The Filipino family is known as a tight knit one. It is normal for us to have really close relations with each other. However, nowadays, these relations aren’t that strong anymore. Some parents are so busy with their careers or jobs that they sometimes neglect their children without knowing it. Hopefully, this is not going to be the future of the Filipino family.
(1) The ad that I will be using was made and paid for by Monde-Nissin Corporation for their Lucky Me! brand. They created this in order to spread awareness for the Kainang Pamilya Mahalaga Day. (2) I think the target audience for this ad is all Filipino families, with emphasis on the parents. They are probably aged 27 and above, and are working full time jobs, which occupy most of their time.
(3) The advertisement shows a family, eating a meal together. The child seems to have something in mind that he wants to tell his parents. The child has a wound on his knee, and he seems to recall being taunted by the other children in school. When he started the conversation, his parents appear to respond. However, after saying what he wanted to say, it turned out that the parents were too busy with their office work that they weren’t paying enough attention.
(4) I think the hidden message behind this advertisement is that sometimes, we prioritize the wrong things and forget the things that matter the most. Also, it shows how the children of today lack the role models that they need, especially in the current times, wherein they are more exposed to bad influences because technology makes it easier.
(5) This advertisement shows the lifestyle of the modern nuclear Filipino family. It depicts the Filipino values that are present, or the lack thereof. (6) Obviously, the advertisement uses Pathos for its rhetorical appeal because it appeals to the emotion of the viewer. As for the fallacy used, I think the creators used Appeals to Pity or Appeals to Emotion. This is because of the issue tackled, which is bullying, and the use of a young child to express his experiences.
(7) The positive message presented is that, there is still hope or chance for families to bond, or discuss issues and events, which is by eating meals together. It gives off a lighter atmosphere for talking about certain issues. As for the negative message presented, it shows how Filipinos nowadays are losing their values. (8) This empowers parents to have meals with their children instead of letting them eat alone. However, this also disempowers parents who let their children eat alone, without any guardian. This serves the media maker’s interest by having a specific target for this ad.
(9) I think the part of the story not being told is that of the parents. Why is it that they still bring their workload at home? I know it might be similar to the scenario of students, wherein they have homework, but still, can’t they just allot even just an hour for their children? Is it the parents fault or are their jobs just too constraining? Also, what if the parents really aren’t available? Alternatives weren’t presented in this advertisement. I think this information could be found online, or in journals written by experts regarding the subject.
(10) My conscious awareness of the motives and purposes of this media sample affected my initial understanding of the text in a way that I already knew what to expect. My sentiments towards the particular text are positive, because I agree that it is good to talk during meal times. The lighter atmosphere makes it easier to connect with each other. Overall, I think the media sample aims to tell its viewers to rearrange their priorities. Keep in heart and mind your values, and the people who would never leave you. Never forget to give time to the people you love.
Nowadays, social media has been a big part of our lives. It could take on many forms, like, text messaging, blogging, tweeting or posting on other media platforms. It is also part of our everyday routine to check our social media accounts often. Social media has been mostly beneficial; however, it could also be destructive to us. Are we too free in social media, or does censorship deprive people of their rights?
(1) The article that I would be using for this media log was written by Clay Shirky and was published by Foreign Affairs in their January/February 2011 issue. It tackles the topic of the political power of social media. (2) I think the target audience for this article are those who are very active in social media, especially those who like to voice out their concerns regarding politics. They are probably people of legal voting age and above. This is suggested by the theme of the article, which is politics. (3) The text of the message is pretty simple. It gives examples of good and bad things that media has brought, with regards to politics. It even mentions the impeachment of former Philippine president Joseph Estrada:
“On January 17, 2001, during the impeachment trial of Philippine President Joseph Estrada, loyalists in the Philippine Congress voted to set aside key evidence against him. Less than two hours after the decision was announced, thousands of Filipinos, angry that their corrupt president might be let off the hook, converged on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, a major crossroads in Manila. The protest was arranged, in part, by forwarded text messages reading, “Go 2 EDSA. Wear blk.” The crowd quickly swelled, and in the next few days, over a million people arrived, choking traffic in downtown Manila. The public’s ability to coordinate such a massive and rapid response – close to seven million text messages were sent that week – so alarmed the country’s legislators that they reversed course and allowed the evidence to be presented. Estrada’s fate was sealed; by January 20, he was gone. The event marked the first time that social media had helped force out a national leader. Estrada himself blamed “the text-messaging generation” for his downfall.” (Shirky, 2011)
The author even stated some examples of how the United States plans to fight censorship in other countries.
(4) I think the subtext of the subtext of the message is that the power is really with the people. Especially in democratic governments, wherein the people decide and the government manages the country. The citizens of a certain country (especially those with abusive governments) should not be afraid of their government, because as long as they work together, they could win against them. (5) Moreover, I think the lifestyle presented in this article is that of the users of social media, governments of countries without censorship, and those governments of countries with censorship.
