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.
Hamza Mohammad Andy Varbel English 908 5/1/2012 True Beauty and Pop Culture There are many things in this world that can affect the way we act or think and pop culture is definitely one of these things. In the article “Pop Culture Is Destroying True Beauty” by Rachel Drevno, she explains how pop culture and the media is something that gets people to believe that there is a certain standard of beauty. That beauty that Drevno is talking about is all of the celebrities and people on the cover of magazines and so forth. She thinks people are trying to get themselves in the standard that pop culture wants when Drevno believes true Beauty is not what other people want you to look but rather everyone is beautiful in their own way. I do agree with Drevno in this article.
Despite the publicity gained from this particular newspaper being quite derrogative towards the suffragettes, publicity was gained. It could be said that this made people realise that the Suffragettes were prepared to go to great lengths for suffrage. However, in reality if this particular paper was the only paper that a person read, all they would gain from reading this article is the fact that the Suffragettes are immature, reckless and quite frankly idiotic people who most definitely could not be trusted with the vote. We have to take into consideration that this source is not typical, being a conservative paper, addmitting that the action was a leap forward for the Suffraggettes would be kicking themselves in the teeth. Source 11 is an extract from Christabel Pankhurst's autobiography (Emeline's sister.)
Her boisterousness and hostility is epitomised in the stage direction [She strikes him]. This indicates that Katherina employs physical abuse as a self defense mechanism against Petruchio. Such violent behavior was classed as shrew-like and highly unorthodox in the Elizabethan Era, particularly towards a male suitor of a high social class. Thus, Katherina challenges the values of courtship and marriage, in a way that is relevant to her society. Correspondingly, in 10 Things I Hate About You, Kat rebels against the social expectations of the permeating values of courtship and dating.
The publicity of the case and the one-sided role of the media caused a majority of people, internationally, to be biased and influenced. This impact then led to numerous problems and difficulties in being treated fairly, such as finding an impartial jury. This factor of having preconceived idea meant that the jury had already decided Lindy Chamberlain’s fate, opposing the justice being “served,” legitimately. Wiping away any chance for Lindy Chamberlain to prove her innocence creates an inevitable outcome. The Chamberlains being judged under a heavily biased jury influenced by the media, therefore shows the maltreatment of the case by the justice system and the society.
Is changing the way you look or act in order to fit in with a certain social group ever a good idea? What might be some benefits and/or drawbacks to doing so?” Some have said that changing your personality, look or act to fit certain group is a bad idea; however, I say we all have different personality or habits and it’s very hard to change other people change other people so I would say people should change or adjust their personality to fit certain group because the person can be socialized and nothing wrong to change and be a better person. Human is a very complicated creature, and because we all have different personality, it makes us more complicated to understand or fit each other’s. Every person with have certain way to conduct others and because of that, a person must be socialized and do not isolated himself with the rest of world else he/she will modernize as everyone else. Many times I see people in school or work that some people cannot hangout with others is either they are stubborn or the group do not want to let the guy in their group because he is so persistent.
Is he a reliable resource, or an unreliable narrator whose creditability is compromised by his point of view and stereotyping? We can assume some trust because it also seems in the story that society has created a stereotype in which he must follow to meet a female companion based on where he is from and his financial status. He also implies that girls are smart, which is one of the reasons why he is doing so much to improve his chances of having relations with girls. Furthermore, he is being sympathetic towards their social label by giving the girls the credit they deserve. It is important to note that Junot Diaz covers a large variety of races, and his inclusion of many types of people shows a consistent trend of unjustified labels.
The accusations of non-whites is that such displays simplify consumer minds so much that no room is left for consideration of the beauty of those who aren’t white. The general public recognizes stores that hire only beautiful whites to give the impression that only whites are beautiful and worthy of employment; this isn’t unlike Heilbroner’s second point: stereotypes define the things around us. It is usually the case that stereotypes are extremes, and if the stereotype held accountable defines blonde, blue-eyed whites are the most beautiful people, it also implies all non-whites as less beautiful. Stereotypes are black or white classifications; but, what people become so offended about is all of the gray area that is left out—in the workplace these areas are all of the varying skills applicants posses. The majority of workers don’t like to be defined by their beauty, they like to be defined by their work ethic, productivity, knowledge, and character.
Intentionally or otherwise, entertainment condones violent behavior and downplays its significance. Modern entertainment lays sex and violence on dangerously thick. By excusing brutality and equating promiscuity to beauty, it distorts the moral values of society. Additionally, it encourages a personally dangerous lifestyle. STDs, fighting fatalities and injuries, and jail time are real threats to those who choose to live in the false grandeur of a Hollywood life.
She was caring, intelligent, and ambitious. Since Gloria was judged by the way she looked, no one realized how great of a person she was. We need to take more time to get to know people instead of judging by physical images because “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, if you would have gotten to know her, she would have looked more attractive. I believe that anyone can be pretty, if Gloria would have put her hair down and dressed in more trendy clothes people would have thought she was very attractive. Even someone that is “pretty” can have an ugly personality, so you never know unless you get to know a person.