Click.

“Social media sparks a revelation that we, the people, have a voice and through the democratization of content and ideas we can once again unite around common passions, inspire movements, and ignite change.” 

                                                                                                                                                                               -Brian Solis

By: Azirah Rahman

    Social media outlets has changed the way we organize and develop Grassroots movements and political activism in America and around the world. These outlets have made it convenient to spread awareness by being instantaneous, accessible and share an alternative voice.

    Different social media outlets help raise awareness for a cause faster than previous methods of communication. With social media, one can post information on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to raise awareness, resulting in one to learn new information within seconds. Before, many demonstrations took place during the Civil Rights Movement, but due to the lack of social media outlets, it was difficult to spread awareness quickly. Within several years, those demonstrations developed slowly over time through word of mouth and those who experienced those conditions. Also,many took a stance by speaking about current events. Now, advance technology and the use of social media outlets, awareness of issues will spread to the greater public instantaneously.

Now social media users can relay messages on their personal webpages and others can view messages right away. "Most participants agreed that the Internets ability to reach a mass audience instantly makes digital technologies efficient for sending messages or raising awareness" (Harlow, Guo 470). Digital communication tools such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social outlets allows the community to stay engaged from a distance. The different social media platforms created access to world news for those with a busy schedule and cannot physically be involved in protests, rallies, etc.

 

    The accessibility and popularity of social media outlets continue to grow daily. The millenials utilize smart phones and tablets  to post or retrieve information within seconds, while the older generations continue to learn and adapt to the technological advances. For example, three successful protests in Chicago generated from the word of mouth from social media. People flocked to Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to voice their opinions about the crisis in Palestine/Israel and organizations involvement in future protests/events. Roughly 5,000 people attended the first protest and after the second week of protesting, close to 10,000 participants attended. On July 26, 2014, the third protest in Chicago attracted a whooping 15,000 to the event. This was the result of activists that utilized social media as a mechanism to bring their community together for a cause. I personally attended all three protests due to the popularity of events generated by digital communication tools. Accessibility of social media made it possible and feasible to many people. The power of the internet has the capability to organize thousands of people who are passionate about social causes and want to create change in our world.
    The impact of social media has created a landscape for neutral news reporting, for example the conflict in Gaza. Media outlets tend to broadcast bias information regarding this issue. However, most viewers are learning the entire scope of the issue due to individuals to posting pictures and videos of their social media pages. This allows for one to see the reality of the conflict rather than one sided information. These platforms allow for an alternative voice to be heard and let people create their own opinion, rather than believe what is portrayed by in the media.

    

 I believe that technology is important and a great tool to raise awareness. Depending on the way one uses it and publicize their opinion, makes an impact on their audience. Some people may not wish to be physically being involved in a protest whereas others might find it extremely beneficial. Others may join an activist Facebook page to become immersed in the cause and won't attend rallies regarding their particular stance. Before attending my first protest, I was one of many that just clicked the "like" button to show my support. I went on to change my profile picture to raise awareness and shared several articles and videos on my page to become involved. I also provided social media updates regarding current events. I encouraged my friends to 'like' a particular activist Facebook page if it involved what was important to me. During that time, I believe that being involved in some way on social media, was "good enough" for me.
 

    When I attended my first rally in Chicago, I was in a complete shock to witness the passionate of others about the recent events in Gaza. This first experience led me to become involved physically, rather than taking a stance via social media. I wanted my contribution to be deeper than a 'like' or share of a article on Facebook. Truthfully, I'm a college student and donating money to charity is not possible in my current financial situation. I can be completely involved by spreading awareness through social media outlets, attend rallies and use my voice. Being actively involved in this issue I feel so passionately about fulfills me. It brought peace of mind to know that I've gotten others, including my close friends, to participate in these events alongside me. I admit, it would be difficult to spread the awareness if there were no social media outlets that are available to the community. Thankfully, there are many avenues for one to show support for this cause, including monetary donation sites, Facebook events for the protest event logistics, and social media hash tags that support the cause.

  

    Social media provides instantaneous knowledge and awareness to issues, therefore becoming the preferred platform to retain new information. Social media outlets has changed the organization and development of Grassroots movements. Overall, social media is a great organizational tool. Without it, it would be impossible for anyone to organize 15,000 people attend a protest with short notice. Social media created accessibility for one to watch unbiased news, information about gatherings, and any information from an UN-biased standpoint. By a click of a button, or a 'like' on Facebook, one unlocks information necessary to form an accurate opinion in social issues: The Truth.

