In recent years, reality shows have created a new flavor to America’s prime-time television options. Arguably the most successful is the show American Idol, as “more people watched the 2003 finale...(40 million) than watched the second presidential debate in 2000 between George Bush and Al Gore (37 million)” (Horowitz, E.M., 2007). What is it about this show that makes it so successful?
The answer could the lie in skillful advertising; or, in the value of pure entertainment; or, possibly, the structure of public involvement. Perhaps, the success of American Idol involves a combination of all of these factors.
American Idol is a televised singing competition that began in 2002 with almost instant success. The main idea of the show is to “discover the best young singer in the country, through a series of nationwide auditions,” (Wikipedia, 2008) and then ultimately allowing the American public to decide the winner by voting by phone or text messaging.
There are several elements included in the structure of the show that, by design magnify the inherent advertising qualities and contribute to each season’s decision of who will get the coveted prize of a record contract and the title of ‘American Idol’? First, the show airs live two nights per week. In the first few weeks, the show holds a series of auditions which are held on-site in various cities nationwide. These on-site auditions rally various regions of the country to tune-in and root for their area’s semi-finalists that make it to Hollywood.
At this stage, Tuesday night of airing every week is dedicated to the singers competing with nationwide voting immediately following the broadcast. The very next night (Wednesday) viewers tune in again to gain their voting results. The performer with the least number of votes gets sent home. This approach is brilliant—in America’s ‘instant gratification’ society, if viewers were forced to wait until the next week for results, they would lose interest or forget when to tune-in. Also, Tuesday and Wednesday nights (mid-working week in America) are nights that people are more likely to watch prime-time television.
A few elements act as advertisers and entertainment benefits to the success of the show. One is the “it” factor of the host and panel of judges: Paula Abdul, Simon Cowell, and Randy Jackson. Each one brings a different perspective of expertise and fame to the table that collectively electrifies the entertainment value of the show.
Another area that contributes to these phenomena is the variety of musical themes that are presented. Each week (from the semi-finals on) holds a unique style of music, featuring guest appearances of a star from that genre. These include categories ranging from country music to hits of the 21st century, thus attracting a variety of ages to watch (2008, www.americanidol.com). Also appearing, are winners from previous seasons who usually sing one of their record ‘hits’, which by the way, is free advertising itself. Every time a song of an American Idol contestant is played on the radio, it is free advertising for the show. How amazing is that!
Another amazing aspect to the show is how its design has provided a sense of involvement to its viewers. Since Americans love competition, the creators of the show knew they would be quick to participate in the process by calling or texting their votes—especially our technologically savvy adolescent and young adults (who consequently hold the most music buying power in America). They also send a message of fear to the viewers of, “If you don’t vote, the good singers could get sent home!” If the U.S. government took advice from the creators of the show, they could persuade more people to vote.
I think the most successful attribute of the show is that viewers gain a sense of connection when they see “average” people become successful. It gives them hope that the American Dream is still real.
After reflecting on the master-minded design of the show, it is no wonder that American Idol is, “with the exception of the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards…the highest rated (viewed) program on U.S. national television” (Wikipedia, 2008) .
References:
About American Idol. Retrieved February 7, 2008, from http://www.americanidol.com/about/
Horowitz, E.M. (2007). Book Review. [Review of the book Tuned Out: Why Americans under 40 don’t follow the news.]. Journal of Communication 57(1), 175-176.
The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 7, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Idol
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
Journal Article Analysis
The journal article that I selected for this assignment is titled, Children’s Literature Goes to War: Dr. Seuss, P.D. Eastman, Monro Leaf, and the Private SNAFU Films (1943-46), (Nel, P., 2007). The article was originally intended for children educators or professionals in the field of children’s literature. This is evident by the following words:
-didactic
-satirizing
-protagonists
-approbation
-emancipatory
-fascism
-propaganda
The intended audience was also apparent as the article defines the methods used in the writings to teach children as well as the actual content (i.e. Teach by negative example). The author, Philip Nel, presents an in-depth analysis of three authors that collaborated in the making of the war-time Private SNAFU films (1943-46) and then compared and contrasted their post-war work to that of the SNAFU films and to each other (Nel, P, 2007).
