extra credit

- Had you ever used a blog before attending RTF 305? IF SO, WHAT WAS ITS FOCUS?


Yes, I have used one before. I had a few in the past and one now, all mostly for personal use. One of them was used also for a marketing blogging position I had for a while. None of them had a certain theme or focus - they were mostly just a place for me to write about random things and share ideas with my friends and whoever else would read it.

- What were the positive aspects of using the blogs in the course?


I liked the speed in submitting the post. I could do the blog at any time during the week and submit it even an hour before the actual submission time. Another aspect I enjoyed was the more personal feeling of the blog, giving the impression that we could say our own opinions as well as talk about the terms and the subject involved. The less strict atmosphere of the blog made it feel less stressful for me to do the assignment. Incorporating media such as videos and pictures also added to what could have been a more dry and boring blog. Furthermore, the ability to edit the post after it was already submitted was useful just in case something didn't work out the first time. 

- What difficulties did you encounter in using the blogs? (both technical and conceptual)


The only technical difficulty I encountered with the blogger was that it always reverted to my Gmail account even though I signed up with a Yahoo account. Maybe in the future you guys could use a different type of blog instead of one that was linked to a company that practically forces you to use their email service. One conceptual problem I had in the beginning was trying to make it somewhat formal while in an informal setting, but it wasn't too hard to overcome that.

- If you had difficulties in using the blog, how were you able to overcome the difficulties you encountered?


I just had to make sure my Gmail was logged out of before I started a post and I couldn't sign back in or else the blogpost wouldn't submit. Sometimes I would just save it in an MS word doc before.

- What types of blog prompts were more or less interesting or difficult? (provide an example and rationale)


I thought the blog prompts with more analysis were more interesting to me - such as the one analyzing television shows in a sociological point of view and the one analyzing commercials. This could be biased though because I'm also really interested in sociology. One in particular is the first blog prompt where you analyze the stereotypes in a certain television sitcom. I liked it because there was room for examples and it was a specific enough prompt to go in depth with. One I found less interesting was the one asking for an example of a 3-act structure - the blog was basically just summarizing a movie while classifying it in which act it went in. 

- Would you recommend using a blog in future course, either in RTF 305 and other undergraduate courses at UT-Austin? (explain why..)


Yeah, I really liked the idea of having a blog for a class. I think it makes doing assignments less stressful and I originally liked blogging anyway. I also liked all the positive aspects I listed above.

- What would you suggest to change or improve the blogging experience in the future?


I would suggest a change from blogger so that people who don't have Gmail or don't want to use their Gmail account for this blog. I also would have wanted a more interactive use of it since after you submit the post you wouldn't get much feedback on it from either the ta or the students. 


Oh and "Yes, you can use my blog in a paper or report."

glow ball is a shun

Globalization, to put it simply, is the process of increasing worldwide interconnectedness economically, culturally, and politically. While many people are talking about it in recent years like it JUST began happening, it can be argued that globalization began when Columbus first set foot in the West Indies, or really even before that. Personally, I believe globalization is just an increase in communication among diverse members all over the world, usually due to economic reasons. As the world's businesses and economies interconnect, communication among members of different nationalities, races, and cultures increases.


This of course has its advantages and disadvantages. Globalization can make us more unified, yes, but is that always a good thing? Is this process making us into one homogenized culture? Since the United States (imperialistically called "America") is a worldwide superpower due to its high standard of living and once-upon-a-time thriving economic market, it can also be considered a perpetrator of cultural imperialism. The easiest example of this is McDonald's - a company that essentially embodies what America is about - can be seen next to the Great Wall of China, the Eiffel Tower, or the Sphinx. It has no boundaries. If we were to find life on Mars and colonize the planet, there would, no doubt, be large golden arches dominating the landscape.


About 10 years ago when I went on a vacation to India, my cousins all had asked us to bring them Gap T-shirts, Adidas jackets, and baseball caps with names of teams they could care less about. These were simply for appearance purposes - to be 'cool,' you wanted to look wealthy and branded (pun unintended) like an American. However, things have changed in India since then. They don't look to this country as an idol anymore, but  as competition. 