Work Cited

http://ejournals.ebsco.com.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu
http://mashable.com/2010/10/09/social-media-activism/
http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/mar/14/online-activism-social-media-engage
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/social-media

Paying College Athletes. Good or Bad for the Sport?

Hawkeye football players getting ready to
run out on to the field at Kinnick Stadium

The NCAA is one of the most lucrative non-profit organizations that has ever existed, with many schools bringing in multiple millions of dollars each year through their respected sport. The student-athletes that play for these teams are what bring fans to the games and earns each university a lot of money per year solely based on them being on the team.  Paying college athletes may be a necessary action within the near future with the amount of money athletic programs bring into these respected universities.  Many smaller programs may not be able to afford to pay athletes because of a lower revenue income for their schools, which could be an issue within intercollegiate sports in the foreseeable future.  Paying players has the potential to ruin college sports for many schools and will ruin the tradition of the student athlete.

There are many people out there that believe college athletes should be paid.  One main reason student-athletes should be paid would be the fact of not being able to have a social/working life outside of their sports, especially during the regular season.  The Northwestern football team has recently decided to unionize (because they are private), and have also decided to sue the NCAA demanding better treatment of the athletes over a regular student, and compensation for the sports they are offered to play in college.  These football players say, “they spend 40 to 50 hours per week on football related activities during the season and even more during training camp (Karaim 2014).”  This shows that these student-athletes give all of their hard work and effort to field a good team for each of their universities, but do they have a good argument for why college players should be paid?  I believe they do.  College athletes work their tales off all year round to win for our favorite teams, and by doing so they commit a lot of their time and effort, while still needing money and food to support themselves.  They don’t have the time to work and earn money, so why not pay them?  Now on the other hand these student-athletes are receiving a full-ride tuition scholarship, which many people argue is plenty of money considering most schools can cost upwards of  $30,000 per year.  They are also allotted money for food, but there is a limit and can possibly leave these kids hungry still, without being able to afford food for home.  Mark Emmert, who is the NCAA President said “Most university presidents, most college presidents that I've talked to, are not particularly interested in continuing sports as they exist now if [college athletes] are going to be converted to employees that are hired (Karaim 2014).”  This shows that the president of the NCAA already believes that these students get paid enough, with most university presidents agreeing with him.  Does this mean that players being paid would ruin college sports?  I think this is exactly what this means.  The NCAA and many university presidents would be so against this, that it would be likely that we see college athletics cease to exist, or at least on the tier we know it as.  There have been cases such a Shabazz Napier, who was a basketball player for the University of Connecticut.  Napier said he would sometimes go to bed hungry, because he had used his entire meal plan and could not afford to pay for his own meals due to him being an athlete.   After hearing about this, Emmert stated that all-student athletes should receive an unlimited meal plan and also possibly receive a $2,000 stipend for miscellaneous things that may occur in day-to-day life (Karaim 2014). This is still not a lot of money, unless he was talking about $2,000 a semester, I believe it would still be an insufficient amount of money for someone to live off of for an entire year. 

Mark Emmert giving a speech.

There has been talk of the power five conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac 12, SEC) gaining autonomy from the rest of the lower conferences.  By gaining autonomy it would allow the power 5 conferences to pay their players.  This would be a huge disadvantage for many lower tier schools and they would have the possibility to cease existence with very little revenue coming in.  I feel that this is a terrible choice for the NCAA to give the power 5 conferences autonomy, not only because it would put smaller school at a large disadvantage, but also it would take away the fun and spirit of the game.  I always thought it was exciting to know that a huge upset could happen any week, especially in college basketball.  With autonomy comes many things that people don’t realize.  We need to take a closer look at the potential damage that could be done by doing this, and realize that it is probably not the best option for college sports.  I do believe it would be a good thing if college athletes were given more money per year, but gaining autonomy and lessening the amount of teams within the NCAA Division 1A would be a bad idea and would most likely take the fun out of college sports for many fan bases around the country (Gemmell 2014).

