already growing company.

But Svedka is not the only one to benefit from these ad campaigns. Media companies rely on these big budget ad campaigns to bring in a revenue. According to media scholars Croteau and Hoynes, "In broadcast media, advertising is the only substantial source of revenue." Furthermore, they contend that it is not surprising that the magazines we read are littered with full-page glossy ads and the articles are miniscule and buried amongst these ads. Likewise, TV ads often seem more clever then the shows they are surrounding. It is after-all the advertisements that pay the bills in the media business.

So what does this all mean? So what? Well I think it is important to understand the power that advertisement companies, such as Svedka, have when it comes to media. TV and magazines are, after-all, a business and they are in to make a profit. This profit does not come from the shows but rather from the advertisement companies. If the shows and networks are making their revenue from advertisements then they are in some way obligated to please these advertisers. I think it is important to understand this concept because often time the public thinks that programs should be aired according to their needs and wants. I am not saying that the viewers needs are totally ignored but it is important to realize that we are not the only ones networks are trying to please.

Can watching too much television be bad for youth?

Yes, watching too much television does carry with it many negative side effects. According to Judith Graham, in her article, “How Television Viewing Affects Children” Graham lists several reasons for why too much television is a bad thing. “Studies show that too much television viewing can have adverse affects, such as violent and aggressive behavior, poor school performance, obesity, early sexual activity, and drug or alcohol use”, explains Graham (How Television). For younger children who watch too much television it can affect the development of their motor skills (move, smell, touch, explore, ect.). It is important for children to focus on playing, reading, homework, and interacting with other children their age to ensure healthy development towards adulthood.

In addition to the negative effects stated above, the issue of obesity is the most common in children. Watching television decreases the amount of time a child is able to spend outside getting physical activity. According to the Family Education Network, “eating too much junk food and watching too much television are two major causes for obesity” (How Television). Not only is the amount of television harmful to children, but the things that children watch on television can also affect them. The amount of violence portrayed in television is very alarming and quite disturbing. “Children are imitators and those who watch violent shows are more likely to display aggressive behavior”, explains Graham (How Television). The American Psychological Association Help Center gives three harmful side effects of viewing violence: learning aggressive behavior, becoming desensitized to violence, and creating a fear of being victimized (How Television).

While there are many negative affects to television, there are several positive aspects of television. There has been research that has proven that television done in moderation and with acceptable content in can be beneficial to school age children (How Television). Some shows such as Blue’s Clues, Big Bear in the Big House, and Big Bag can promote educational values and social interaction. The Research Center for Families and Children states that, “television, if properly used in moderation, can stimulate a child’s education and creativity” (How Television).

While there seems to be many positive and negative affects to watching television, the negative affects seem to out weight the positive affects. For a child to successfully transition into adulthood it is important for them to engage with other children and in activities that promote the use of their motor skills. In my opinion the positive affects mentioned in the article can be obtained other ways besides watching television. By reading a book or a magazine a child can learn educational values such as enhancing their vocabulary and improving their grammar. Social interaction is listed as one of benefits of watching television, which I would tend to disagree with. I don’t understand how a child can have social interaction while sitting in front of the television. Social interaction involves communicating with other people and not just sitting in front of a television watching people interact. For these reasons I feel that watching too much television has very few if any benefits and for this reason needs to be monitored.


Samantha <3

Media, Money, and Justice

Is there too high a price to pay for justice? Is it up to us to unveil systems of injustice? Can justice be given to someone who has been subject to injustice—to the point of death?

