I have chosen a news broadcast from the RTE nine o'clock news that was broadcast on Sunday the 14th April. The specific report I have chosen covers the vote at the constitutional convention that same sex marriage should be legalised in Ireland. Politicians and a panel of citizens representing the electorate discussed the issue over the weekend and on Sunday they voted a majority of 4 to 1 for change.
The news broadcaster reporting on this referred to it as a 'controversial issue' and informed us that a spokesman for catholic bishops expressed dissappointment with the outcome. The picture shown to us on screen while the newsreporter was talking was that of a crowd of people holding up different coloured signs with the word 'equal' on them. I think these colours represent the rainbow colours of the gay pride flag. Although there is no headline to accompany the report I think that the word 'equal' can be seen as the headline for this story. As this is the only time that the catholic church is mentioned in this report we can see that it is biased in favour of same sex marriage and therefore shows us that the role of the catholic church is no longer as important as it once was in Ireland.
A video then plays of a crowd of people in the street cheering and holding 'equal' signs. We can see here that this is a celebration as people are cheering and smiling. It is being portrayed to us as something positive. It then goes to a shot of the convention with people casting their ballot and we are informed that people voted 'overwhelmingly' for civil same sex marriage.
Gay and lesbian couples are given priority in this news report. Senator Katherine Zappone is interviewed after we are informed that she is fighting in the courts for legal recognition of her lesbian relationship as a marriage. The vote is described as 'sweet music' to her ears. She describes her feeling as being 'overwhelmed'.
With words such as 'overwhelmingly', 'equal' and phrases like 'sweet music' being used to describe the participants and their actions we are shown a happy, positive side of this report in favour of the gay and lesbian couples.
People who were at the convention and politicans who are in favour of gay marriage are given priority in the report as these are the people being interviewed. They are interviewed at the convention and outside the hotel it took place in. However one of the expert witnesses who addressed the convention was acused of being biased. We are told his name is Professor Jim Sheehan who teaches in Norway and who is a social worker and and experienced family therapist. Senator Ronan Mullen was then interviewed and assused him of showing his true colours more than he should have done as a neutral expert. The Charimain of the convention, Tom Arnold, was then mentioned for standing over Professor Jim Sheehan's comments calling them impartial and objective and said that there was no evidence that same sex parenting was bad for children. We are not told the full extent of what Professor Sheehan said but with the chairman saying that there was no evidence that same sex parenting was bad for children again shows support for same sex marriage.
The next piece of information we are given in the report is that Fine Gael has no position in legalising same sex marriage so the question is posed can cabinet ministers who are in favour bring the largest government party with them.This shows that the report is in favour of same sex marriage. If they were against it they could have said can ministers who are not in favour bring Fine Gael with them. The wording used here is favourable to same sex marriage. TD Frances Fitzgerald is then interviewed saying that they would have to tease out the possible consequences if such a referendem were held, she goes on to say that there are many issues that need legislation and detailed attention. This tells us that it is still a controversal issue with some people and it's not as straight forward as it may look after this vote.
The camera shots then go back to the people on the street showing them posing for photos and there's a close up of a gay couple holding hands where you can see an engagement ring on their finger. The camera shots show the point of view of the gay coulples and how much a vote like this means to them.
The sequence of the story begins and ends with the happy crowds on the street to leave the lasting image in our heads that this is something good and positive for Ireland and that all these couples are being supported.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTNmQBkZHxY
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Media as a means of production
According to Silverblatt (204) it can be argued that the media have emerged as a new social institution replacing traditional social institutions like the family, church and school. An increasing number of people are looking to the media for direction with respect to values and rules of behaviour although there is a tendency to avoid the unpopular and unconventional. The media have a huge effect on people's lifestyles, dictating daily activities, language and fashion. Daily activities include families sitting down at the same time every evening to watch the news. Language and Fashion can include people following the influence of what celebrities are doing and wearing.
Media production is essentially based on the need to please the audience. If the audience needs are ignored then the likely outcome is commercial failure. These needs are met with their daily dose of news from whats going on around the world or from giving viewers their daily dose of soap opera drama or celebrity gossip. Media figures have emerged as societal role models, representing a standard of success that their fans seek to follow (Silverblatt, 2004).