(6) For the tools of persuasion used in this article, I think the fallacy used is Incomplete Facts or Card Stacking, because of the situations presented, I think not all of the information were stated. I also think that the rhetorical appeal used in this article is Ethos because of the examples that have been presented in the article. (7) The positive messages presented were the positive effects of social media in politics, and the negative messages were the negative effects in politics as well. (8) As mentioned earlier, I think this article empowers the people to not be afraid of their government whenever they become abusive of their power. However, the article disempowers government officials who are abusive of their power, and those who censor social media. (9) I think the part of the story not being told, is that of the real agenda of the US government, when they want to prevent the censorship of social media in other countries. I think the information could be found online or in documentaries regarding this. (10) I think my conscious awareness of the motives and purposes of this media sample affected my sentiments toward this text because I already knew what to expect based on the title. As I read on, I did read what I expected to see.
Culture in every country is unique. Philippine culture indeed is different from most of its neighboring countries. It is influenced by a mix of various other cultures. Some of the biggest influences are Spanish, American, and Chinese cultures. The first two have influenced the culture mainly because they have ruled in the country, the former ruling for more than three centuries and the latter ruling for about four decades. The third however, influenced our culture because they have also inhabited our shores alongside Filipinos when we were ruled by other countries. There are many positive traits that we could attribute to our culture. But why is it that our society has evolved into an undesirable one?
(1) For this media log, I will evaluate an opinion column made by Teodoro Benigno. It was written for The Philippine Star on March 11, 2002. He wrote this for his take on James Fallows’ statement that depicts the Philippines as a “damaged culture”. (2) I think the target audience for this is Filipinos in general. It might also be focused for Filipino adults, who have experienced the Marcos regime, because it has been briefly mentioned, as well as the regimes or Aquino, Ramos and Estrada. (3) The text of the message is saying that culture is the culprit of why our society has evolved in a negative way. If not, then who do we blame? What happened? “Why? What went wrong? Where did we Filipinos fail? Was it the predatory regime of the Marcos dictatorship? Was it the fault of “imperialist America” and international bankers? Was it the fault of God who abandoned or forsook the Philippines?” (Benigno, 2002) The author also mentions his opinion on our culture. “In short, we have a mendicant society with a mendicant leadership with a mendicant culture. The grossest insult is we are to be pitied and deprecated like Burma. That’s about as low as low can get.” (Benigno, 2002)
(4) I think the subtext of the author’s message is that we have no one to blame but ourselves. It is us who denies the harsh truth that there is something wrong in our society. We let ourselves be influenced wrongly by corrupt leaders and greedy countries. We pull each other down and we try to mold our culture to be like other countries (e.g. United States), thinking it would be better. Why is it that Filipinos do everything for their personal benefit, like corruption and cronyism? Why is part of our culture? Instead of making a difference, we just let it slide. (5) Furthermore, the lifestyle presented here is that of Filipinos in the present times. It also shows the lifestyle of corrupt government officials. The values presented are the values that are part of our culture, both the negative and the positive.
(6) The tool of persuasion used in this column, I think is Overgeneralization, simply because it generalizes how all Filipinos act and think. With regards to rhetorical appeals, I think Pathos was used because it reaches out to the people, saying that we should make a difference and change how we think, and that our culture should progress. (7) There are positive and negative messages presented in this column. Most are negative, like the criticisms of our culture and what we are doing wrong. As for the positive, it shows that someone realizes that there is something wrong with our culture and we need to act now. (8) I think the Filipino people are empowered by this because the column suggests that it is our culture that we should not really change, but revise to the present times. It disempowers those who take all the negativity as part of our culture, and could not be changed. Because we can, as long everyone thinks with an open mind. (9) I think the part of the story not being told is how this came to be. Why is it that people still think the same even though the condition of our society is worsening? I think this information could be researched by sociologists and behavioral scientists. (10) Actually, the title really gives off a negative theme. My conscious awareness of the motives and purposes of this media sample affected my initial understanding by letting me look deeper into the text. Even though it might be negative, the intentions are somehow positive.
In our society today, is religion still relevant? This may not really apply to Philippine society since religion is somehow embedded in our culture. However, in some other countries, this may not be the case. In the global setting, how do the media portray religion? For this reflection paper, a certain “Atheist Bus Campaign” would be discussed.
(1) This ad is created by Ariane Sherine and was released in England and Wales. It was originally intended as a positive counter-response to the Jesus Said ads running in London buses in June 2008. “These ads displayed the URL of a website which stated that non-Christians “will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell … Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire prepared for the devil”.” (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jan/06/religion-atheism) She believed that if everyone was kind and good, the world’s problems would be solved. (2) I think the target audience for this are the people who are having their life/identity crisis. Possibly aged 20 and above. (3) In the advertisement you would see the words, “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” printed on the sides of buses.