An article in the New York Times discussed how Hearst media company is filing a law suit against the Texas governor’s office over access to clemency reports of a possibly fatal mistake. In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for allegedly lighting fire to his house and killing his three children. However, a newspaper article by David Grann was run in The New Yorker with claims that Willingham might be innocent. Why would a major company spend high dollar to gain access to these records? They want full First Amendment Rights participation along with, most importantly, seeking to end injustice in the court system.
Companies like Hearst are finding ways to cut the costs and get access to the records. The companies are hiring in-house lawyers—lawyers that work pro-bono or at a much cheaper rate. These lawyers are interested in getting the government to give the people information. According to the article, the government has had more “secrecy in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”
So, what’s the big deal? We discussed this article in my mass media class since we are discussing the economic side of media. We’re finding that most mass media companies are reducing their budgets drastically—and filling an immense lawsuit would be out of the question. In our classroom discussion, though, I started remembering an earlier topic of discussion: ideology. But not ideology of what is in the media, but ideology in general. If the media is working for the people, they must be willing to always do what is just. I am impressed with Hearst for continuing this lawsuit because despite their desire for success, they are seeking justice. Everything is about money in the media industry, so this is a story of epic proportion: sacrificing money for an ideal, for justice.
This isn’t just something for media industries to consider. I am a Christian, thus I am continually seeking ways to bring justice to areas of injustice; I think we could learn something from Hearst. Shouldn’t Christians be willing, even glad to give up their monetary resources if it means bringing justice?
Take for instance, the clothing industry. Americans flock to the cheapest prices and look not on the tag for the products maker. So average-Jane American walks into a store and finds the perfect top to go with her skirt. She fails to see that So-and-So company (I don’t want to use real company names.. but if you want them, I can give them to you) made this top in Taiwan. Average-Jane does not go home (or get on her i-Phone) to look at whether So-and-So company pays their workers a fair wage, she only cares about cheap prices. So Average- Jane buys that top without giving a second thought to the person that made it for her.
The rich overlooking the poor.
What if Christians found (or created!) companies that paid their workers a just amount and used good materials in a good work environment? Would you be willing to pay the extra money? Christians absolutely should pay more for their clothing if it means they are supporting a just company. Jesus demands that we pursue what is right and justice is right and good. Money can be a mean to ending injustice.
What are your thoughts? Is it worth it to buy (or sue) for justice if it means extra money? If you’re not a Christian, do you still think it is worth the cost? I’m interested in what is good, so I hope I am closer on my way to discovering it.
Betsy

Football Controversy Fumbles

In the upcoming weeks until the Super Bowl, there was much hype surrounding a Focus on the Family Super Bowl advertisement that featured Florida quarterback Tim Tebow. Word got out that it would be a blatant anti-abortion ad, and women’s groups such as the National Organization for Women were infuriated. Once Super Bowl-time came around, the ad aired, but there were no references to abortion. All the built up resentment toward the ad fizzled once people saw what others complained about.

The irony of the whole debacle was that no one who protested the ad before it aired during the Super Bowl had actually seen the ad yet. The whole controversy was based on rumors, assumptions, and speculations. Focus on the Family is grateful, however. FOTF assumed that the ad would simply air during the Super Bowl, and that would be it. Those who protested the ad in the weeks before the Super Bowl brought much attention to the ad, meaning that more people would then know about it. This was especially useful in promoting the second part of FOTF’s 2-part message. The ad itself promotes celebrating family (a fitting theme hence the name “Focus on the Family”) and then refers viewers to FOTF’s website, where they can see additional material explaining how mother Pam Tebow’s medical condition prompted doctors to suggest that she get an abortion and her reasons for refusing.

The controversy about the ad reiterates the risks and benefits of advertising. A major fact to remember is that no one knows what will sell. No one knows what people will like or not like. People were immediately drawn to this ad because they thought it talked about abortion when it actually talked about celebrating family. Also, in this case advertisers risked spending a chunk of money on ads that people may forget or not notice. Fortunately for FOTF, the risk was worth it because protestors brought more attention to the ad. They fought against an anti-abortion stance, yet they ended up promoting it (indirectly, of course, since the ad itself did not mention abortion, but it referred people to the website that did talk about abortion). This is evidence of the unpredictability of advertising – even seemingly bad news can turn into good news.

The Plight of the Watchdog

Families across the country have tightened their purse strings during the economic recession of the past few years. Money doesn't grow on trees, as the saying goes, so when there's less of it coming home, changes in budget must be made. Just as with American families, major U.S. companies - including media corporations - have had to do what it takes to spend less (and make more). At first glance, that doesn't seem like such a bad thing. But consequences of cost cuts extend farther than you might think. The news industry, for example, has faced some challenges without the funds to investigate certain stories and pursue legal means to get evidence for such cases.
.

A New York Times article on February 14th addressed the recent investigative efforts of a media conglomeration named Hearst. Because so many budget cuts have taken place, Hearst and other companies have had to work "smarter" to keep up investigative work, choosing stories that minimize costs in whatever ways possible. According to the article, "... people, lawyers and activists, have lamented the deep cuts in newsrooms across the industry, saying that they have for years relied on the work of investigative reporters to spotlight judicial injustices." A lot of smaller companies have had to put investigations on hold. Hearst forges the trail ahead, though, and continues its research and legal pursuits; they've even been able to increase the number of cases they're going after because of changes they've made, including the use of in-house lawyers. And it's a good thing, too. The news industry as a whole has long been a source of checks and balances with the government, fighting "legal battles to gain access to government information." When there's a controversial story or information is being withheld from the public, a news company will often take it court and demand that documents be released. The news medium can in that way act as a watchdog that protects citizens from the wiles of politics. But, because of the economic downturn, cost cuts have been hurting the news media; across the board, the number and quality of investigations has been decreasing. Thankfully, though, companies such as Hearst have been able to keep up their work in spite of it all.