       Athletes earn their schools millions of dollars throughout their careers. On average the market value for a top athlete at Texas in football would be around $567,922 dollars per year, while they’re only being compensated for about $21,090 through their scholarship, and the market value for a basketball star at Louisville is around $1,632,103 and the scholarship they are receiving is $17,370 (Karaim 2014). This means that the schools are profiting off of these individuals by debating whether or not we should pay athletes to play for universities, more questions arise.  Questions like, should there be a limit on how much each athlete can get paid based on talent? Should each collegiate athlete be paid the same amount while attending the university?  Should academic standards become stricter?  Should players who don’t want an education play in a different league prepping them for a professional career? Should professional leagues just open their leagues up for anyone who has graduated high school?  There are all tough questions to answer.  If we are going to go down the road of giving athletes money, why not pay the superior athletes more?  They tend to earn the universities more money with the sales of their jerseys and other merchandise, and fans come to see the best players play.  So I do believe that there should be tiers of payment for individuals on a team, but there also needs to be a set limit on how much someone can receive or it would be unfair for poorer universities.  There are many stipulations to how paying players would work, and I believe there is no real good way to do this.  There will always be someone unhappy in the end, but something needs to be done so these talented athletes can have a secure future with or without being injured.

        In a study conducted it showed that 54% of the students believe that the student athletes should receive more money than what their scholarship entails.  It also shows that 56% of these students believe that the money these athletes receive should come straight out of the schools athletic department that the athlete attends.  Many had also stated that they think it would reduce cheating within intercollegiate sports, so there would be no more $100 handshakes going on in some of the most dirty and corrupt athletic departments in the country (Schneider 2001). I also tend to believe that it could help reduce cheating, because the players would truly go to where they feel most comfortable, not where they will receive the most benefits under the table.

 There are people who aren’t even athletes who agree that athletes should be paid, even students who attend a major conference university.

     While I do believe paying players is probably the most ethical way to go about this whole argument, I do think there could be many drawbacks such as the loss of tradition and being a student-athlete.  People use to go to school to get a degree and playing athletics was second nature to them, but nowadays it tends to be all about the money and sports within the universities.  This has helped universities fund many things within their campuses and athletic programs, but at what cost?  Athletes do need to be paid, but there needs to be a happy medium that everyone can agree upon.  They should be able to live a comfortable lifestyle, but if they are to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, I say let them enter the professional leagues if they don’t care about an education.

Works Cited

1) Karaim, R. (2014, July 11). Paying college athletes. CQ Researcher, 24, 577-600. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/cqresearcher/

2)  Gemmell, K. (2014, January 17). Power Conferences in Autonomy Talks. Retrieved July 31, 2014, from ESPN.com website: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10307993/ncaa-administrators-mull-giving-power-5-conferences-more-autonomy

3) Schneider, R. G. (2001). COLLEGE STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS ON THE PAYMENT OF INTERCOLLEGIATE STUDENT-ATHLETES. College Student Journal, 35(2), 232.

Piper Chapman... A Menace to Society or a Jailhouse Revolutionist? You be the Judge.

 " Not until we are lost do we begin to understand ourselves."
                                                                                                  – Henry David Thoreau

By: Azirah Rahman

                                     

While there has always been women incarcerated in the United States, popular Netflix series, Orange is the New Black "OITNB", has provided an in depth look of our women in prison and the journey through their personal struggles. Viewership and internet ratings have drawn in people from all different backgrounds (Race, Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Age, Religion, Politics, Etc.) to connect and relate to this show. Their use of dramatic story lines and twisting plots is what has given OITNB such popularity on many social media outlets. 
Someone once told me, "Azirah, just watch the first episode.....I'm telling you, you're gonna be HOOKED!" 

            

Within this character role, Piper "Chapman" plays an unconventional white privileged woman who seems to have it all together. Although Chapman seemed to lead a stable life, one bad decision made 10 years ago has suddenly come back to haunt her. She becomes charged to faced with 15 challenging months in an upstate New York Women's prison facility.

Statistically,what we have been primarily exposed to in within media has been a lot of data illustrating the prison system among men, and very minimal research on the experiences within the Correctional Facility among and for women (Jensen & Jones, 1976). This fresh perspective of a new TV series portraying the "Hard knock Life" women in prison has open the eyes of viewers to simply "binge watch" the series and become utterly infatuated with the character's personality and struggles in each episode. 

In the first season, Piper Chapman is seen as quiet, shy new girl behind the prison walls where she is unsure of her own identity and her new found lifestyle . Season 2 has provided a new look in which within a few months behind bars, time has altered Chapman's personality. Over time, she has learned to alter herself to reflect on her tough experiences and new outlook on life while serving time in prison. 