(4) The hidden or unstated meaning here is probably, just because you’re an atheist, that doesn’t mean that you are a bad person. It is in a way contradicting to the belief that if you do not believe in God you would go to hell. Simply, doing good, makes you good. (5) I think the kind of lifestyle shown here is the lifestyle of western people, wherein religion is not that embedded in their culture. They usually question beliefs, and some become atheists, not supporting any beliefs at all. (6) The tools of persuasion used in this ad campaign with regards to fallacies, is probably Oversimplification, because is just merely states that “there is probably no God”. It is telling the people that it is just as simple as that. As for the rhetorical appeals, I think Logos was used. Because, as stated in previously, the hidden message is that when you do good, you are a good person. Which makes sense, because that’s really how it is right?
(7) I think the positive message presented is similar to what was stated in the hidden message, just because you are an atheist, it doesn’t mean you’re a bad person. Doing good deeds makes you a good person. However, it somehow portrays a negative message about other religions, especially those who believe in a single God. It is somehow offensive to their beliefs. (8) I think this advertisement empowers atheists, or those who have chosen not to participate in any religion. In addition, I think the advertisement disempowers religions that are preaching that their beliefs are always better than the others, and not believing would result to that person to go to hell.
(9) I think the untold story is why the creator had this belief in the first place. Did she have a religion before and did not like it? When did she realize this? This information could be gathered through further research on her life. (10) My conscious awareness of the motives and purposes of this media sample is a factor on how I understood this ad. Because of this, I did not judge or dismiss the ad right away, even though it is contradictory to my beliefs. Deep inside this, a story would be told. Overall, I think the ad has a positive message, especially to those who feel restricted in life. The ad might simply be saying that everyone deserves to enjoy life so, why don’t you?
Consumerism is the fact or practice of an increasing consumption of goods. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consumerism) But, the advertisement that would be used here seems to be an anti-consumerism ad. The ad is very simple. It has a picture of a jacket, with the words “DON’T BUY THIS JACKET” above it and some messages below.
(1) The ad featured in this reflection paper is made by the outdoor apparel brand, Patagonia. The ad is part of their Common Threads Initiative to keep its clothing out of landfills by employing the four R’s: reduce, reuse, recycle, and repair. (http://shine.yahoo.com/fashion/patagonia-8217-anti-consumerism-ad-preachy-refreshing-230000774.html) (2) I think the target audience for this ad are the consumers who shop frequently, probably adults or young professionals aged 20 and above. The target markets of Patagonia are people who love going outdoors like hikers, backpackers, etc. This is suggested by their best-selling product placed on the ad.
(3) The ad features the words ‘DON’T BUY THIS JACKET”, which, according to the article, is trying to convince people to stop buying Patagonia’s products for a day in order to reduce their environmental footprint. (4) I think the hidden message of the ad is that consumers should not be easily swayed by advertisements into buying things that they may not need. These products might just end up in landfills, polluting the environment. The ad may have also used “reverse psychology” by saying that people shouldn’t buy their products, prompting them to do the opposite.
(5) I think the lifestyle presented in this ad is that of shoppers who buy clothes frequently, specifically, “outdoorsy” people. (6) With regards to logical fallacies, I think this ad used Oversimplification, telling the consumer that to contribute in saving the environment they should simply not buy the product. As for rhetorical appeals, I think Logos was used because it tells the viewer that if you do not buy the product, you do not pollute the environment. (7) In addition, the ad presented a positive message, which promotes being more friendly to the environment. However, it presented a negative message which pertains to the lack of care that people have for the environment, because of which we experience problems. Also, it presents a message that it is against consumerism.
(8) I think this ad empowers consumers that every little action counts. Just a simple act of any of the four R’s could help in saving the environment. It disempowers people who are easily swayed by advertisements and the people who make those who have disregard for the environment. I think this serves that media maker’s interest because they aim to motivate people to work towards saving the environment. (9) However, it was not stated or shown how the products end up in the landfills. Does that mean that their products easily wear out and people just throw them away afterwards? I think this information could be found on the internet, from the people who buy their products. (10) My conscious awareness of the motives and purposes of this media sample in a way, altered my initial understanding of this ad. When I first saw the ad, I thought that they were using “reverse psychology”, which seems to be pretty effective nowadays. I am not assuming that it is reverse psychology, though. People see this ad in different perspectives, and this is how I see it.
(1) This message is created by Google, in order to advertise their new inbox format of Gmail. (2) I think the target audience are the working class and teenagers. This is suggested by the activities being done in the commercial, which are most likely done by people of this age.