Article Summary
In 1943, Theodor Sues Geisel (Dr. Seuss) and Phillip D. Eastman were both members of “Fort Fox” of the U.S. Army Information and Education Division. Geisel and Eastman worked together on a new project with the created character named “Private SNAFU,” which was an acronym meaning, “Situation Normal All Fouled Up.” He was the star of his own show for 28 episodes that aired as the “biweekly newsreel show to the troops” (Nel, P., 2007). Private SNAFU’s role was to educate the troops by negative example about various subjects vital to army service.
Monro Leaf, an established children’s author, joined in on the project after he and Geisel found themselves in Washington and were given the task to find a solution to the malaria problem with the troops in the South Pacific. Once again, teaching by negative example, Geisel and Leaf created a comic book that could be distributed to the troops. The name of the pamphlet was “This is Ann” (1943) of which Leaf authored and Geisel illustrated. Ann was a cartoon mosquito portrayed as “the sexy whore of the insect world” (Nel, P., 2007). In the story, Ann gets Private SNAFU because he didn’t take appropriate preventions to keep her away. The booklet and the SNAFU films were characterized by simplicity of language paired “with good-humored moralizing” (Nel, P., 2007).
This was not a new practice for Leaf, as he was once quoted as saying, “I made a career out of turning twenty-five cent words into nickel words” (Nel, P., 2007). But, as for Geisel, the SNAFU cartoons marked the beginning of his limitations of words to tell a story. This is evident in his work of the Random Houses, Beginner Books Series. Many of the books in the series were a collaborative effort between Geisel and Eastman and there was some indication of editorial conflict and even some question of authorship in the series. We do know for sure, that Leaf did not write any of the Beginner books.
Next, the author compares the didactic aims of the authors’ work of the SNAFU cartoons and the Beginner Books. The ultimate aim in the SNAFU series is to teach the GI’s “how to behave as good soldiers” (Nel, P., 2007), whereas the Beginner Books explicitly allow children to experience how reading can be fun, while implicitly influencing their behaviors. Ultimately both series focus on the importance of respecting the wise guidance of those in charge over us—whether it is the military or our parents.
The author then analyzes the prejudices previewed in the SNAFU series that in light of their post-war work was deliberately used to gain the attention of their known audience—the soldiers. Their SNAFU writings included Japanese stereotyping, probably that was their war enemy, and, they presented “women as sex objects, traitors, or both” (Nel, P., 2007). Both of these areas demand consideration of the cultural influences of the time in question.
Finally, Nel analyzes each author’s post-war work, concluding that Eastman’s writings were the most conservative of the three, especially regarding gender roles. Leaf’s work sent mixed messages, but was more gender inclusive than the other two authors post-war work. Geisel was very bold in his post-war writings regarding some big issues: protecting minority’s rights; opposing tyranny; and, protecting the environment.
The main idea of this article is that in spite of some possible prejudices that these three authors portrayed in their writings, considering the time they were born and worked, they actually were modern thinkers and ultimately sought to promote a “lasting peace” (Nel, P., 2007) through their talents.
References:
Nel, P. (2007). Children’s Literature Goes to War: Dr. Seuss, P.D. Eastman, Monro Leaf, and the Private SNAFU Films (1943-46). The Journal of Popular Culture, 40(3), 468-487.
-didactic
-satirizing
-protagonists
-approbation
-emancipatory
-fascism
-propaganda
The intended audience was also apparent as the article defines the methods used in the writings to teach children as well as the actual content (i.e. Teach by negative example). The author, Philip Nel, presents an in-depth analysis of three authors that collaborated in the making of the war-time Private SNAFU films (1943-46) and then compared and contrasted their post-war work to that of the SNAFU films and to each other (Nel, P, 2007).
Article Summary
In 1943, Theodor Sues Geisel (Dr. Seuss) and Phillip D. Eastman were both members of “Fort Fox” of the U.S. Army Information and Education Division. Geisel and Eastman worked together on a new project with the created character named “Private SNAFU,” which was an acronym meaning, “Situation Normal All Fouled Up.” He was the star of his own show for 28 episodes that aired as the “biweekly newsreel show to the troops” (Nel, P., 2007). Private SNAFU’s role was to educate the troops by negative example about various subjects vital to army service.