In OITNB, Season 2 Episode 9 "40oz in Furlough", (Netflix Video above) Chapman has a "Come-to-Jesus moment" after being address critically by her father during the funeral services of her Grandmother. Here, she quickly offers her new found perspective of herself by replying, "That's exactly who I am" after her father stated, "You're my little girl, that girl in there, that's not who you are" (24:00, Netflix Video above). This is a prime example of how prison can alter one's personal ideology, while trying to assimilate back into their personal life.

         

Henry's quote in the beginning of the blog speaks volume in terms of the overall view and depiction of this show. I personally feel that one's behavior will change overtime according to their surroundings and environments. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are a "bad person", but when time progresses, it gets easier to pick up habits and do things in ways that is are just not the same anymore. You can always be yourself, but again, certain events such as Chapman's time in jail has let her for the first time feel more comfortable in her own skin. Chapman's father had a hard time adjusting to her new self awareness and saw this "change" as a negative light. But seriously, how can he even begin to understand if he's been living that "proper" lifestyle his entire life?  

Let's face it, when you do the crime, you've got to do the time; and time is all a person needs in order to change their life. Whether it's good or bad, that's entirely up to the person. Some people in prison already know that they "fucked up" and have disappointed the people in their lives, essentially they look for ways to gain their loved ones' approval again.

Ultimately, one would learn to accept who they really are like Chapman has done. By portraying to be someone you're not, you will eventually get tired of it. In reality, people will eventually grow out of their comfort zone and be the person they are meant to be. When you are not ready, you start acting and when you start acting, you will in the long run "lose yourself". Even Chapman reached an ultimate low in her life at one point, but in a matter of time, she had discovered her true self and grew out of her comfort zone.

Chapman's quiet and shy personality in Season 1, firm and headstrong attitude in Season 2, has led me to imagine how her personality will alter in the upcoming Seasons. Not only am I interested in the changes and story line of Piper Chapman, but I'm also intrigued to see the other unique characters and how they change as well. As I mentioned before, the infatuation with the characters, their personal narratives, and the way they are naturally depict in several diverse viewpoints, has led viewers including myself to hold on to our seats for  the new the episodes to begin. 

I can't wait for Season 3 to begin. I mean shit, I don't blame them! I'm ready... are you?

Work Cited        

http://time.com/2963489/oitnb-season-two-finale-review/

http://jthomasniu.org/class/687/Readings/women-cult15.pdf

http://matadornetwork.com/bnt/discovering-your-true-self-top-50-quotes/

Breaking Bad vs. American Capitalism

Kevin Svec

Politics in Pop Culture

                In the twenty-first century, one of the biggest debates in the United States has dealt with the health-care system. The Democratic Party has agreed upon the idea that the current health-care system, which has been bankrupting countless Americans, needs a reform. In the midst of a political shift, AMC’s Breaking Bad was set to premier in January of 2008. Breaking Bad is a drama which features a man named Walter White (portrayed by Bryan Cranston), an overqualified high school chemistry teacher who develops lung cancer. As the health care system is currently in the hands of private corporations, the quality care he needs for his condition, is not covered by his insurance. As a result, White decides his only option is to begin making and selling highly profitable yet highly illicit drug, methamphetamine, in order to prevent his family from going bankrupt. In an era of political change in the United States, the events of AMC’s Breaking Bad carries an underlying message that illustrates the societal flaws in American health care system and capitalist agendas.

            In early 2008 the United States was in turmoil. The country was hit with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression which left thousands of Americans unemployed and hopeless. As the Bush era was coming to an end, the American people were ready to see a change their country’s politics. One of the biggest changes proposed by then candidate Barack Obama was to make health care affordable to every American regardless of their income as an estimated 55 million Americans are without it. In AMC’s Breaking Bad, Walter White’s descent into darkness illustrates just what lengths people will go to obtain good health care.

In many ways, AMC’s Breaking Bad is a brutally honest attack on American capitalism, specifically in the health care industry. Even with the fact that White wanted the best quality health care for his condition, which would cost significantly more money, the show begs the question of: why on earth should a hardworking American WITH insurance be denied high quality health care so private companies can make a profit? Why is the welfare of human beings about “the bottom line?” Breaking Bad is a graphic look at what the stupidity of the American health care can motivate people to do. Several studies, including one conducted by Harvard University, have shown that medical care is the biggest cause of bankruptcies in the United States and that ten million insured Americans will face bills in which they are unable to pay. The creators of the show have noted that Breaking Bad could not have taken place in a country with universal health care. Many countries, including the United States’ neighbor to the North, have socialized health care and if the series were to take place there, it would be over when White first learned he had cancer, as the government would have taken care of him.