(3) The text of the advertisement id pretty simple. It just shows the new interface of Gmail and how to use it. However, the words used for the activities are usually activities done by women, like “mani-pedi” and the like. (4) I don’t think there is any hidden meaning behind this ad, but some find it sexist because it portrays that what women can do are limited.
(5) The kind of lifestyle presented in this ad is the digital lifestyle we have today, where in it is essential to check your email frequently in order to be updated by all the happenings. (6) I think the rhetorical appeal used in this ad is Logos, because in the ad, they show how easy it is to use the new interface of the Gmail inbox therefore making it a better experience for the user. I think the logical fallacy used is Bandwagon because; the ad convinces you to use Gmail to make your email experience easier just like everyone who is already using it.
(7) I think the positive message presented is that Google is improving Gmail with the changing of the times. It shows how people are evolving nowadays in our modern world. I think the negative message presented is in the part wherein the emails were shown. It shows the activities of women, the “girly” activities that women usually do. In a way, it shows that these things are what women do all the time. This is not true, of course. This shows that until now, our society is still biased to men and discriminating to women.
(8) I think this ad empowers “non-techies” to use Gmail because it shows how simple it is to use. The ad also shows that it keeps the users connected, therefore making life easier as well. I think this ad disempowers its competitors which have a lot of features in their inboxes. Because, this ad shows that simple is better and easier. This serves the media maker’s interest because the ad has an edge to it.
(9) The part of the story not being told is probably what women are doing in real life. They’re not just all about the “girly” things. Women can do what men can do as well. I think I could get more information about this by observation and by doing research online.
(10) My conscious awareness of the motives and purposes of this media sample affects my initial understanding and sentiments by making me neutral. Similar to the other media logs, I try to be neutral in this one, especially since I am a female and this ad is found offensive by some people. I just try to analyse it as well as I can without any bias.
(1) This is article is written by Dori J. Maynard and originally published for The Oakland Tribune. It was written for the purpose of opening America’s eyes to the inequality that still exists in society today. (2) The target audience for this are the Americans, especially those involved in the media who are probably ranging from teenagers to adults. This is suggested in the context of the article. It mentions television stations like CBS and people like Obama.
(3) The article mentions features like Time magazine’s recent Father’s Day feature that failed to include men of color. It also states more examples wherein there have been lapses in the treatment of these people. The author expresses her opinions about this issue that has been surrounding America for a very long time. She says that it is time for change. (4) I think hidden within the article, is the message that people haven’t changed ever since people of color arrived in America. Slavery may have been abolished and segregation may have been outlawed but, people are still discriminating people of color. This may have been caused by the wrong interpretation of these people by the media. They usually portray people of color as the “bad guys” in society. If not, the only positive side they show is the brawn of these people. As stated by Maynard, “To tell the stories of communities of color, we’re relying increasingly on people who may have little or no knowledge about them.”
(5) It shows the lifestyle of the Americans today. It shows how the media is shaping the wrong values among them. (6) I think the author used the Slippery Slope fallacy, saying that people should start with themselves in order to make a difference in society today. With regards to the rhetorical appeals used, I think Ethos and Pathos were used. I think Ethos was used because Maynard is “the president of the Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, the oldest organization dedicated to helping the nation’s news media accurately and fairly portray all segments of our society.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dori-j-maynard/) In addition, I think Pathos was used because the article mentioned the news concerned about the shooting of Trayvon Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin), which sparked protests in the US regarding the arrest of the shooter, George Zimmerman. (7) The positive message shown in this commentary is that people like the author, still strive to make a change and stop discrimination in society. This is important especially in their country, wherein a big chunk of the population is made up of people of color. The negative message in this article is the part wherein the media is set in a bad light. I think they are set like this in the article because of the way they portray people of color. They usually don’t tell the whole story, and the public pays the price. They do not show all the angles that exist. They do not show much of the positive things that are done by these people.
(8) This article empowers the people of America the whole picture. They shouldn’t just accept what the media feeds to them. They should not be judgmental of others and should stop discriminating other people. However, this article disempowers the media. They should always report without bias. They should let the people know what is really happening, not only the parts that they want the public to know. They should stop instilling the wrong values to the people. Instead, they should shape the proper morals of the people, especially the youth.
(9) I think the part of the story not being told is how the people of color feel about this. Are they used to it? Or do they have a specific change in mind? This article is with regard to people abroad, so I think it is hard to obtain more information about this. But I think a reputable source for this information would be the people themselves. (10) I think my conscious awareness of the motives and purposes of this media sample affected my initial understanding by letting me be neutral about this article. I think my sentiments weren’t altered too much, because the title gave me an idea about the content of the text.
Overall, I think the message of the text is that people should stop being “elitist” about their races and treat each other equally.