.
Overall, it's important to remember what a huge role the economy plays in the production of media. In the news industry, economic factors can determine how many and what kind of stories are being reported, as well as the range of story topics and ideologies being presented. Some stories are cheaper to report because they don't require as much investigation, and it's definitely cheaper to utilize a fewer number of journalists to get the job done. And, beyond cuts in their budget, news organizations are also going to target audiences that can help increase their revenue in order to bolster more money towards improving an already-decreasing budget. Authors Croteau and Hoynes point out one potentially-harmful consequence that appealing to a certain audience may bring: "Such cost-cutting measures are likely to make news coverage oriented more toward elites and government, with little focus on events or perspectives outside the official world."

.
All of these decisions, based on the need for budget constraints, affect the news reports we receive on a daily basis. Bad economic conditions don't just determine what you can or can't buy - they also determine what is or isn't reported by the news media.

The New Face of Literature

The feud between book publishers and consumers is heating up. The price of new release and best selling electronic books is about to go up from $9.99 to $14.99 and the majority of E-book readers are not pleased. Publishers have recently negotiated a deal with Apple and Amazon to raise the prices of the electronic books and according to New York Times journalists Motoko Rich and Brad Stone, we can expect a retaliatory response from consumers. Rich and Stone describe how readers of e-books have shown a reflexive hostility to prices higher than the $9.99 set by Amazon.com and other online retailers for popular titles. When these prices are too high or publisher’s delay releasing electronic copies, readers go onto websites like Amazon and Barnes and Nobles and give one star ratings as well as leave negative comments about the books and the authors. Consumers argue that the price of these electronic books should be much less because the publishing companies aren’t paying to print pages. As far as I’m concerned, Amazon has committed to the $9.99 price,” said Wilma Sanders, a 70-year-old retiree who has homes in Plymouth, Mass., and Marco Island, Fla. She said that if e-book prices rose, she would stop buying. “I’m still a library-goer. There are enough good books out there that I don’t need to pay more than I want to. I already can’t keep up with what I have.” She’s not alone either. The article mentions quotes many people who say if the prices continue to rise, they will find alternatives.

The recent invention of “Kindles” and “Readers” and electronic books has exploded onto popular culture. With the recent release of the Apple I-Pad, electronic books are likely to grow in population even more. Media scholars often look at the content of media and how it affects general public. But we often ignore the importance of the medium in which media industries rely on. These readers are revolutionizing how people are reading books. So what? Does this matter? Well according to Canadian literary scholar Marshall McLuhan, it matters. McLuhan argues that the medium is the message. We’re accustomed to thinking of the message as separate from the medium itself. McLuhan blurred the distinction between the message and the medium. He argues that we focus on the content and overlook the medium and that you can’t do this because content doesn’t exist outside of the way it’s mediated. So when we change from a hardcopy to an electronic copy the message changes. Our reading experience is altered.

So why does this matter? Well according to Stephen Cole, managing director of eBooks, “Five years out, the total e-book market will be between $3 billion and $5 billion.” These numbers are evidence of the popularity of this recent phenomenon. The face of books is changing. No longer are people going to bookstores or drugstores and looking through the bestsellers rack. Instead they are going on websites, buying, downloading, and reading. As stated above, our reading experience is being changed. For better or worse, well that’s for you to decide.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/technology/11reader.html?ref=media

The Buzz about Google Buzz

We are all familiar with Facebook, Twitter and many other social services that are out there for us to use. But now there is going to be a new face in town that is Google Buzz. The idea of Google Buzz it not necessarily original, however, it should still be successful. It is connecting gmail, with a Facebook type network. Those you email frequently will able to connect with your site directly. According to comSource, gmail had 176.5 million unique visitors in December, add that to users of Facebook and you have a recipe for success. You will be able to see content from people you really care about, or at least the people you email the most. It will be a great tool for the people who use email a lot.

Google Buzz is a key example of mass media. “Google Buzz certainly isn’t groundbreaking, but it will achieve critical mass virtually overnight. “ Google Buzz will allow millions of people to connect similar to Facebook, but now through using email. Croteau and Hoynes discuss the rise of the Internet in their book, “Media Society.” “Changes in computer technology were necessary but no sufficient condition for the existence of the Internet. Because the government funding the start of the Internet, it is a clear example of an external social institution directly influencing the development of technology.” The technology was developed, but then Croteau and Hoynes said, “Perhaps here, too, interaction at home with electronic media will replace the social experience of going shopping. The point is that, throughout the history of media, technology by itself has never led unambiguously in a specific direction; rather, broader social forces have channeled the development and application of technological capabilities” (13). The population of the world has now brought on the upcoming new social networks. The popularity of Facebook has now increased other businesses like Google to invest in their own networks, for example Google Buzz.

