FACEBOOK: IS IT THE BEGINNING OF THE END

Erna Amoah
0556229
TA: Rita T
November 8, 2007

Facebook: Is it the Beginning of the End?

It is so easy now, it has become second nature in our society: we can now even access people we met over 20 years ago, who we went to pre-school with, all through one major communication pool, which embodies thousands of millions of people. Facebook, which was created about 3 years ago, has taken the Western Society by storm, connecting people to their family, friends, and old acquaintances. Overall, online networking websites have become an integral part of our function as humans. But the revolution of networking, although created with a positive motive, has created some detrimental effects and has many people arguing that such social websites as Facebook will cause more damage to us than it will good.
In Lecture two, Dr. Sevigny introduced Harold Innis, and his philosophy of Communication Principle “changes in the mode of communication lie at the heart of social, cultural and economic evolution” (Sevigny-Lecture 2, Sept 14). Through the book of Minneva’s Owl, Innis states the concept that “creativity and learning attain their highest level only when society has begun to decline” (Sevigny-Lecture 2, Sept 14). In essence, only after we undergo an experience does it become of value, but by that time it is usually too late to alter any previous decisions.
When we take a look at the quick evolution of technology and how the importance of online social networking has increased at an uncontrollable pace, we are beginning to realize that the benefits of our new mode of communication has changed our social organization and influenced our society’s values and function. Facebook has provided the means for online-predators, and cyber-bullying. We hear of “Facebook stalkers,” and “racist groups” being formed everyday, with such little regulation of people’s privacy. As well, people are being screened by police and potential employers, via Facebook. As well, all data is completely accessible to third parties for “data purposes” which in actuality serve no direct purpose.
Canada prides itself as being a free, democratic country, where people have a right to express who they are, but in today’s society, you cannot really do that without thinking twice about how little privacy we have. We are losing our values, by investing time into such social networks which present themselves as good, but may be fatal to our futures, but we ignore it for now, because our ignorance only allows us to live in the moment.

Bibliography
Sevigny, Alex. Communication Studies 1A03 Lecture 2. Friday September 14, 2007

TV TALKS

Erna Amoah
0556229
TA: Rita T
November 8, 2007

TV Talks- Teenagers: We are what we Buy

It happens every year, especially around back to school and Christmas time: Teenagers go mad for the latest things! It’s inevitable, because you’re constantly bombarded by television ads of the coolest, and newest electronic devices, articles of clothing, and personal items, that if you don’t have you will absolutely die!
Teenagers are the best target market for marketing companies. The average teenager themselves will see about 5,000 different advertisements a day, causing them to indulge in impulsive shopping to get the latest and trendiest things. Television ads have been proven to be one of the most effective marketing tools, especially with teenagers. However, it has not always been beneficial. “Cultural theorists and anthropologists say: social identities and differences, and equalities are legitimated through our cultural consumption. TV ads function as myths and metaphors” (Sevigny-Lecture 13, Nov. 6).
TV ads work to create an illusion of a “Utopia” life (example: “If you don’t have this iPod, you will never be happy.”) Advertising reveals the latest fashions and the new popular novelties on the market. It exhibits perfect individuals wearing the new styles and looking good. However, Dr. Sevigny speaks in Lecture 13 about how the difference between the poor and rich in Canada are projected taste. For example, the purpose of a car is to take a person from destination point A to destination point B. But TV ads will work to advertise BMW as the better, more powerful car, which the rich people will invest in, and the lower class people will settle for the Hyundai model. At the end of the day, a car is a car, and everyone has achieved their ultimate goal of reaching their destination. Because TV ads work to increase the projected tastes in individuals, teenagers make the perfect marketing target group, because of their materialistic values. When they see an ad on TV they see perfection and envy it, and go out to buy the product, in hopes of being one step closer to being “cool”. Kids look into ads to buy into ideas, not necessarily the product. Companies like Apple, H & M, Artizia, and other companies targeted at teens use television as the medium for connecting teens to the idea of popularity and acceptance, and not necessarily the perfection of the product, which teens buy into, and perpetuates stereotypes, endorses conformity, and causes kids to buy into things not necessary in life.

Bibliography
Sevigny, Alex. Communication Studies 1A03 Lecture 13. Tuesday November 6, 2007

WHITHER MARRIAGE?

Many young girls picture this: You grow up, find Prince Charming, you get married, say "I DO", have kids, and you live Happily Ever After... Sounds lovely doesn't it? But in fact, the reality is that more and more Canadians are choosing not to get married: either becoming common-law weds, or remaining single all together, and the number of marriages are on the steady decline. Why, you may ask? I think it has to do with choices, and I although I think both points of view were weakly argued on the video clip by CBC News, I think there is a misconception of the necessity of marriage anymore.