            Here is a bit of background on the Walter White’s situation. White is a middle class American. He has a son with cerebral palsy and a wife who is pregnant at the time of this crisis. White is a high school chemistry teacher WITH health insurance. However, his provider will not cover the high quality care required for his treatment, which would cost over $90,000, an amount that is almost impossible to obtain on a high school teacher’s salary. White is left in a heavy predicament, as many Americans are, to find a way to pay the medical bill or see his family lose everything because of his condition. After trying to come up with a solution, one idea being stealing from his pension, he decides that he can utilize his in-depth knowledge of chemistry to make and sell high grade methamphetamine in order to bail his out of this seemingly hopeless situation.

            White originally plans to start manufacturing methamphetamine for one big payoff that will wipe out his financial burden. However, when White gets in-tune to how the drug business works, he wants more. The course of the series depicts White as a law-abiding citizen turned evil by greed and power. This is a representation of the mindset that capitalist America strategically encourages. Throughout the show, White indulges in the harsh, scum-filled world of methamphetamine trafficking. He is forced to deal with junky psychopaths, make sketchy deals and even kill people, all in the name of money in turn disregarding all thoughts of human compassion.

            Along with working to highlight the flaws and potential outcomes of the American health care system, Breaking Bad also works to bring light to the stupidity of a lot of Americans in relation to the health care issue. White’s brother in law, Hank Schrader (portrayed by Dean Norris) a DEA agent, becomes seriously injured and requires extensive medical care. This comes at a hefty cost of $177,000. When hearing this news, Schrader is shocked at the fact he had to pay that much with the line “$177,000, what about my insurance?” As Schrader is then educated in the American health care system, his character becomes a satire of many Americans’ inability to comprehend just how backwards the system is. He represents the mindset that many Americans assume that since they have coverage, they are completely taken care of. However, in the process neglecting to realize that even with the “must be protected at all costs” employer paid health care, they can still go bankrupt due to “out of pocket expenses.

            This brings up the closing point. Everyone wants the best health care for themselves, especially with a life threatening condition. But to do this, people have to pay the insane amounts out of their own pockets. It demonstrates what lengths Americans will go to just to be healthy. The story of Walter White is not only a story an expression of resistance against the American health care system, but a representation of the downfall of capitalism and the potential results of pursuing the American Dream. Walter White, of “Heisenberg” is a caricature of how far one will go in the face of a devastating condition. Breaking Bad provides a deep message that capitalism is fueled by greed, which is the root of all evil. 

The Truth Behind Nutrition Labels

            In the past 20 years, there have been disturbing trends in the food industry in order to create profits for large companies without any regards to consumer health. Food is marketed manipulatively in order to trick consumers into thinking they are purchasing a product that is more nutritious and higher quality than it really is. This is accomplished using several tactics such as manipulating serving sizes, label padding, and disguising dangerous ingredients on the nutrition facts labels. Instead of forcing food companies to produce healthier products, the Obama administration is working with the FDA to redesign the original Nutrition Facts label in order to better educate us as consumers about the garbage that is put in our food. With obesity and malnutrition on the rise, food companies need to stop creating products that are killing us, and at minimum, all food products need to be labeled in such a way that empowers consumers make healthy decisions instead of unhealthy decisions. That is, if we all want to live a higher quality of life and stop spending so much money on health care.

            In 2008, 54% of consumers reported that they “often” read a food label the first time they purchase a product (FDA). Therefore, it is essential that the label be straight forward and without any gimmicks. Labels are difficult to read accurately when many food companies manipulate serving sizes. For example, when you read “ZERO trans fats” on the front of a food package, that means it does not contain ANY trans fats, right? Wrong. Food companies can label any food containing 0 – 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving as 0 grams trans fat. Now imagine they have shrank the serving size down to one cookie, and the package contains 30 cookies. If each cookie contained .5 grams of trans fats, once you finish your package of cookies, you will have consumed 15 grams of trans fats although the front of the package says “ZERO trans fats”. It doesn’t seem like that should be legal, does it?

Another gimmick used today is called “label padding”. What some food companies will do is add a fraction of a “healthy” ingredient to their product (usually listed near the end of the ingredients list in which it really has no significant health value at all) in order to put in big bold letters on the front of their product that it contains this “healthy” ingredient. Tricky, tricky.