Let's just say this was one of the more modest
photos out of the selection.

An NYTimes op-ed describes another example of American influence on Indian soil. The article is about how the Washington Redskins' Cheerleaders are coming to India to help hold auditions for a cheerleaders for an Indian cricket team. The author, Tunku Varadarjan, a professor at the NYU Business School, goes on to say: 

"All this, however, pales when compared to the broader lessons. With the Redskins cheerleaders on Indian soil, one can safely declare that the British cultural influence in India has been entirely replaced by an American one, cricket notwithstanding. India’s relationship with the United States — economic, strategic, diasporic and cultural — is now its primary external alliance, with a complex nuclear deal at one end of the spectrum and 12 cheerleaders and two choreographers at the other."

This quote perfectly describes cultural imperialism - usually the Western, more established countries have influenced the developing nations rather than having a balanced exchange of ideas and goods. If you look at Bollywood movies, the heavy influence of American culture is apparent over time. The music has changed from being softer, acoustic sounds to electronic, synthesizing sounds with rappers; the women (and men) bare a lot more skin and they actually...dare I say it...kiss! I feel like I'm rambling. I'll end it here. END.

Dove Evolution Commercial

Dove’s Real Beauty Campaign has created quite a buzz in television and the internet.  I recently just saw a commercial (called Dove’s “Evolution” Commercial) in which Dove revealed the entire process of makeup, lighting, digital retouching, etc. of a model to the viewer in a time speed video.  The commercial starts with an average-looking girl, pretty but not model-pretty, being brought onto a set for a photo shoot; and then the lighting changes.  The lights brighten up as if to show that this is the truth of the women that you see on the billboards, magazines, advertising to you makeup, beer, anything and everything.  The girl initially has oily skin, with lots of freckles, some minor blemishes, and in a matter of seconds (the video is sped up) the blemishes are covered and her skin looks flawless.  More and more makeup is put on, her hair is straightened and curled, and she looks incredibly different.  As if that weren’t enough already, the photo is shot and then Photoshop increases the size of her eyes, changes her proportions making her looks thinner and her neck longer, and at the end of the commercial her face as it is after the manipulation is put onto a billboard at the very end.  It proves that Dove is a good listener and is high on the level of integration, focusing on a long-term relationship with the consumer.  The company also conveys the idea that it is socially responsible in that it is changing the perception of real females.

Although blatantly a marketing strategy, the company makes it seem as though it is genuinely caring about the self-esteem of young girls and women in the world.

The appeal used in this commercial is satisfying curiosity. Many people do not know the extent it takes to make a models look the way they do on advertisements - the makeup, the lighting, the image manipulation, etc.  It also nurtures and guides the viewer into believing that Dove is a supporter of natural beauty and will uncover the shams of other beauty companies (Despite Dove allegedly photoshopping their 'Real Beauty' models and despite the fact that they sell skin lightening cream to women in Asian countries).  





Characteristics of the satisfying curiosity appeal in general are grabbing the viewers' attention and constructing an audience.  It grabs the viewer's attention through viral YouTube videos and making it styled as a short film that is sped up until the very end when the image of the 'more attractive' girl is shown on the billboard.  In addition, this advertisement was on many websites and was spread virally over the Internet. Using the internet for this commercial easily constructed and targeted an audience of younger people, and since it is a beauty company using a young women to advertise their product, it is obviously targeted towards females. 

If you're from Africa, then why are you white?

One movie which follows a 3-act structure that I’m embarrassingly familiar with is Mean Girls. In this film, the protagonist narrates the story in the present while speaking retrospectively of her first year in an American public high school.  

