It's no secret that athletes today are making themselves known. From Nike commercials, to "Got Milk?" advertisements, athletes are taking every extra step they can to be sponsored. Now, I'm definitely the farthest thing from being a sports fan. I don't have a list of teams I cheer for, or make a big fuss when a big team wins (or loses.) However, though I know little (nothing) about sports, I can spot an athlete when I see one in an advertisement. Lately, I've been noticing more and more athlete-endorsed ads everywhere I look.
Take this ad for example; this here is Danica Patrick, who is a race car driver. Now this ad is selling nail polish, as you can see from the bottom right corner/her "pop of color" finger nails; great advertising, in my opinion. I just love how it not only sells what it's supposed to, but it also keeps Danica within her element of being a race car driver. The greatest thing about this advertisement is that it potentially attracts an unlikely audience to racing. Not saying that females can't enjoy racing (my mom is a hardcore Earnhardt Jr. fan), but the fact that this ad is for nail polish will likely appeal to women, and possibly even be interested in seeing what NASCAR or indy racing is all about.
Another good ad I spotted was this one featuring Tiger Woods. This ad for Nike was done shortly after Wood's sex scandal we've all heard about. The big, bold, "Winning takes care of everything" is rather ironic, which may or may not have been Nike's intentions, though I feel it was definitely intentional. This ad was certainly controversial because it made Wood's scandal appear to be something of little importance, or that it wasn't a big deal. Regardless of whether the feedback was positive or negative, overall it was still getting the attention it was seeking. So even though some people were very aggravated at this, it was still a very successful ad, and it did help boost Tiger's career.
I do feel that athletes take advantage of advertisements because it is a really useful tool in promoting who they are, while also profiting from it.
For those of you who know me, or just by knowing me in class, you are well aware that I am a passionate music lover. Stemming off from my father's and brother's influences, music is a huge chunk of who I am today. Sure, I'm not the conventional definition of a "metal head" by the way I look, but metal music has inspired me in so many ways to express myself. Even though the metal genre is nearest and dearest to my heart, I do enjoy branching out in the music community. I like being able to say that I adore Lamb of God, but I still have a soft-spot for Coldplay. I don't feel that you should be limited to enjoying one particular genre of music, or having that one genre or sound define who you are as a person or your interests. However, in the media today, I feel like they want this kind of conformity.
It's no secret that the most well-known and common genre of music today is pop. You know the stuff; it's the same 20 songs you hear on the radio all day long. It's the same 20 songs that seem to follow you wherever you decide to go; The grocery store, the bar, the club, a public restroom...I think I've made my point. These popular hits are so well-known, regardless of where you live, and if for whatever reason you don't know this stuff, you've obviously been living under a rock. So what's the common theme between these songs, other than their genre? THEY. ALL. SOUND. THE. SAME. It's like if a clan of robots decided to pump out music, look no further, it's pop music. Now, I'm definitely not saying all pop music is bad. Trust me, I've fallen into the catchy trap of some Gaga tunes, and listened to Katy Perry's "Peacock" on loop for an hour. I'm not totally against pop music, I'm just against how the media portrays it.
Take Rihanna for example: she's super talented, has produced a number of hits, and is obviously a great artist considering her fan base. I don't see anything wrong with this...however, I have noticed that a lot of her songs sound the same musically. It's always the same beat, the same message (which seems to be rather sexual 9 times out of 10), and I honestly have a hard time distinguishing which song is which. They all start to blend together. Now, take that principle of one artist's songs blending into her own songs, and mix that with 20 other popular artists following the same theme; all of the music begins to sound exactly the same. It starts to become mind-numbing when I don't know which artist I'm listening to, and what song it is. This is why I find it so refreshing when there are artists with super unique sounds, or actually try to give variation in their music. Don't get me wrong, I love and appreciate consistency in an artist's work, but if it's all the same, I'm not likely to be "wowed" by it.
This is the video for Rihanna's song, "Pour It Up." I've honestly never listened to this prior to writing this blog, but I feel like I could find another song with this similar sound/beat. There isn't anything "special" about this song; it's generic....side note, this video disturbs me, but that's another story.
It's no surprise that this lovely video would be featured here under what I see as "generic." We all know this song, so I don't feel that there's much to comment on here. However, focusing purely on the construction of the song as a whole, there isn't anything "special" about this one either. I'm sure there are tons of other popular artists that have recorded something similar musically, unfortunately Miley fell into that trap.