Not only do they trick us consumers into thinking their products have “healthy” ingredients, but they also try to disguise the dangerous ingredients contained in their products. They do this by calling them a more “innocent-sounding” name. For example, nobody would want to eat strawberry yogurt if the ingredients listed, “insect-based red food coloring” on the label, so instead, they just call it “carmine.” Another example is how they use “yeast extract” instead of “mono-sodium glutamate” (which is a chemical taste enhancer used to excite the flavors of overly-processed foods). If you think that’s bad, how would you feel if I told you that a “fruit” product doesn’t even have to contain a molecule of fruit? Many food companies will do this to trick gullible consumers into thinking their hydrogenated oils and artificial food coloring chemicals are actually a delicious and healthy choice for you and your family. It’s time we open our eyes and start asking more questions.

Below is an example of our current Nutrition Facts label (left) compared against the proposed Nutrition Facts label (right). The most controversial update is the added sugars column.

Currently, the food companies are pushing back against adding this column because it would reveal many of their current sugar disguises. “The American Heart Association recommends limiting added sugars to less than 100 calories daily for women and 150 calories daily for men. Randomized clinical trials and epidemiological studies have shown that individuals who consume higher amounts of added sugar, especially sugar-sweetened beverages, tend to gain more weight and have a higher risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemias, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease (CVD)” (Yang 517). Because this is known, food companies should not be able to make these products without informing us as consumers.

It is great that the FDA is wanting to address the tricks of the food trade, but we are not solving the problem here. A potential problem with the proposed label is that not all consumers understand the health costs of added sugars. “We conducted an on-line survey (N=1000) to assess how consumers interpret added sugar on the NFP. With the current NFP, only 5% of consumers inaccurately identified the amount of sugar in a cereal label, whereas, when added sugar was included on the label this increased to 36% inaccurate responses” (Bertino 11). This brings to question whether or not making the label more advanced would help the ordinary consumer, or if it would only help those with a background knowledge of nutrition. Later in Bertino’s study, it is noted that, “when presented with two labels and asked to pick the healthier option, over one-third chose a food with lower added sugar, even though it contained higher calories, fat, and saturated fat” (13). This leaves some hope for the new label, but there are still obvious flaws.

            As consumers, we cannot support the food companies that are deceiving us if we want to make any progress. These companies are prominent in our everyday lives, and their products are accessible at our fingertips. We need to get involved in the passing of new food safety and label laws in order to correct our current problematic system. Before purchasing food products, do your research and don’t be fooled by the gimmicks that many gullible consumers fall into. Healthy options are on the market, and you are worth finding them.

References

Bertino, Mary, and DeAnn Liska. "Added-sugar labeling: implications for consumers." The FASEB Journal 28: 630.11. Web. 11 July 2014.

"Proposed Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label." Foods. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 28 May 2014. Web. 12 July 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/Food/>.

Yang, Quanhe, and Zefeng Zhang. "Added Sugar Intake and Cardiovascular Diseases Mortality Among US Adults." JAMA Internal Medicine 174: 516-524. Web. 11 July 2014.

The New Modern Family

The New Modern Family

Jaclynn Hanson

Never has it been more obvious that the days of Ward & June Cleaver are over than when viewing today’s typical television sitcom.  Yes, the vision of the All-American family is in our rearview mirror and our new favorite TV moms and dads are drunk behind the wheel on their way to pick up their illegitimate children from jail.  Popular television series today showcase a new normal of today’s modern family and they go about their daily endeavors in a shameless fashion.  In an attempt to keep up with a changing familial landscape, television series such as Modern Family, Breaking Bad, Weeds and Shameless exhibit, in varying degrees of intensity and humor, the changing tides of today’s family structure.  While this generates a much broader lens for viewers, it simultaneously leaves people without same-sex parents, a sibling in prison, or a drug addiction feeling as if they no longer belong under the “average American family” classification.  A new spin on the American family, and for most they are now the outsiders looking in.  Or, if framed in a true-to-life context: those damn nosy neighbors discovering the marijuana greenhouse operating next door. 

The recipe for a successful family-centered sitcom in the past was simple.  Same-sex parents with jobs, a couple kids and a pet would be presented with some type of dilemma or predicament and together they would find a solution and overcome it all as they hugged it out to with the background sounds of violins at each show’s end.  While to a certain extent this formula is still being utilized in today’s most popular television shows, several aspects have undergone a drastic transformation in an attempt to reflect and address current societal circumstances.  However, many hit television shows have exacerbated the dramas of the “modern family” to a degree that has turned what was once a family sitcom that incorporated small facets of advice and a structure to mimic into a how-to guide to manufacture and sell drugs, or on the lighter side, how to fashion a boxed-wine enema for the alcoholic in your family like Peter Gallagher convinced his son Carl to do for him on Shameless only before he continues on to give him advice on masturbation (“Simple Pleasures”).