First Act (set up, ~30 minutes):

 Cady is the protagonist, a naïve, previously homeschooled teenage girl with overprotective parents who just moved recently from Africa to the U.S.  It starts off with showing her parents sending her off to school in the same way that parents do for children on their first day of kindergarten.  Soon Cady meets Janice, the rule-breaking outcast, and Damian, her flamboyant sidekick.  Janice is used as a way of introducing the entire high school kingdom to Cady – she points out the cliques of the “freshmen, ROTC guys, Preps, J.V. Jocks, Asian nerds, Cool Asians, Varsity jocks, Unfriendly Black Hotties, Girls who eat their feelings, Girls who don’t eat anything, Desperate Wannabes, Burnouts, Sexually Active Band Geeks, and The Plastics (a.k.a. the worst people you will ever meet)”.  After taking a liking to Cady, the Plastics try to include the new girl into their ‘club.’ The inciting incident that sets the plot in motion is on Halloween when Regina backstabs Cady by kissing Aaron, Cady’s love interest.  Thus, Janice, Damian, and Cady get revenge by sabotaging Regina George to remove her from her adolescent throne (the dramatic premise).  The action continuously rises as Cady begins to have a false relationship with The Plastics while trying to get Regina fat with Swedish Nutrition bars, make her face smell like a foot, and steal her boyfriend.  This is the first plot point.

I'm not a regular mom. I'm a cool mom.

Second Act (Complication, ~60 minutes):

The relationship between Cady and the Plastics becomes stronger, and Janice notices that Cady is becoming more and more like them (leading up to the second plot point). During this time, there are more and more obstacles she faces from getting Aaron and breaking Regina George.  Janice remarks, “It’s been a month, and all we’ve done is make her face smell like a foot.”  Cady backstabs Janice after throwing a party at her place in an attempt to gain the ultimate “Queen Bee” status and steal Aaron away from Regina. After Janice finds out, she breaks it off with Cady and she begins to realize the severity of her actions. This is the first culmination.  The plot soon reaches the midpoint after the “Burn Book” is distributed throughout the high school, causing the kids to act like animals. 

Third Act (Resolution, ~30 minutes):

Thus, the principal issues a “Trust” workshop for the teenage girls in the school, which soon leads to Regina George running out on the street and getting hit by a bus, which is the climax of the movie.  After the climax, the third act presumes as Cady apologizes to everybody at the Spring Fling, does well in the Mathletes competition, and gets the guy she’s been lusting after.  Everything begins to settle down (dénouement) and “The Plastics” all find different niches in which they fit in, and peace is restored at the school (besides the fact that a new set of “Plastics” are entering). 

I only date guys who drink Snapple.

A strict rule of the past in sitcoms, the fourth wall separated the characters in sitcoms from the audience. Archie Bunker never reveals the fact that he is being recorded constantly in his house daily, and the characters in Friends never ask “Who are those people that keep laughing at us in the background?” But in newer shows, especially the mockumentary-style sitcoms such as The Office and Modern Family, the “proscenium arch” is being dissolved.  The laugh track becomes an ancient attribute of sitcoms, the characters speak to the camera, and unlike many sitcoms of the past, the characters actually LOOK at the camera – one example is the typical Jim Halpert face.

Look at me, I'm so self-aware!

A television show that continuously shatters the fourth wall without the pretense of a documentary/mockumentary is 30 Rock.  In this show, although the characters are not constantly aware that they are being taped, they satirize the entertainment industry, and essentially themselves, by blatantly plugging in their sponsor’s names and having mini-advertisements in the middle of the dialogue.

In the last clip shown, Verizon is plugged into the show with an obvious advertisement-style way, claiming that the company has great service and that everybody watching should get it. Then, further breaking the fourth wall, Liz Lemon stares at the camera saying “Can we have our money now?”  This shattering of the Proscenium arch makes the audience realize that the media industry needs to constantly advertise for companies in order to get money and realize that the characters in the show are simply characters.  Another thing about 30 Rock is that there is no laugh track, which allows the viewer to be more independent in judging what is funny and lessens the feeling of being in a large crowd of spectators. 

I left my thimbles and Socialist reading material at home.

I decided to use the movie Stranger Than Fiction as my example - in particular this scene below where Harold meets Miss Pascal in the bus and attempts to engage in small talk (I didn't choose it because the cinematography in this specific scene was so wonderful, but mostly because it was easy to find on YouTube and is a clear-cut example of this concept).

