Sex in the Media

I wouldn't say that I'm a "prude," I mean, sexual images don't offend me but I do think that there is too much sex in the media these days; especially in advertising. Personally, I wouldn't buy a product just because a good looking, half naked guy was used in a commercial for it and I can't imagine why anyone else would either. Selling sex is a cheap way to persuade consumers to buy a certain product; it tells me a lot more when air time is spent explaining a product to me rather than when it spends the time making me believe that by using such a product, people of the opposite sex will swarm to me. While certain commercials may be entertaining (such as axe commercials), it just seems to me that the advertising team for that product got lazy and decided to fall back on the tried, tested, and true method of using sex to sell.

Axe commercial: an example of using the idea of sex to promote a product. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/312591/axe_commercial/

Violence in the Media

Parents are always complaining that their children learn violent actions from t.v shows or video games and this really gets on my nerves. Once children reach a certain age, they gain the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and until they reach that age, their parents should be the biggest influences in their lives. Parents need to stop blaming song writers, t.v shows and schools for all of the things that they don't like about their children and instead, become a larger part of their children's lives. I'll admit that some t.v shows contain excessive violence but more often than not, a viewer discretion warning precedes the show. I believe that parents who are so concerned with how certain shows affect their children should take it upon themselves to monitor what they allow their children to watch. Personally, I don't think that the amount of violence in the media is a problem.

A look at parents who allow the media or technology to take over parenting. >>http://www.thedaily.washington.edu/article/2007/1/26/technologyTakesOverParenting

Pickton Coverage

For a few weeks it was as though you couldn't turn on a t.v or pick up a newspaper without seeing something that had to do with the Robert Pickton trial. I understand that it may very well be the largest trial held in a Canadian court but I'm not sure it needs as much coverage as it's getting. Putting that opinion aside though, if knowing the details of that trial is so important, why is the media, newspapers mainly, being so particular about what images or details they share with the public? In a communications class lecture, a guest speaker voiced her opinion that perhaps here should be a warning before an article that contains graphic material; I fully agree with her statement. By placing such a warning, people who don't want to know every horrible detail will know to avoid the article and therefore, the media won't get into trouble for publishing it. To me, the fact that the media is being told not to print certain things is censorship. If the media feels that the public has a right to know about the trial, then the public should be allowed to know the full details of it.

Here's just a little something extra from a news editor that deals with the reasons for the censoring.
http://ca.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-NwuWaPQoeKdM_fkq7QX_VJZjjCc-?cq=1&p=328