 

            In his book, “Vulgarians at the Gate: Trash TV and Raunch Radio: Raising Standards of Popular Culture”, Steve Allen defends the old formula for successful television and expresses concern for the direction television programming is going.  He argues that, “clean comedy can be successfully marketed because it has been for a very long time” as he lists off successful comedians and actors dating back to Vaudeville days (Vulgarian 53).  While I think many people can agree that television may be a more dangerous venue of exposure to children for most of the shock and awe programs we have become accustomed to, it has become a far more successful strategy for television to push the envelope than that of clean comedy once enjoyed and reveled by previous generations.  To put it in perspective, there was once a time when a pregnant Lucille Ball raised eyebrows with CBS execs and the episode of Ellen in which Ellen DeGeneres came out to the public generated one of the highest rated shows only to get cancelled shortly after (Douglas 11).  These are topics that we are no longer afraid of, and the kinds of topics we don’t give second thought to.  Viewers today would tune in only if Ellen DeGeneres gets knocked up by Lucille Ball.

It has long been debated whether or not television viewers emulate or frame their thinking in synchronization with what they see as “normal” on the programs they watch.  If this is true, will we be seeing more middle-class suburban families facing financial difficulties seeking careers in drug trafficking or will we sympathize with the morally bankrupt schemers trying to get by in the inner city?  Or, in a less criminal generalization, will we not bat an eye when our grandfather introduces us to his Latin lover thirty years his junior?  Although it’s hard to prove to what extent our  culture reciprocates what we see on television, it is interesting to note what author Marvin Moore found in his study of the “American family” on prime-time television where he suggests, “prime-time network television tends to reinforce conservative to moderate models of family life while also presenting a diversity of non-standard interpretations of family which are, for the most part, comfortably framed in the non-threatening comedic form" (Moore 44).  The idea of diversity being presented in the non-threatening comedic form can be seen in many sitcoms showcasing a different take on the typical American family.  A prime example would be ABC’s award winning Modern Family, a show that thrives on awkward situations and satirical humor as opposed to gang violence and explosives.

Showtime’s Shameless incorporates all the ingredients for one majorly screwed up American family.  Drug use, alcohol abuse, close encounters with incest, frequent encounters with police and a mixed race infant who ingests cocaine under supervision of his older sister essentially define this south side Chicago family modern family.  One cannot help but wonder if there really is a significant population of families that survive (and maybe even thrive) in these kinds of outrageous situations.  Maybe the white, working, middle-class, same sex parents married with children structure might be evolving and changing before our eyes on the TV screen, but are they changing to that extent in real life or is this the only way television series can earn their keep these days?  While the problems familial sitcoms of the past faced were arguably cliché, mild-natured and relied more on cheesy one-liners than one night stands and drug benders, they drew a closer picture of the average American that most of today’s hit dramas portray. 

 

In turning away from the typical family setting, new television families are wilder and crazier than ever – often depicting a lifestyle of extreme highs and lows never before seen on television.  Even cable programming that not long ago featured the familiar faces of the Tanners, the Conners, and the Taylors has seen a shift in pushing the envelope with heavy drug and sexual references as well as a normalizing of criminal behavior never imagined by Danny Tanner or Tim “The Tool Man” Taylor.  Now, the families invited into our living rooms on a Wednesday night are the rebellious Whites and the conniving Botwins.  We used to watch Roseanne Conner flip pancakes over the stove and now we watch Walter White cook crystal meth to perfection in a pair of tighty-whities.  Our new standard for the American family in television has definitely reframed our idea of today’s normal, modern, shameless, and bad.  The majority may feel as if they are the nosy neighbors looking in on a wild and crazy family dynamic, but we sure do enjoy watching the chaos from the safety from our own front yards.   

      

 

    

 

Music communication in film

Everyone loves music. Music makes us immersed in music word, which is tranquil and enjoyment. A song plays a very important role, because the role of songs too wide. In many case, the song is not perfect, but if put a song into the film, it will different sound effect for perspective of hearing and visual effect. Therefore, music plays very important role in film, which creating a certain setting or evoking a certain emotion. Music is rendering the atmosphere of plot, which enhances artistic appeals for film.