To be completely honest, I've never been a fan of watching the news. Whenever I think about the news, I mainly focus on the people who deliver it. I just can't get past the vision of a bunch of angry people trying to talk over one another. It's really frustrating for me because I'm not a very aggressive person, so I tend to shy away from those types of things. However, though I'm not really a fan of watching the news, I do genuinely care about what's happening in the world.
I ventured out and decided to watch 2 news commentators; Bill O'Reilly and Nancy Grace. Now, I've heard a lot about both of these commentators, and I know my father has watched a fair amount of Bill O'Reilly's show in the past. The O'Reilly Factor is basically Bill O'Reilly covering a handful of current events happening in the news today. He breaks each topic down into different segments, such as Talking Points Memo, Top Story, and Impact. The episode I chose to watch of Mr. O'Reilly featured him discussing Obamacare. He seemed to get really hot-headed over the topic, and though he wasn't talking with a guest, or receiving someone else's opinion, he was getting extremely defensive over his own opinion. From what I've seen of O'Reilly in the past, I believe he has a relatively short temper, and seems to blow up on a daily basis. To me, that's not very appealing when I'm trying to learn about what's happening in the world. The last thing I want is someone yelling at me while I'm watching t.v.
This is Bill O'Reilly on his show "The O'Reilly Factor" As you can clearly see, he seems to be getting a bit angry with whatever it is that's being discussed. This is the exact behavior I got from watching him the other night.
The other commentator I chose to watch was Nancy Grace. Mrs. Grace was discussing the issue of the young woman who was carrying a newborn baby around in her purse. Now, as crazy of an issue as that is, it seemed that Nancy was keeping her cool while discussing it. I have seen/heard a little bit about Nancy Grace in the past, and her reputation is usually that she's either crazy and obnoxious, or she's a b____...you can fill in the blanks. However, I actually felt more at ease watching Nancy Grace than I did when watching Bill O'Reilly. She managed to keep her cool, and did get a bit defensive over the issue at hand, but she was doing her job by delivering the news, while also hearing what others had to say about it. Though it's doubtful I would ever go out of my way to watch either of these commentators for a second time, I am glad that I chose to watch them. I have a better understanding of how certain people deliver the news, and it also just reinforces why I enjoy other sources, such as the internet, for my daily news fill.
This is Nancy Grace. I feel that this picture really displays the vibe I got from watching her show. She looks strong and serious, yet she isn't getting extremely angry like our good pal Bill O'Reilly.
Back in 2009, I remember hearing about a new show coming to MTV called, "16 and Pregnant." Sounds pretty self-explanatory, right? Yet for some odd reason, curiosity got the best of me and I caved into watching the first episode. Now, part of me feels like it was exactly what I expected; a 16 year old girl is pregnant and the show is following her through the struggles of being a teen and future parent. However, another part of me felt like the show was too...glamorous. I'm not saying that this girl was living the life of a wealthy celebrity with tons of nice things, but she didn't really seem to be upset about being pregnant at 16, which to most people is a pretty big deal.
As I continued throughout the season, and yes I watched the whole entire season, I noticed a common theme between all but one of the 16 year old mothers: none of them actually seemed to be distressed about becoming a teen mother. They were all so calm and collected, as if carrying something inside of you for 9 months was a walk in the park. I was honestly disturbed by not only the concept of the show, but also the attitudes of the mothers-to-be. This disturbed feeling got me thinking; What if none of them are acting distressed, because none of them really were distressed? I mean, being a teen mother sounds pretty nerve racking and scary to me, however these girls were also being filmed by MTV throughout their journey. So maybe being on T.V. calms your nerves?
After giving it a good amount of thought and watching the reunion show of all the 16 year old mothers, I realized maybe that's exactly what it was. Being on television seems like a pretty glamorous thing to me, so I guess regardless of the reasoning for it, if you're on T.V. you're technically a star...or at least in the spotlight. Not only did 16 and Pregnant return for a second (and fifth season), but some of the "stars" from the first season of 16 and Pregnant were offered a spot on the ever so lovely spin-off show, "Teen Mom." Not thinking this is glamorous yet? Well, these girls were not only offered another spot on MTV's line up, but many of them were featured in popular magazines such as People, US, and OK!