Ultimately we all know that Facebook is popular, I know for many of college students it helps us avoid doing our homework J It was only a matter of time, before new businesses caught onto the popularity and created their own network. Google Buzz is a new network that will be an interest for those who enjoy emailing. As society changes and turn into a cyberspace oriented generation there will be new networks coming our way. Enjoy J

The Hidden Dangers of Facebook

Facebook may seem harmless to some, however, there are many hidden risks that a lot of people are not aware of. According to Ida Bergstrom, "Online security holes and users' naivety are combining to cause privacy breaches and identity thefts." There have been numerous situations when a person's Facebook profile has been used against them; in instances such as being fired or hired for a job and in a court as evidence.

For those of you not familiar with what Facebook is, "It is a free-access social networking websit developed by sophomore Mark Zuckerberg of Harvard University in 2004 (Leandra Sebastien)." For many people Facebook is a way of keeping in touch with family and friends scattered across the United States and the world. However; along with the fun of Facebook also come risks and negative effects. As mentioned earlier, one of these risks is having information on your profile page used against you. There are many stories of people being fired from their jobs due to pictures or other things posted on their profile page. In Ottawa, Canada a grocery store employee was fired for negative comments about their job on Facebook (Bergstrom). Some of the other major negative aspects of Facebook are that it is addictive and time consuming, can cause procrastination, encourage hackers, and can lead to problems at work and in relationships with others.

In my opinion, these articles convey important messages about the dangers of Facebook. Each author revealed convincing points about the different dangers of Facebook. I found both the articles to be very informative and provide good examples with good explanations. Despite the dangers of Facebook, I believe it is not a bad way of communication as long as you are cautious. Some of the perks to using Facebook are being able to keep in contact with friends and relatives who I do not see often. Another perk is being able to post pictures and look at and comment on pictures of your friends. However; after researching and reading these articles I have realized that Facebook has several dangers and negative effects. Now that I am aware of these dangers I will be more careful about pictures I post and things I write on my Facebook profile. In addition, I will be more careful about the people I am friends with and the people I talk to on Facebook.

In conclusion, there are several important questions we need to ask ourselves. Am I spending too much time on Facebook? Do I post or write things that are negative and could get me in trouble? Are my pictures appropriate? These are just several of the questions we should be asking ourselves every time we log on to Facebook.

Happy Facebooking (safety first)

-Samantha <3

Links used on this blog post:

1. http://www.helium.com/items/1512676-negative-effects-of-facebook

2. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html

Not LOST in Conversation

“What happened?” – The words from Sayid that echoed in the ears of every LOST fan at the closing of the season six premiere on Tuesday night… and the phrase that would have been uttered by these fans about the State of the Union address if the two events had coincided (assuming that die-hard fans would have chosen news about the Island over news about the USA).

Prior to the announcement of the date of the President’s address, there was some fear amongst LOST viewers that the speech would be on the same night as the long-awaited premiere. According to a New York Times article on January 8^th (see the link below if you’re interested), the White House press secretary (Robert Gibbs) made it a point to let fans know they could rest at ease without fear of a conflict. Gibbs said (quoted from the article): “I don’t foresee a scenario in which the millions of people that hope to finally get some conclusion in ‘Lost’ are preempted by the president.” Sigh of relief from producers and fans alike.

Now, I have to admit, I’m a LOST fan, too. Not necessarily a junkie, but I really do enjoy the plot and the show as a whole. Since being at college and being surrounded by friends who bring up LOST at every possible opportunity, my opinion of the show grew from a distant respect to a real and genuine love. (Yes, I even joined a group of these same friends to dress up as our favorite LOST characters for the premiere event. What can I say?)

I find it really interesting, though, how LOST has infiltrated the lives, conversations, and concerns of millions of people around the country. So much so that it was actually a topic addressed by the White House press secretary last month. It goes to show you how much of an influence different realms of media can have in our every-day lives. Sometimes we give the media a bad rap by spouting off how it can be used to change and – dare I use the word – indoctrinate people. Granted, the media (especially in entertainment) are pretty powerful, particularly in our society which seems to be driven by them. But regardless of this fact, I think that another important point to consider is that the media can not only drive what we think but what we think about. [Disclaimer: I stole that last phrasing from a recent COM class.] As is the case with LOST (and many, many other things), media-related topics dominate our conversations. They become almost like safe havens where we return to when we’ve exhausted all other options: “So, what did you think about last night’s premiere?”