However, ideology refers to a set of ideas which produce a partial and selective view of reality, this in turn serves the interests of those with power in society. We can see this in times of war when the government seek direct control over the media, they do not want their public support being undermined by images of civilian casualties.
Looking at it this way I think that the medias main role is circulating and re-inforcing dominant ideologies that are put in place by those in power. Because of the people in power they rarely undermine and challenge these ideologies.
Media production is essentially based on the need to please the audience. If the audience needs are ignored then the likely outcome is commercial failure. These needs are met with their daily dose of news from whats going on around the world or from giving viewers their daily dose of soap opera drama or celebrity gossip. Media figures have emerged as societal role models, representing a standard of success that their fans seek to follow (Silverblatt, 2004).
However, ideology refers to a set of ideas which produce a partial and selective view of reality, this in turn serves the interests of those with power in society. We can see this in times of war when the government seek direct control over the media, they do not want their public support being undermined by images of civilian casualties.
Looking at it this way I think that the medias main role is circulating and re-inforcing dominant ideologies that are put in place by those in power. Because of the people in power they rarely undermine and challenge these ideologies.
Wag The Dog
Wag the Dog is a film from 1997 directed by Barry Levinson. The film begins with the American president getting caught in a scandal of sexual misconduct in the days leading up to the re-election. It shows how his advisors work with a Hollywood producer to fabricate a war with Albania that the president can heroically end therefore drawing the attention away from the sex scandal.
Wag the Dog shows the power of the media. Through made up story lines and special effects the media can make the public believe anything. Big media production companies who have the money and the resources can create just about any situation. In the film we see how the production company hire an American actress to play the role of an Albanian teenager running from a burning building holding a kitten. We can see all the little things considered in this scene to make it effective for the audience. The presence of a young girl and a helpless kitten would pull at viewers heart strings. A sound track of people screaming was also played to make it more believable. A green screen was used in the production process with the war zone background and even the kitten being put in digitally at the end.
We also see in the film how the people addressing the media were told what to say by the advisors. This makes me think about if anything we see in the media or at a press conference is coming from the actual person themselves or have they been trained by advisors on what to say and how to 'sell' what they are saying. Even when the presidents opponent in the film ends the war to the public, the presidents advisors come up with another 'brilliant' idea to make him look like a hero. They create a war hero who has gone missing so the president can rescue him and be the hero again.
I don't think that something to this extreme is possible in the real world but I do believe that some people would be willing to go to these lengths of deception to make themselves look good and to avoid a scandal. The public look to the media for advice and trust that the media have done their research, so having said that I don't think the public are the gullible ones here I believe that it's the news reporters who are gullible and will report on anything with very little evidence just so they have news to broadcast.
Although very controversial and raw at the moment are the recent bombings at the Boston marathon. They are a lot of conspiracy theories on the Internet at the moment about how this was a set up. There is a picture circulating online of an army vet, who took part in the marathon, in a wheel chair with his legs blown off. The internet posts are talking about how there doesn't seem to be a trail of blood behind him or any blood still coming from him and that if he has bled out completely he would be passed out. In the picture he is awake and sitting up in the wheelchair. Some posts also say that this army vet has already landed himself an acting role with out any acting skills. Now I am not saying that this is true or is at all possible I am just using it as an example as a potential similar event occurring in the real world and to demonstrate how the public are becoming more and more suspicious of the media and the government. People are no longer believing everything they are seeing in the media and are becoming more suspicious and critical of these kind of events.
Wag the Dog shows the power of the media. Through made up story lines and special effects the media can make the public believe anything. Big media production companies who have the money and the resources can create just about any situation. In the film we see how the production company hire an American actress to play the role of an Albanian teenager running from a burning building holding a kitten. We can see all the little things considered in this scene to make it effective for the audience. The presence of a young girl and a helpless kitten would pull at viewers heart strings. A sound track of people screaming was also played to make it more believable. A green screen was used in the production process with the war zone background and even the kitten being put in digitally at the end.