For me, this all seemed too glamorous, almost as if the media was encouraging the idea of becoming a teen mother. I'm not saying that being a teen mother is a terrible thing that no one can handle, however I feel that MTV has promoted this idea that if you get pregnant at 16, it's totally okay because you'll be featured on not one, but twoT.V. shows to sweeten the deal for you. It's unrealistic, unhealthy, and unfair for the youths of today who genuinely look up to the shows MTV produces.
This was the very first "16 and Pregnant" star, Maci. Notice how this cover isn't even focusing on her child, but rather the relationship she's in.
This is the same "16 and Pregnant" star, Maci, however this time, she's giving her child's father a second chance at a relationship. Again, this barely focuses on the reason she's famous; her child.
Ever since I can remember, The Dundalk Eagle has always been present in my home. I recall many mornings eating breakfast and seeing my mom flip through the local paper. I think it's safe to say that The Eagle has become a reading staple in my household. For those who aren't aware, The Dundalk Eagle is a local newspaper that covers a multitude of topics, from daily news and sports, to things happening with residents in the community. Though I don't read the paper on a daily basis, I am aware that the content is really great if you want to be more involved with what's happening in the community.
Now like I said, I don't typically go out of my way to read a newspaper, since that's what the internet is for...right? My point is, even though reading newspapers isn't my cup of tea, I would really hate to see this form of media disappear and transform to something more "modern." Nowadays, people turn on their televisions or use the all-mighty Google if they want to know what's happening in the world. People even use their Facebook page to see what's happening in the community by simply posting, "What's going on in Dundalk?" The harsh reality is since people are relying so heavily on their computers, the need for a physical copy of the daily newspaper is no longer there.
The thought of all physical copies newspapers and magazines does leave me with some conflicting emotions. On one hand, I don't necessarily see everything becoming digitally accessible a "bad" thing. I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that the internet is so convenient to access, so it would only make sense to provide things such as the newspaper in an online format. On the other hand, the thought of everything becoming digital does make me a bit sad. I'm a huge advocate for owning physical copies of whatever it is I choose to read. I just love flipping through the pages of a book, magazine, newspaper; it leaves me with a sense of completion when I'm finished reading. Ultimately, whether newspapers continue to stay in print, or become strictly digitally accessible, I know that the content provided in the papers will always be there.
The first edition of this local paper was in 1969, and only cost 10 cents a copy
A link to The Dundalk Eagle's website, where you can subscribe to both physical and digital copies: http://www.dundalkeagle.com/home
Whenever I go shopping at a grocery store or Target, I'm pretty much focused on what I'm there to buy. However, when I go to checkout, I find myself distracted by some of the magazines at the end of the counter. People, Seventeen, OK!, Cosmopolitan...the list could go on for days, and I'd rather it didn't. The first thing to stand out on the cover is the flawlessly attractive celebrity, usually attracting more attention than the article headlines. Generally, many people define these celebrities to be "perfect" or "flawless", but all I can see is airbrushing and overly-provocative posing. It's giving people this false sense of beauty and it's really unfair.
Recently, I stumbled upon this month's issue of Cosmopolitan, featuring Nina Dobrev as the cover girl. Dobrev is best known for her leading role in the popular show "The Vampire Diaries." Now, I've never seen the show, but I'm aware of who she is, and she is a very beautiful person....however, the cover of this magazine does Dobrev's natural beauty no justice.
As you can see in the image below, Nina looks borderline flawless. Her skin is perfectly smooth, her hair is perfectly tousled, and her dress is perfectly fitted...sensing a trend yet? She's posed squatting down, ever-so conveniently flaunting her very noticeable assets. Let's be real for a second; no one actually looks like this, yet the media leads us to believe if you want to be beautiful, you have to look like this. It's rather sickening because even Nina Dobrev doesn't look like the girl on the cover of Cosmopolitan.
In my opinion, she's even more beautiful without the airbrushing and skimpy clothing. What's so wrong with displaying the more natural side of beauty? Are we all really so unattractive to the point in which we need airbrushing and sexy clothes to be deemed as "good looking?" I honestly think not. I feel that the media is set in their "airbrushing and sex sells" mindset. With that being said, I don't even see the point in having headlines on the cover of a magazine if the selling point is going to be the "perfect" person on the cover.
September 2013 Cosmopolitan **Notice how the text curves with her body**