Monro Leaf, an established children’s author, joined in on the project after he and Geisel found themselves in Washington and were given the task to find a solution to the malaria problem with the troops in the South Pacific. Once again, teaching by negative example, Geisel and Leaf created a comic book that could be distributed to the troops. The name of the pamphlet was “This is Ann” (1943) of which Leaf authored and Geisel illustrated. Ann was a cartoon mosquito portrayed as “the sexy whore of the insect world” (Nel, P., 2007). In the story, Ann gets Private SNAFU because he didn’t take appropriate preventions to keep her away. The booklet and the SNAFU films were characterized by simplicity of language paired “with good-humored moralizing” (Nel, P., 2007).
This was not a new practice for Leaf, as he was once quoted as saying, “I made a career out of turning twenty-five cent words into nickel words” (Nel, P., 2007). But, as for Geisel, the SNAFU cartoons marked the beginning of his limitations of words to tell a story. This is evident in his work of the Random Houses, Beginner Books Series. Many of the books in the series were a collaborative effort between Geisel and Eastman and there was some indication of editorial conflict and even some question of authorship in the series. We do know for sure, that Leaf did not write any of the Beginner books.
Next, the author compares the didactic aims of the authors’ work of the SNAFU cartoons and the Beginner Books. The ultimate aim in the SNAFU series is to teach the GI’s “how to behave as good soldiers” (Nel, P., 2007), whereas the Beginner Books explicitly allow children to experience how reading can be fun, while implicitly influencing their behaviors. Ultimately both series focus on the importance of respecting the wise guidance of those in charge over us—whether it is the military or our parents.
The author then analyzes the prejudices previewed in the SNAFU series that in light of their post-war work was deliberately used to gain the attention of their known audience—the soldiers. Their SNAFU writings included Japanese stereotyping, probably that was their war enemy, and, they presented “women as sex objects, traitors, or both” (Nel, P., 2007). Both of these areas demand consideration of the cultural influences of the time in question.
Finally, Nel analyzes each author’s post-war work, concluding that Eastman’s writings were the most conservative of the three, especially regarding gender roles. Leaf’s work sent mixed messages, but was more gender inclusive than the other two authors post-war work. Geisel was very bold in his post-war writings regarding some big issues: protecting minority’s rights; opposing tyranny; and, protecting the environment.
The main idea of this article is that in spite of some possible prejudices that these three authors portrayed in their writings, considering the time they were born and worked, they actually were modern thinkers and ultimately sought to promote a “lasting peace” (Nel, P., 2007) through their talents.
References:
Nel, P. (2007). Children’s Literature Goes to War: Dr. Seuss, P.D. Eastman, Monro Leaf, and the Private SNAFU Films (1943-46). The Journal of Popular Culture, 40(3), 468-487.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
THE STEREOTYPICAL HACKER
Computer hackers are many times mistakenly stereotyped as geeky teenagers with pocket-protectors and glasses. However, the modern day computer hacker is far more advanced in today’s world.
They utilize sophisticated software to identify system security weaknesses and in some cases are capable of attacking thousands of computers at a time. There were “79 million records reported compromised in the United States” last year (Jewell, 2008).
Some hackers act as system engineers in attempt to gain access to passwords, account numbers and other sensitive information. There are now some “thirty-seven states, plus Washington D.C.” (Jewell, 2008) that now require businesses to publicly disclose when security breaches occur.
The internet provides the road for the majority of hackers to drive their vehicle of destruction down as they travel a path of deceit, corruption, and sometimes actual terrorism.
They utilize sophisticated software to identify system security weaknesses and in some cases are capable of attacking thousands of computers at a time. There were “79 million records reported compromised in the United States” last year (Jewell, 2008).
Some hackers act as system engineers in attempt to gain access to passwords, account numbers and other sensitive information. There are now some “thirty-seven states, plus Washington D.C.” (Jewell, 2008) that now require businesses to publicly disclose when security breaches occur.
The internet provides the road for the majority of hackers to drive their vehicle of destruction down as they travel a path of deceit, corruption, and sometimes actual terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