We also see in the film how the people addressing the media were told what to say by the advisors. This makes me think about if anything we see in the media or at a press conference is coming from the actual person themselves or have they been trained by advisors on what to say and how to 'sell' what they are saying. Even when the presidents opponent in the film ends the war to the public, the presidents advisors come up with another 'brilliant' idea to make him look like a hero. They create a war hero who has gone missing so the president can rescue him and be the hero again.
I don't think that something to this extreme is possible in the real world but I do believe that some people would be willing to go to these lengths of deception to make themselves look good and to avoid a scandal. The public look to the media for advice and trust that the media have done their research, so having said that I don't think the public are the gullible ones here I believe that it's the news reporters who are gullible and will report on anything with very little evidence just so they have news to broadcast.
Although very controversial and raw at the moment are the recent bombings at the Boston marathon. They are a lot of conspiracy theories on the Internet at the moment about how this was a set up. There is a picture circulating online of an army vet, who took part in the marathon, in a wheel chair with his legs blown off. The internet posts are talking about how there doesn't seem to be a trail of blood behind him or any blood still coming from him and that if he has bled out completely he would be passed out. In the picture he is awake and sitting up in the wheelchair. Some posts also say that this army vet has already landed himself an acting role with out any acting skills. Now I am not saying that this is true or is at all possible I am just using it as an example as a potential similar event occurring in the real world and to demonstrate how the public are becoming more and more suspicious of the media and the government. People are no longer believing everything they are seeing in the media and are becoming more suspicious and critical of these kind of events.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Semiotic Print Advertisement Analysis
The advertisement I have choose to analyze is an ad to stop smoking. The image shows two cigarettes upside down with quite a large amount of smoke coming from them. The denotative level of meaning that comes from this image is that it's just two cigarettes and that smoking is bad for you. But the connotative level of meaning is that its a symbol of the twin towers on the day of the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001.
This symbol can be interpreted all over the world as this image of the twin towers has been seen everywhere. We can even see in the image how one of the cigarettes is burning quicker than the other further representing the twin towers. The cigarette on the left is representing the north tower which the plane crashed into at 8.46 a.m, and the cigarette on the right represents the south tower that the plane crashed into at 9.03 a.m. The syntagmatic axis is very important here. If the two cigarettes were in the opposite order it wouldn't look very like the twin towers the day they got hit so people could take a different meaning from the image.
The large amount of smoke coming from the cigarettes is a signifier and the signified is the image of the smoke that came from the twin towers on that day. The blue background of the image also further indicates that this is a symbol of the twin towers as it represents the skyline in new york that day. This blue background is on the paradigmatic axis. If you took out this blue background and replaced it with a different color like red or yellow it wouldn't look like the new york skyline and therefore it could give it a different meaning.
Everyone in the twin towers who was above where the ash is in this picture died where the people below the ash had a chance to survive. This could be related back to get people to stop smoking where the people who keep on smoking the cigarette further will die but if they stop now they have a chance of survival.
You could also look into this further in terms of myths that are present in society. These myths are also culturally specific. The world trade centre would have been seen as a symbol of economic might and represented the elite and powerful in America and New York. Back in the 1960's smoking would have been associated with powerful businessmen and seen as a sign of style. Most notably, advertising execs in Madison Avenue which we can see in the TV series 'Mad Men'. But now smoking is no longer stylish or associated with the workplace just like the twin towers no longer represent the powerful in America. The terrorist attacks showed that America is weak and cigarettes can be associated with the weak also.
At the very bottom left hand corner of the ad we can see some writing. It says 'Terrorist related death since 2001 11,377 + tobacco related deaths since 2001 30,000,000'. This could be something that would really hit home with some people. Smoking related deaths are preventable. The ash that fell from the sky that day caused a lot of people breathing problems whereas on a daily basis people are still choosing to put this into their bodies.
I think this is a very controversial ad as it would bring back lots of painful memories for some people but I also think it's a very powerful ad and it would definitely get the message across to others.