David Croteau and William Hoynes (media experts and co-authors of the book Media/Society) say that – and I would by all means agree – “television [was] the dominant form of media in the late twentieth century.” Whether we realize it or not, we watch a lot of TV in our lives. 30 minutes here, 60 minutes there (even if you stream it online that 60 is still around 42). You get the point; it adds up. As Croteau and Hoynes put it, “Television occupies so much of our leisure time and seems to so routinely dominate the cultural landscape of the United States that claims about its preeminence among media technologies rarely seem overstated.” Simply put, media forms (which are definitely not limited to TV) are so pervasive in our society that sometimes we don’t even realize their effects. Even now you’re using one form of media to read about another, something which is in no way out of the ordinary (you probably didn’t even give it a second thought until now).

I don’t think the pervasiveness of the media is a bad thing, but it’s something to think about it every now and then. And the next time you talk with your friends, see how quickly (and even how frequently) a media-related topic jumps into the conversation. Try it. Come back here and share your thoughts. Oh, by the way, “Did you hear the new theory about the Island?"

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/lost-premiere-wont-be-pre-empted-by-presidents-speech/

Google vs. China for Media Freedom

What do you get when the world's largest search engine and the world's largest nation disagree? Apparently, a couple of superpowers tip-toeing aorund each other to peaceably come to an agreement.

In early January, Google threatened to remove censorship of search results in China. So far, no changes have been made, and no further announcements of change have been reported. Neither has china taken liberty to shut out Google nor made any threats of its own. China, with a more restrictive government, naturally does not appreciate such a threat from Google. Currently in China, certain websites are restricted that may impede on the nation's security or "social order." Unsurprisingly, Google insists that all its users have open access to all things Google. Simply put: Google wants to grant users media-freedom, and China wants to maintain control of the media through censorship.

Considering the Chinese government's restrictive nature in comparison to that of the U.S., it is probable that China will not concede to Google's request for a lack of censorship on its search rersults. China does have leverage against Google by opting to close down Chinese Google (www.google.cn) altogether if the search engine lifts censorship. However, no decisions are being made as of yet since Google enjoys hefty revenue from its partnership with China and the Chinese enjoy using the search engine. Also, if Google were actually to remove censorship, it could necatively impact some of China's other businesses including up-and-coming Android cell phone products. Hopefully, a compromise is imminent.

If Google were to completely shut off its connection with China (or if China were to pull the plug on Google), many people would face unemployment, and both sides would have to suffer through bad PR. In the meantime, Google must be sure not to change censorship settings contrary to Chinese law, or else its many employees could face arrestment. ...Yet another reminder to be thankful for our personal freedom...
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61408520100205
--Britt

Women: What is beautiful according to Media?

The appeal of thin, sexy women in the media sells clothes and image. However, women’s representation in the media has pressured American teen girls to think they must be skinny to be considered pretty. As an article in “Reuters UK” states, “Almost nine in 10 American teenage girls say they feel pressured by the fashion and media industries to be skinny and that an unrealistic, unattainable image of beauty has been created.” The article talks about how teen girls want to see models that are real-size. The article found that three-quarters of 1,000 girls said they would be more likely to buy clothes if they were modeled on normal-sized women. More than 80% of teens girls said “they would rather see natural photos of models rather than pictures that had been digitally altered or enhanced.” The media sells celebrities and models, which influence peers, also play an impressive part in affecting the way teens feel about themselves. The media continues to display women in a certain light because they know the society keeps buying this image.
In class, we have discussed portrayals of minorities in media. Media is reflecting the images that society wants—thin, sexy women. This absolutely corresponds with the reflection hypothesis because the media is presenting what society keeps approving, which is the physical portrayal of women to be stick thin and perfect. The ideology that the media leaves for society is that there are only a few things that make women beautiful: skinny and perfect.
If we know this is something the media sells, why do we buy it? If women know we do not need to be (because it is impossible) completely perfect to be considered beautiful, why do we still demean ourselves to succumb to these lies? We must realize that many images in the media are meant to make us buy certain ideologies—not be content in our current situations. We have to make sure we do not buy into the negative images media seems to portray. We must acknowledge that all images in media are digitally enhanced to make women want to become the image. This is a problem for all women, but nothing seems to be done in the media. The closest thing to “normal” images is Dove commercials, where real-size women are portrayed. So, what will it take for the media to accurately reflect the way women look? Will it ever? Is that the goal of the media?
Only time will tell…

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6104Q420100201

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1731400614466797113#
For an example of Dove's countercultural images of women

--Betsy