Many people argue that the pressure remains on women, but when it comes to the idea of marriage, children, and family-life, women must be in the spotlight. Over the years, women have found their voice, in the fact that they have the ability to choose. In the past, it was not uncommon for women to be placed in arranged marriages, by age 18, and immediately start having children. The stigma was placed on unmarried women, with no children, who were not accepted by society. But with the push by women for further education, rights and privileges in the political settings, and more equality to men, women have had more opportunities to fulfill any dreams they have: an opportunity that many women of the past could only dream about.

Women today are beginning to realize that there is potential for them to excel career-wise, and maybe not rush or be forced into a marriage. With the declining rate for marriage, we see that there is a massive increase in divorce. Many women are second thinking the decision to rush into a relationship, and having children with someone they cannot foresee a promising future with, and I mean who can blame them? You hear of so many relationships that infidelity, abuse, depression, substance abuse all play a role in the deterioration of the function of the family, so women are beginning to take their time in making such a lifelong decision with their significant other.

Nowadays, if you want a child you can just go to a sperm bank. And the number of single-parent families are on the rise, which shows promise of a self-sustaining family. With a fast-paced culture like the Western society, and its changing norms, there is no surprise that the necessity and meaning of "Marriage" has lost its significance. We can now have all the benefits of marriage (i.e. common law) without the signing of papers. I think marriage is still a dream I hope to obtain, but it's significance and necessity are not as important as they were in the past, so I will never feel pressured, by family or society to get married if I do not feel it is under the right pretences.

THE GREATEST HAMILTONIAN

What makes a great Hamiltonian? My guess is that it is the same criteria that makes a great Canadian. When we think about what makes a great Hamiltonian, it's not about the wealth, the prestige, or the popularity of the individual, but it is about what contributions the person has made to bettering the lives of others, honoring the past, present, and providing a brighter future for its society. Hamilton has developed immensely, and had it not been the devotion and contributions of several individuals, it may not be the pre-industrialized city we see it as today.

The decision was not easy, as there were many people like Lincoln Alexander, Karen Kain, and even the founder of Hamilton itself, the man who envisioned the ambition of a great city "Steel City" George Hamilton: my greatest Hamiltonian is Michael G. DeGroote.

Michael DeGroote has accomplished so much, and he has affected contributed to various aspects of Hamilton that has better the lives of the citizens of Hamilton. For a many who never finished high school, he has been on the fore-front of encouraging education for all aspiring youths today. His $105 million dollar contribution to McMaster alone, in business and medicine shows his devotion to life long learning, that will in effect assist us one day find cures for many of the major diseases in health today.

His billion dollar business, Laidlaw, has created so many job opportunities to the residence of Hamilton, a city that has experienced a slump, since no longer relying on it's steel factories for economic success. His garbage collection, and recycling program has promoted the idea of a "Greener" Canada. He has opened the school bus program that has expanded to other cities in Ontario, creating safe transportation for children.

He also purchased the Hamilton TigerCats, encouraging athleticism and promoting the growth of the city of Hamilton.

Michael G. DeGroote has left a legacy in Hamilton that is not only honorable, but has set a promising future for Hamilton residents. He is not popular or very known, but the contributions he has made to the city of Hamilton will be recognized and spoken of for decades to come.

DION ACCUSES TORIES OF HAVING HIDDEN AGENDA ON DEATH PENALTY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvUaspp40FY

Too many loopholes, too many inconsistencies... Are the Tories really trying to pull a fast one over Canadian citizens?

The idea of capital punishment has been an issue that has set aside Canada from many other industrialized countries in the world. The fact is that Canada has set a precedence as the leading nation against capital punishment. It has been a trademark that Canadians have upheld for several decades.

The idea of capital punishment has been an issue that segregates the political parties in Canada. The Liberal Party, and the New Democratic Party has stood firm in defending the idea of anti- capital punishment. The Progressive Conservative Party, however, have been known to be more right-winged, and have a strong American affiliation influence. Although never inadvertently outspoken, their party has been known to have strong views on capital punishment, and amending the idea of anti-capital punishment in Canada.

Today, the Progressive Conservative Party has com into power. Many people worry that now that they have power, they may try to implement their radical ideas into Canadian society, which has many people worried. There is no middle-ground when it comes to the idea of capital punishment: either you are for or against it. Other political party leaders have come out and stated their ideas of capital punishment openly, but no word has been given by Stephen Harper. Should Canadians be worried that we may adopt ideas that support the American culture? It has already began with the idea that Canadians can be executed in other countries, but who is to say that by accepting those terms, Canadians are not opening the doors to allowing politicians to change the face of Canadian culture and its values and beliefs. I strongly believe that if you commit a crime in another country, those country's laws should be implemented when facing our consequences: death penalty or not. But Canada itself should not allow politicians to tell us whether someone should be executed or not, because we are one step closer to adopting the American culture, and integrating it into our free, democratic society.