Sources:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0913_TVsymbol.html
http://www.canada.com/stylish+smoking+sign+times/7754257/story.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Semiotics
This week we revisited semiotics from first year and then looked at it in a bit more detail also. Semiotics can be defined as the study of signs but it can be applied to paintings, advertisements, posters, films, songs, etc. We use semiotics everyday without even thinking about it by using gestures, e.g. tapping your wrist with your finger where a watch should be could signify to someone that they are late. As a media student I need to be able to look at semiotics within texts as the construction of meaning, whether this is a preferred meaning or an authored meaning. Semiotics relies on a shared societal and cultural understanding of conventions. For example if we see a film trailer that shows us funny clips we go to see that film expecting it to be funny. If we went to see it and the film was scary, people would get a shock because this is not the accepted semiotic conventions. This is communicated through arrangements of music, lighting and camera shots. Here are two examples of comedy film trailers made to look like thrillers.
The Hangover
Dumb and Dumber
Margritte makes the point that we forget that signs and symbols are all around us because we see them as 'things'. He states that an image or a sign of a 'thing' is not the 'thing' itself. We generally don't take the time to look at the signs and symbols for a deeper meaning or understanding.
There are different levels of meaning:
Denotation is the most immediate level of meaning, the basic or literal meaning.
Connotation is the second order of meaning. It reflects values that are attached to a sign. Likely to be culturally specific.
According to de Saussure signs are organsied into codes in two ways:
A Paradigm is a vertical set of units from with the required sign is selected.
A Syntagm is the horizontal chain into which units are linked to make it meaningful.
Advertisements use culturally desirable paradigms to get people to buy their product. Viewers know that if you buy a product you will not be like the person portrayed in the image so advertisers need to be clever with their use of signs to make the product look desirable to the audience. They also have to ensure that these signs adhere to the cultural conventions of the audience. In my next blog I will look at a specific advertisement in more detail.
The Hangover
Dumb and Dumber
Margritte makes the point that we forget that signs and symbols are all around us because we see them as 'things'. He states that an image or a sign of a 'thing' is not the 'thing' itself. We generally don't take the time to look at the signs and symbols for a deeper meaning or understanding.
There are different levels of meaning:
Denotation is the most immediate level of meaning, the basic or literal meaning.
Connotation is the second order of meaning. It reflects values that are attached to a sign. Likely to be culturally specific.
According to de Saussure signs are organsied into codes in two ways:
A Paradigm is a vertical set of units from with the required sign is selected.
A Syntagm is the horizontal chain into which units are linked to make it meaningful.
Advertisements use culturally desirable paradigms to get people to buy their product. Viewers know that if you buy a product you will not be like the person portrayed in the image so advertisers need to be clever with their use of signs to make the product look desirable to the audience. They also have to ensure that these signs adhere to the cultural conventions of the audience. In my next blog I will look at a specific advertisement in more detail.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Interviews - a case study
The interview I'm using as my case study is Dr.Phil interviewing Dina Lohan, the mother of troubled Hollywood actress Lindsay Lohan. I've taking the first 20 mins of this interview to analyze. Before the interview begins a VT is played of Dina where she summarizes her life with her kids and her husband, who apparently abused her, and claims to be 'just a normal mom that juggles everything'. She then says the purpose of the interview is to set the record straight because there are so many stories out there about her and her children and she wants people to hear her story and nobody else's. She says she wants to shed some light on herself and on Lindsay. It's very much pushed from the beginning that this is an exclusive interview and that this is something thats happening for the first time. I think all of this is used to draw the viewer in and let them know what to expect. But then the interview itself takes a completely different turn and becomes almost uncomfortable to watch. Dr Phil admits himself at the start that what he thought would be a normal in depth interview turned into something entirely different.
When the interview begins everything seems normal. Dr.Phil tells Dina that he wants to give her a chance to tell her story and set the record straight so people know who she is. Dina then seems to 'stall' by asking 'Are we to camera now, we're rolling?' She then goes into some detail about her past and turns to the camera and says 'Can we cut?' and she covers her face. She then asks again 'Is this rolling?' Dr.Phil tries to relax her by telling her to take a deep breath. I think she has gone into this interview with an agenda of making herself look like a victim. She talks about domestic abuse but because of how 'strange' her behaviour is, I feel that the audience won't connect with this or have sympathy for her. She comes across like she is drunk or on drugs during this interview.
