Commercials Olympics vs. Super Bowl

This is Courtney. Last night while watching the men's freestyle ice skating on the 2010 Vancouver Olympics I couldn't help but think about brand placement and advertising during sporting events. As I watched this event I noticed a lot of interesting things. First of all, almost all the skaters drank from a Dasani water bottle. Granted, the label was not displayed as obviously as the Coca-Cola bottle is on American Idol, but anyone who had ever seen a Dasani water bottle knew it when they saw it in the hands of these Olympic athletes. Then I noticed that McDonald's in one of the main sponsors of the Olympics. Well that is rather counter intuitive! I seriously doubt that any on the Olympic athletes have came within 10 feet of a McDonald's door, much less actually eaten anything from there! Then I got to thinking about how much a 30 second spot would cost for a commercial in the Olympics, and how that would compare to the cost of Super Bowl commercials. One Internet source said that the 2010 Super Bowl commercials cost between $2.5 and $3 million, and a 30 second spot at the Olympics cost between $650,000-$800,000. These are both sporting events, and because the Super Bowl happens once a year every year, the Olympics, which only happen once every four years is a bigger deal! Not to mention the fact that people from every country represented in the Olympics watch them, while the Super Bowl is mainly to an American audience. According to Postman "We may safely assume that the television commercial has profoundly influenced American habits of thought"(Postman, 126). I have to wonder how much the commercials in these sporting events actually influence people, and what studies would show that.
Just something I thought was interesting...

Courtney

Response to Postman's "Shuffle off to Bethlehem"

This is Courtney. I found this chapter to be fascinating. I agree with Postman on most of it, but I have to argue against him as well. He says that "on television, religion, like everything else, is presented, quite simply and without apology, as entertainment"(Postman.116). I agree, that on television especially, religion is there to be entertaining. But I have to say that having religion at a church is just as entertaining. I used to go to church very often. In general the more often you go to church, the more devout you are (or at least in our society that seems to be a trend). There are services on Wednesday nights and Sundays. My church also had picnics and potlucks throughout the week and "teen night" at least once a week. These events were all entertaining, and all social. They had very little to do with actually worshipping. So while religion on television is entertainment, a lot of religion done in person is entertainment as well. In the past, Sunday morning church was the only time people had to socialize, and they took that opportunity. Television doesn't have the social aspect to religion that actually physically going to church does.

On a seperate note, Postman also says "If the delivery is not the same, then the message, quite likely, is not the same"(Postman, 118). I can agree with Postman on this point, but that goes for everything. On 9/11 the delivery for people in New York and Washington D.C. was quite different than the delivery for people in Colorado. I know because I was in Washington D.C. on September 11th, 2001. That morning we watched the smoke billowing up from the Twin Towers on television. I remember thinking "I am so glad we are n Washington D.C., and not there. An emergency announcement came out while my family and I were on the metro. I can't remember the exact words, but it was something to the effect of "The Metro will not be going any further than the (Street Name) stop (It was the stop right before the stop for the Pentaagon). A airplane has been flown into the Pentagon. Please exit the Metro as quickly and calmly as possible". The exit was an underground concrete stop. I goes without saying that we all headed for the stairs, trying to get a better look at what happened. The difference of delivery between the Twin Towers on television, and the Pentagon, as an eyewitness, were astounding. I think this concept can be applied to many different mediums and messages.

McLuhan and Memory

In class we talked about how print technology allows us to go back and reference whatever we read. We are not required to memorize and remember ancient stories from the past like many people before print technology came about. I have noticed that the busier I am with different kinds of media, the more I forget about what I am doing. I will often have my email open, my phone on, and the TV in the background as I study. From this I have discovered that I have a one track mind, and I don't fit in with my other fragmented cohorts because I can't media multitask.
This semester I am exploring a media I have had very little exposure to. It is talk radio. I love listening to the various programs they have on talk radio as I drive because it keeps me focused on the road and catching as much as I can on what they are talking about. I was listening to news on talk radio the other day talking about how different presidents have handled Guantanamo Bay and Gitmo. It was fascinating and when I got home something was said about the same subject later that night. I joined in on the conversation, but when I tryed to recall names of important people that were mentioned I couldn't remember them. I am a young, soon to be college graduate and I can't remember names of some of the people involved! It's pathetic and it is a reflection on how much our society relies on the ability to "double check" or "go back" to information.
-Courtney

The Typographic Mind

It is hard for me to read a chapter such as "The Typographic Mind" in Postman's book and not compare it to the world today. In the beginning he gives it already in two time periods for comparison; the time of Lincoln and the time of the book's publication. However, reading this decades after its publication gives an even starker contrast between all of these times.