Should Your Daughter get the HPV vaccine?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB2Vv_kEEdY

This Youtube video is a clip from the Today Shoe, advertising the positive effects of the Gardasil drug

This article raises up probably one of the most controversial issues of 2007: the vaccination of female girls. Very convincing issues are raised on both sides of the issue, but in the end, my opinion stands that the vaccination should be available to females, and they should be given the choice.

Many people opposing the idea, are mainly from the Catholic board. Their idea is that by providing the vaccination, they are supporting or "opening the gates" for pre-marital sex. However, at the end of the day, girls are going to have sex if the choose to, regardless of whether they have protection or not. By providing the vaccination, it protects the future of all females, but the choice about sexual engagement still remains in their hands.

However, a strong point against the vaccination is about how "new" the drug is to the market. Doctors and scientists have argued the fact that the drug provides more benefits to females than it does risks, but no one has seen the long term effects of the drugs in females. There have been many anti-depressants and other anti-anxiety drugs that have been pulled off the shelf, due to the horrible effects it has had on people (i.e. addiction, weight gain, mercury-traces etc.). Many people are at risk by using this drug so early at it's stage, and the fact that it is being introduced to females at such a young age, we do not know the risks it may pose and the impacts it can possibly have on their lives in the future.

In the end, I think that the HPV vaccine could possibly be another scheme that pharmaceutical companies are using to get rich really quick, by providing a drug that can "allow girls to have sex, with one less disease to think about", but I also think that it can be an opportunity for a major break-through in science and in health. I'm wondering: if the vaccine was geared directly towards young boys, would there be such an outrage by the public? Just something to think about.

THE TABS: NO MEN ALOWED

WHAT SEPERATES THESE CELEBS AND THEIR "MISHAPS" ISN'T THE TROUBLE THEY GOT IN, BUT WHO THE TROUBLE WAS CAUSED BY...

This article was interesting in the fact that it really raised awareness to an important issue hat our society indulges millions of dollars into every year: Gossip! The social constructs we have created in the American society has seen a dramatic increase in the female scandals published in tabloids. Even our latest victim, Duane "Dog" Chapman, whose recent racist conversations with his son about his controversial relationship with a Black female were recorded and aired to the public, has seen not even a quarter as much publicity as Paris Hilton's time spent in jail, that had news coverage on CNN for 24-hours this past summer. According to a new MSN-Zogby poll, 70 percent of Americans say they don't change their viewing choices based on a celeb's comments. Meaning, we base our opinions more upon their actions.

I completely agree with Ms. Weinman, with all of her comparisons between male and female celebrity scandals. The only time men are targeted are when make racist comments, or when they are in a couple- thus the blame gets diverted to the female in the relationship. A perfect example would be Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, and Angelina Jolie scandal. Angelina was perpetrated as a "home-wrecker" but what about Brad being a "male-whore"? No no, such radical ideas don't exist in American fame or in it's culture. I disagree with Fuller's prediction that male gossip will be aired more in the future. Tabloids are making way more money, and drawing much more attention to the females who make mistakes in life, than how Bobby Brown's rehab is going after over-dosing on cocaine. Give me a break! Tabloids are garbage, but it's difficult to escape it. So by feeding into the tabloids and what they write, we give them more ammunition to continue doing what they do best: making women seem evil, and males scandals seem very "boys will be boys", and give them less reason for change.

NBC executive slams Apple for "killing music industry"

VS.





iTunes and NBC have officially ended their divorce. And boy was it ugly!

There is no doubt about it... iTunes has been argueably one of the most powerful, and influencial business of the 20th century. It's monopoly has taken over the media industry by storm, leaving all of it's competitors watching them bask in their glory from the sidelines, or gain any little benefit they can from the successful business... Well, if you can't beat 'em, join em'! Which is what many people have opted to do. Even Second Cup, and business that is not even media affiliated, has joined forces with Apple, in marketing and advertising their business.

NBC is just greedy! How can you ask another company for profits from their private product? The nerve of NBC! If NBC wants a profit from iTunes, then in fact, it's true when they say that NBC doesn't ask television manufactorers for a cut in their sales. If anything, Apple is expanding NBC's network to those who cannot access it directly through television (i.e us Good Ol' Canadians)

They accuse iTunes of " killing the music industry in terms of pricing,” and for threatening to do the same to the video business. The article goes into great detail explain how iTunes did the exact opposite, and are responsible for the music industry still even existing today. All in all, NBC is crazy for suggesting such radical ideas, and even if in the event other television stations follow the lead of NBC, the money iTunes makes from iPods and selling music alone, will still overpower and defeat those running against them... Tough, better luck next time NBC!