At around the 7 min 30 sec mark Dr.Phil summarizes what Dina has said already about her relationship with her ex husband. I think he does this so the audience can get an understanding of what she has said. He is forced to operate under the constraints of her behaviour so he needs to summarize for the viewer.
At the 8.30 mark Dr.Phil asks her what was the lowest point. She then starts crying and covers her face and asks can they stop because she doesn't want to be on camera, but then she continues to answer the question making it look like attention seeking, playing the victim again (agenda).
The next question he asks her she tries to avoid by saying 'next question' but he just asks the same question again and she answers it. He doesn't let her get away with not answering the questions. He's firm with her but tries to make her feel comfortable. She then asks can she go home and he tells her she can do whatever she likes. You can see here that while he's not letting her get away with not answering questions he's also not willing to put up with this behaviour, as he reminds her that she was the one who wanted to do this interview to put everything behind her. He stays very relaxed and encourages her to keep going or she will regret it.
After this he then asks her what she wants to talk about, trying to make her feel in control, but she says you tell me you have the list. She then continues to talk about her ex husband saying he pays no child support and sees Lindsay as 'the goose that lay the golden egg' and that he never talks about his other children. Her agenda here is to make her husband look like the bad guy. We can then see how Dr.Phil is being neutral and wants to show the viewer both sides to this story by telling her that that's exactly what her ex husband, Michael Lohan, says about her, that her relationship with Lindsay is financial and she uses her.
At 11.50 Dr.Phil summarizes again what Dina came to talk about. She says she doesn't want to talk about something and he calls her out by calling back to her all the reasons why she wanted to do this interview. She tells him that she's being honest and he says 'no your not', he doesn't let her away with anything. From this point on he calls her out on everything she's doing. He tells her she's using words she doesn't know the meaning of. She calls him 'you people', and he responds by saying he's a highly trained professional, he's knows how to interview people and that he's not the media. He asks her again why is she here. He knows this interview means more to her than it does to him.
She tries to avoid questions again by commenting on his shoes so he calls her out again. He tells her that everything she is doing is a 'dodge' and she deflects everything. He summarizes how she keeps stalling asking about the cameras rolling and he calls her a 'phony' and a 'fraud'. At this point she sticks her finger up at the camera. This is around the 16 min mark. The interview continues where she keeps interrupting him and she keeps trying to put across her point or agenda that she just a normal person and she continues to play the victim by saying it's 'hard'. He describes her as 'flitting' around.
Throughout this interview we can see the interviewer using formulation because of the constraints they are under. You can also see how the interviewer is neutral. He tries to keep her calm and relaxed while also calling her out on what she's doing. I think by doing this he is getting the audience on his side. We can see erratic behaviour from the interviewee where she is avoiding questions by crying, playing the victim, changing the subject and stalling. She is also pushing her own agenda. But the interviewer doesn't let her get away with this. The interviewer in this case comes across as the better person.
When the interview begins everything seems normal. Dr.Phil tells Dina that he wants to give her a chance to tell her story and set the record straight so people know who she is. Dina then seems to 'stall' by asking 'Are we to camera now, we're rolling?' She then goes into some detail about her past and turns to the camera and says 'Can we cut?' and she covers her face. She then asks again 'Is this rolling?' Dr.Phil tries to relax her by telling her to take a deep breath. I think she has gone into this interview with an agenda of making herself look like a victim. She talks about domestic abuse but because of how 'strange' her behaviour is, I feel that the audience won't connect with this or have sympathy for her. She comes across like she is drunk or on drugs during this interview.
At around the 7 min 30 sec mark Dr.Phil summarizes what Dina has said already about her relationship with her ex husband. I think he does this so the audience can get an understanding of what she has said. He is forced to operate under the constraints of her behaviour so he needs to summarize for the viewer.