Seven hour debates? And he questions the readers in the time before information was the fastest, most concise, and most accessible it has ever been if they could handle that? How about today, does anyone have sufficient attention span in order to handle something like that? We live in our argument culture where a debate is more about who can come with an answer the fastest in place of who can come up with the best and most beneficial eloquently explained answer.

And on with the eloquence, it may seem like an okay idea for politicians to dumb down language of bills and amendments so the general public can understand, but why should the general public not smarten themselves up in order to understand the politicians more?

We are certainly a long way away from the time of the Lincoln-Douglas debates and it seems like we might only be getting farther. Attention spans and IQs at an all-time low do not necessarily bode well for a flourishing society.

--Jon

Response to "Boys Will be Boys: Gender and Opposition

Hmm. This chapter really has me wondering how extensive Tannen's research is. I know that she is trying to make a very specific point here so she uses very specific scenarios, but I think a little differently than Tannen. Unfortunately, it all goes back to the nature vs. nurture debate. I think that the way kids act has a lot to do with the way they are raised. I personally act more like the boys in her scenario than the girls. I attribute a bunch of this to the way I was raised. First of all I have two siblings that are both more than 5 years older than me. As is expected, my siblings picked on me a lot. There was no negotiating with these two, I learned at a very early age that if I wanted something I had to physically fight for it. I also grew up in the country, and while I did play with dolls I also was fascinated with trucks and "fighting" my trucks and dolls. I also completely disagree with tannen on the concept of when given a choice, children play with others of their same sex. I learned from a very early age that children are quite vindictive, and my experience shows that girls are particularly vindictive. When I was little we moved to Colorado, and clearly I had to change schools. The girls in my class were all parts of seperate "groups" that you couldn't be a part of unless you passed the "test"involving social habits.. Being quite a stubborn child, I refused to take the girls "test" and chose to go play with the boys, whose test included running fast, tackling, etc.- something that I was much more excited about!
I have always gotten along better with boys, not girls. To this day I have 2 girlfriends and countless guy friends. I realize I have experienced very different things than most of the other girls my age, and I am not a typical girl, but I know for a fact that not all girls are like what Tannen describes.
---Courtney

Response to talk radio and readings for 2-2

Courtney here. I chose to listen to some talk radio this week for something different. I have never really done this before becasue I was never really interested in it in the past. I ended up listening to a story on Fresh Air about the book Get me Out: a history of Childbirth. This segment only lasted for about ten minutes, but it really got me thinking. The host and author spoke about the highlights in the book. I have watched plenty of TV talk shows that bring authors in and talk to him about their books, and I have decided I like talk radio better when it comes to talking about books.
I am a people watcher, and becasue of that I often get totally engrossed in what a person is wearing, their hairstyle, facial structure, etc. I often get so engrossed in the outer image presented I don't even listen to what they are trying to say. With radio I have to listen closely to what they are saying, and I end up getting more out of it. I also noticed that while listening to talk radio I pay closer attention to the road. Why? I don't know, but I was definitely a more engaged driver. I feel like one quote from Postman that relates to this concept is this "Although the Constitution makes no mention of it, it would appear that fat people are now effectively excluded from running for high political office...Indeed, we may have reached a point where cosmetics have replaced ideology as the field of expertiseover which a politician must have competent control". I feel like I am a result of a society that actually sees political representatives and celebrities every day and can judge them by the way they look. During the last political campaign what were both of the presidential candidates wifes well known for? How well educated they were? No. What good parents they were? No. How beautiful they were and what great fashion they had? Absolutely!!!
It is realizations like this that makes me wonder about media and our society, because they are VERY intertwined.