           Music promotes the development of the plot of film; the same melody of music repeats a lot of time in film, which make the film coherence and complete. In addition, making the theme more distinct. Appearing of music is mainly to support the images of the plot as purport, it is a major manifestation of Film music, so keep the subject between music and image’s relationship, which makes the whole movie success, performed its connotation. “Referential meanings associated with the music are ascribed to the overlapped (congruent) audio-visual components upon which attention is focused.”(Lipscomb&Tolchinsky,2005) For example, Titanic is best example for keep the subject between music and image’s relationship. My heart will go on as theme for Titanic, integrating with the whole song and film, which makes film infectious. The song breakthrough the whole movie, which establishes the emotional tone of it’s tragic, also to bring people have feeling of fresh. This song’s melody is from the original flat to arouse, and climax of song with tender and romantic sentiments, and until finally the song end with sadness. There are only four minutes of song, but actually embody the whole movie. We can likely associate with from melody of song that is Titanic first time voyage of grand sight: luxurious ship that smell of new paint in everywhere, it seems so excited and proud of itself, and its welcome every passengers as honor to become its first customers for first time voyage. Music tone is cheerful and full of hope; this is portrait that people are looking forward to better future, which so exciting. Along with the music in climax of song, the main character Rose and Jack, they meet on boat, falling in love, which fulfill a romantic atmosphere. The background music also plays a role of properly, which is song with tender and romantic sentiment. However, disaster is coming, which break this beautiful melody, merciless of cold water is accompanied by an iceberg hit the ship. At this moment, it is break the silence, and people are panic. The obviously contrast of images and music is display in film. Music is suddenly speed up, rapid drums and critical. Strong melody is rendering of tension in the plot. This piece of music is highlighting the critical of condition and people's helplessness and desperation. Finally, the ship had sank, Jack save the rose’s life. In this moment, music is increasing the infection of plot. My heart will go on ‘s melody indistinct display through the whole film, which makes its unforgettable. “The music alters meaning of a particular aspect of the film” (1988,p199) Therefore, it cannot be denied that a several episode appears in film, it can deepen the main idea of film and effect of infectious.

           Music foil atmosphere of the film in order to make audience feel like be personally on the scene. In film, there are serve situation to adding the music to film, it will show a different effect in film. For example, a plot wants to show character’s internal monologue or emotion without any self-narrative or conversation; hence, director will add into music in order to display the character’s mood or feeling. “Musical sound provides a cue for the listener concerning whether the narrative is intended to be perceived as scary, romantic, funny, disturbing, familiar, comforting, other-worldly”(Lipscomb&Tolchinsky,2005). In this case, music get involved from perspective of hearing, and put in plot for expression of the visual content, it makes the character’s emotion further stressed that further rendering atmosphere of film. Moreover, it is deepen the purpose of visual effect, which enhance artistic appeal. “In this capacity, the role of music is significantly enhanced by the level of ambiguity inherent in the visual scene. Specifically, the more ambiguous the meaning of the visual image, the more influence is exerted by the musical score in the process of interpreting the scene.”(Lipscomb&Tolchinsky,2005). For example, there is one plot, which left deep impression for me. The four-violinist man plays the quartet, which have violinist, violist, cellist, and a bassist mix together rhythm. When the ship start drowned water, everyone want to escape from the ship, but they are continues play it, which ignore any emergence delirium. In this moment, melody plays in the film, which cover their tonality of violin. The music can convey character’s internal idea, they face to the fact of sink, no fear, no anxiety, and they are calm to accept anything. In film, the role of music can be basic on visual effect in order to let audience have hearing effect. Combining with music and visual effect, it makes the plot further sufficient evidence to convinced audience, which let us left deep impression for the film. To reveal character’s internal thoughts, it express character’s emotion in order to foil atmosphere of plot, therefore, music of performance is important to depict the plot.

         In conclusion, if the image is framework for film, then the music is spirit of film. Film music as a new music carrier, it plays important role in the film. Whenever the film is happiness or sadness, it necessary to use the music represent emotion, it’s brought the vivid for image. A good film is not only impressing plot for audience, but also film music left deeply impression for us.


Reference

Scott D. Lipscom&David E. Tolchinsky. (2005). Musical Communivaiton. The Role of Music Communication in Cinema. Retrieved from http://www.lipscomb.umn.edu/docs/Lipscomb_Tolchinsky_ICMPC8_proceedings_final.pdf

Brown,R (1988). Film and classical music. In Film and the arts in symbiosis: A resource guide（ed.G.R.Edgertion),pp165-215. New york,Greend wood press.