At the 8.30 mark Dr.Phil asks her what was the lowest point. She then starts crying and covers her face and asks can they stop because she doesn't want to be on camera, but then she continues to answer the question making it look like attention seeking, playing the victim again (agenda).
The next question he asks her she tries to avoid by saying 'next question' but he just asks the same question again and she answers it. He doesn't let her get away with not answering the questions. He's firm with her but tries to make her feel comfortable. She then asks can she go home and he tells her she can do whatever she likes. You can see here that while he's not letting her get away with not answering questions he's also not willing to put up with this behaviour, as he reminds her that she was the one who wanted to do this interview to put everything behind her. He stays very relaxed and encourages her to keep going or she will regret it.
After this he then asks her what she wants to talk about, trying to make her feel in control, but she says you tell me you have the list. She then continues to talk about her ex husband saying he pays no child support and sees Lindsay as 'the goose that lay the golden egg' and that he never talks about his other children. Her agenda here is to make her husband look like the bad guy. We can then see how Dr.Phil is being neutral and wants to show the viewer both sides to this story by telling her that that's exactly what her ex husband, Michael Lohan, says about her, that her relationship with Lindsay is financial and she uses her.
At 11.50 Dr.Phil summarizes again what Dina came to talk about. She says she doesn't want to talk about something and he calls her out by calling back to her all the reasons why she wanted to do this interview. She tells him that she's being honest and he says 'no your not', he doesn't let her away with anything. From this point on he calls her out on everything she's doing. He tells her she's using words she doesn't know the meaning of. She calls him 'you people', and he responds by saying he's a highly trained professional, he's knows how to interview people and that he's not the media. He asks her again why is she here. He knows this interview means more to her than it does to him.
She tries to avoid questions again by commenting on his shoes so he calls her out again. He tells her that everything she is doing is a 'dodge' and she deflects everything. He summarizes how she keeps stalling asking about the cameras rolling and he calls her a 'phony' and a 'fraud'. At this point she sticks her finger up at the camera. This is around the 16 min mark. The interview continues where she keeps interrupting him and she keeps trying to put across her point or agenda that she just a normal person and she continues to play the victim by saying it's 'hard'. He describes her as 'flitting' around.
Throughout this interview we can see the interviewer using formulation because of the constraints they are under. You can also see how the interviewer is neutral. He tries to keep her calm and relaxed while also calling her out on what she's doing. I think by doing this he is getting the audience on his side. We can see erratic behaviour from the interviewee where she is avoiding questions by crying, playing the victim, changing the subject and stalling. She is also pushing her own agenda. But the interviewer doesn't let her get away with this. The interviewer in this case comes across as the better person.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Preferred Meaning
I found an article in The Irish Sun from the 16th Feb that I think has a preferred meaning. The article header says 'Behind plus-size fashion weekend', with the headline reading 'Our catwalk has beautiful, curvy NORMAL girls'. The preferred meaning in this article would be to make people believe it's ok and normal to have a fuller figure. The intended audience would be fuller figured women to help them feel better about themselves. This plus-sized fashion weekend has happened at the same time as London fashion week where you see super skinny models walk the runway. While the aim of this is to make women feel beautiful no matter what their size, there is another reality to this that we're not seeing here.
Now while I believe that curvy figures are much nicer than super skinny and that curvy women should feel beautiful there is a line between what's healthy and what's unhealthy. The plus-sized model in the article says that she is a size 16 and eats healthy and goes to the gym, but the reality that's not being pushed here is that a size 16 figure could be very unhealthy. While it might be healthy for this model to be a size 16 depending on her height and her BMI, it doesn't give us this information in the article, so in turn every size 16 girl reading this may be led to believe that it's healthy when they could in reality have an unhealthy BMI. It is very unhealthy for people to have excess fat around their mid section, especially for women. According to the Drummond Clinic website:
"Carrying weight around the middle represents a serious health risk. It is now known that there are major health implications of storing fat in the middle of the body rather than anywhere else – studies have shown it increases the risk of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer (especially breast cancer) and high blood pressure."
