Do you agree with the view that the main effect of increasing media coverage of the royal family from the 1970s onwards was to damage the image of the monarchy? Media coverage was sincerely damaging to the monarchy from the 1970s onwards. The media made the royal family seem like a celebrity family rather than a royal family, as they focused on their private lives. The media undermined the monarchy through stories of their sexual deviancies and marital mishaps. Source 15 backs up this point; it’s message is that the media has shown the royal families true colours, albeit very bland colours.
The way media presents men and women may distort how we see ourselves and what we perceive as normal and desirable. Typically the things a person learns come from an outside influence such as another person or implanted thought such as a movie, TV show, music, or something they read. With the media being such a prevalent influence in American society, people are extremely likely to pick up on the lifestyle depictions presented in the media they watch. These images shape thoughts and imagination regarding their own lifestyle and opinions. This can be detrimental to long term successful self-image.
The culture of celebrity is an increasingly pervasive phenomenon that is made even more treacherous in the fact that it touches almost every American’s life. While many hold the conventional belief that celebrity dogma and vicarious living are mere entertainment and thus harmless, the public’s rising propensity towards celebrity worship and mindless ingestion of manipulated and often inaccurate information set forth by the media and popular public figures greatly contributes to the rising anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism, and overall incompetence in detecting our willful consumption of junk thought. If society is unable to recognize the repercussions celebrity culture will have on our collective ability to distinguish legitimate news from the erroneous and furthermore continues to advocate a general reluctance to transpose our rapturous enthusiasm from Britney Spears to issues far more worthy of our attention, such as war in Afghanistan, the climbing rates of foreclosure and unemployment, and global warming, the consequences will become progressively severe. The current and future implications of this seemingly innocuous movement include debased public discourse and politics, the proliferation of misinformation and erroneous reports relating to health issues and more, a diversion from intellectual endeavors, and an overall rejection of rationality. Celebrity culture and our nation’s infatuation with it is playing a significant role in producing a generation that is increasingly devoid of a defined criterion to assess the precariousness in conforming to the credo of a dumbed-down society where intellectualism and rationalism have far less value than the recklessly enticing ideas set forth by the mouthpieces of junk thought.
Celebrating Inequalities When I first saw the title of George Packer’s essay, I immediately thought about the disadvantages of lower class or ethnic groups. What was surprising to me was the inequalities of celebrities and the roles they play in our society. Packer asks a very important question: “What are celebrities, after all?” (474). A deeper analysis of the dominance they have on ordinary people should be considered. To some degrees they are searching for some physical being to worship.
What elements of the ad were possibly constructed or altered- The ad comes across as a little extreme when it states “every time light touches your skin, it causes more wrinkles”. It might give the idea that you need to either buy this product or stay away from the light. What key messages or values was the ad representing/how could this message affect the way a person views him/herself- One key message might be that aging is a bad thing, when in reality it’s a natural way of life. A person might feel that if they start to get wrinkles they are not as beautiful as they were 10 years ago. Who is the target aduience of the advertistment- Women in their late 30s and early 40s could be a possible target.
Celebrity involvement in these issues is beneficial for many reasons, the most significant of which are that celebrities can greatly raise the public awareness of a specific problem, and they can generate substantial capital in support of the problem. Nevertheless, their involvement has distinct limitations as well. Celebrities are not subject matter experts, nor are they qualified to make decisions or direct policy related to the issue they may be supporting. A critical evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages is necessary, and the underlying question needs addressed: Is celebrity activism helpful, or is it a hindrance? Celebrity activism has existed since the early days of Hollywood and celebrity status.
A major sporting event like the Olympics can attract 10,000s of people for the duration of the games. These foreign tourists bring a boost to the local economy. In particular the local tourist trade, shops / hotels will benefit from the surge in visitor numbers. However, it is worth noting that these visitor numbers tend to be temporary. The major sporting event only lasts for a few weeks; potentially there could be many empty hotel beds in the future.
As a result, ads have desensitized American culture and established values, judgments, and opinions that were established formerly have disintegrated. In American society, advertisements fabricate reality, reveal a false presentation of values and beliefs, and diminish one’s process of personal discovery, thus generating a superficial society that challenges human progress. Advertisements are woven into the context of a consumer’s experience and often portray a conflicting message than what the ad is attempting to sell. Cigarette advertisements are especially glamorized and controversial. The cigarette brand American Spirit recently published an ad that falsely represents its product.
Reality television frequently portrays a modified and highly influenced form of reality, at times utilizing sensationalism to attract audience viewers and increase advertising revenue profits. Participants are often placed in exotic locations or abnormal situations, and are often persuaded to act in specific scripted ways by off-screen "story editors" or "segment television producers", with the portrayal of events and speech manipulated and contrived to create an illusion of reality through direction and post-production editing techniques. Reality TV, which is in the business of making us feel good rather than be good, actually contributes to the growing problems in our society by celebrating human weakness rather than human excellence. Reality TV doesn't empower us, but rather overpowers us by taking our innate power and inner knowing and spirituality away from us, leaving us feeling insecure, inadequate, less fulfilled, isolated and confused by virtue of the promotion of anti-social behavior, excessive self-indulgence, self-entitlement, greed, compromised integrity, obsession with winning at all costs, and erosion in morality. Although the critics of reality TV are highly outspoken, there is also the counterargument of the benefits of the genre on its participants and audience.
People from younger generations are so drawn that they would rather skip school and chase after fame and money so that they can also appear to the world as celebrities. Celebrity culture through the help of the media is forced down the throats of our teenagers and young people from the younger generation now lose their grip on the culture and are ‘westernized’ However, it’s not like nothing good can come out of celebrity culture, They encourage teenagers to follow their dreams and work towards what they feel is the right path for them. Celebrity culture shows that you should as much as possible give to those who are in need and support various