http://www.drummondclinic.co.uk/articles/fat-around-the-middle/
In the article the model also says "Designers make clothes up to a size 16, so why don't they use real size 16 women, their customers, to show them off? Why would a designer create clothes in larger sizes if they don't want to see them worn?" The reality not being said here is that the designers are the ones picking the super skinny size zero models to show their clothes on the catwalk. At the end of the article there's a small piece by the fashion editor saying that "The Irish Sun has been campaigning against size zero models since 2007." While I am against size zero, I would be against unhealthy size 16 models also. I believe fashion shows should have size 10-12 models as this to me is what represents 'normal' and also healthy figures. I believe that women should be confident and feel good regardless of their shape but they also need to be healthy and this is the reality that is no being pushed by this article.
Here is a link to the article online:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/article4797781.ece
Here is also a photo of the article that I saw in the newspaper:
The circuit of culture: The article is represented to us with a picture of the size 16 model posing seductively so that people will think she's beautiful and desirable. She is also the one being quoted in the article and as she is taking part in the plus-sized fashion week she is a reliable source for this kind of information. It's printed in a tabloid newspaper making the information easy to digest by the reader. They know that this sort of article will be acceptable by the reader and it is definitely aimed at female readers. It's also a short article with a big headline to catch the readers attention so they are likely to read it. The picture of the model may also catch the eye of some of the male consumers.
I think that the alternative reality is not being pushed here because people get so caught up in trying to get rid of size zero models that they forget about what's actually healthy and what's not healthy when it comes to plus sized models. Plus sized models want to make people think it's ok and normal to be that size so they don't tell them the risks that go along with it.
Now while I believe that curvy figures are much nicer than super skinny and that curvy women should feel beautiful there is a line between what's healthy and what's unhealthy. The plus-sized model in the article says that she is a size 16 and eats healthy and goes to the gym, but the reality that's not being pushed here is that a size 16 figure could be very unhealthy. While it might be healthy for this model to be a size 16 depending on her height and her BMI, it doesn't give us this information in the article, so in turn every size 16 girl reading this may be led to believe that it's healthy when they could in reality have an unhealthy BMI. It is very unhealthy for people to have excess fat around their mid section, especially for women. According to the Drummond Clinic website:
"Carrying weight around the middle represents a serious health risk. It is now known that there are major health implications of storing fat in the middle of the body rather than anywhere else – studies have shown it increases the risk of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer (especially breast cancer) and high blood pressure."
http://www.drummondclinic.co.uk/articles/fat-around-the-middle/
In the article the model also says "Designers make clothes up to a size 16, so why don't they use real size 16 women, their customers, to show them off? Why would a designer create clothes in larger sizes if they don't want to see them worn?" The reality not being said here is that the designers are the ones picking the super skinny size zero models to show their clothes on the catwalk. At the end of the article there's a small piece by the fashion editor saying that "The Irish Sun has been campaigning against size zero models since 2007." While I am against size zero, I would be against unhealthy size 16 models also. I believe fashion shows should have size 10-12 models as this to me is what represents 'normal' and also healthy figures. I believe that women should be confident and feel good regardless of their shape but they also need to be healthy and this is the reality that is no being pushed by this article.
Here is a link to the article online:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/article4797781.ece
Here is also a photo of the article that I saw in the newspaper:
The circuit of culture: The article is represented to us with a picture of the size 16 model posing seductively so that people will think she's beautiful and desirable. She is also the one being quoted in the article and as she is taking part in the plus-sized fashion week she is a reliable source for this kind of information. It's printed in a tabloid newspaper making the information easy to digest by the reader. They know that this sort of article will be acceptable by the reader and it is definitely aimed at female readers. It's also a short article with a big headline to catch the readers attention so they are likely to read it. The picture of the model may also catch the eye of some of the male consumers.
I think that the alternative reality is not being pushed here because people get so caught up in trying to get rid of size zero models that they forget about what's actually healthy and what's not healthy when it comes to plus sized models. Plus sized models want to make people think it's ok and normal to be that size so they don't tell them the risks that go along with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