The Long Shot in this scene is at the very beginning where Harold (Will Ferrell) is not shown, and the camera only shows the people standing in the bus. This is done in order to go from General to Specific. If the camera only concentrated on Harold at first, the audience would be confused as to where he was.  In class, Prof. Ramirez-Berg also talked about how the long shot usually indicates loneliness - and in a way, I can see how that is in this movie since Harold does almost everything alone (at least in the beginning).  However, this this particular scene I feel like the long shot was done just to get the audience to get the general idea of the location.

The next shot is the Medium Shot where Harold is "deep in thought" thinking about all the calculations and precisions in the world.  The camera does a kind of lazy shift (not sure what you call it) to resemble the motion of the bus, but it mostly continues to stay in the medium-shot mode the rest of the scene. This shot allows the audience to see that Harold is truly alone - there aren't even people sitting directly next to him.  Also, once Miss Pascal steps on the bus, it reveals the relationship between the two. Since Harold previously "o-ogled" her, she keeps a very far distance (especially evident in the shot where her purse is in the foreground and Harold is seen as very far away), until of course she falls into the seat closer to him. Also, in this scene where Harold is alone initially, the camera is slightly at a high-angle, as it is in a lot of the movie since we, the audience, have the power: we know what will happen to Harold since the narrator who is controlling his life is telling us. Thus, Harold is essentially powerless when faced with destiny and surreal forces acting upon him. However, there are many instances where he is at eye-level, allowing us to identify him in a more human-like way rather than simply a character in this story within a story.

Directly after the camera goes into Medium Shot when Harold is alone, it zooms in on his man-purse/briefcase onto his pen and paper - showing the irony of Harold calculating the precisions of his daily life while his life slowly starts to stray away from his routine, and all the mathematics of it melts away.  Soon after, Miss Pascal coincidentally steps into the bus, already revealing a shift in the story.

complete control of the media industry sucks out the creativity of film and propagandizes singular ideologies

One of the most important features of the classic Hollywood studio system was the fact that there were only about 8 different studios existing, 5 of them being vertically integrated and monopolizing the entire industry. These studios did not allow for independent studios to start, so that they could dominate the entire Hollywood films in what they wanted to create (hegemony!). This view of creating movies was also very limiting since the industries only went by the same formulas – thus making a creative process into an uninspired, unimaginative marketing ploy. These companies, in order to stay in business, would cast the essentially the same actors to play the same character (ex. Judy Garland and the naïve, always childlike girl who sings and dances.

This still happens now in some cases – ex. Michael Cera is always the socially awkward, stuttering boy who is lovestruck; Katherine Heigl is always the uptight, working woman who loosens up after she meets a man that changes her ways. However, typecasting was just completely standard back in the day – there would have never been a Johnny Depp-type actor who plays transvestites, pirates, drug dealers, and romantic male leads. Actors were used more to fulfill the audiences expectations.

Also, each message that the movies would send their audiences were completely owned and distributed by these industries too – there were absolutely no outlets for contradicting opinions. This complete ownership of the movie industry is apparent specifically in Casablanca, which we watched Thursday. The movie was essentially propaganda justifying anti-Axis sentiments – revealing that it is the U.S.’s responsibility to get involved in the war to help the underdogs. Humphrey Bogart is the perfect man to cast to spread this message since everything he says is completely neutral. He claims to not believe in anything, and he is a total cynic. However, he is loveable and secretly virtuous, and at the end he makes the sacrifice to help Lazslo and his true love escape in order to help restore peace to the entire world. If it were not for vertical integration, more independent studios could have joined the film industry, perhaps with a different viewpoint. Having Hollywood control the entire media industry allows for hegemony to become more apparent.

The Bunkers vs. The Bluths

Similar to All in the Family, the more contemporary family sitcoms also try to push the envelope to discuss the things that are considered taboo or politically incorrect.  An example of a contemporary dysfunctional family is one of my favorite sitcoms ever, Arrested Development, which got canceled about 3 seasons into the show.

This sitcom plays with concepts of incest among cousins (that may or may not be related…), Oedipal complexes (concerning the 30 year-old Buster and his mother who, at one point, used a Korean child as a slave), dating the mentally-handicapped, political commentary on the wealthy and well-connected, and homosexuality – most that are topics which probably could not have been put on screen in the past. In All in the Family, the topics addressed are those that were less discussed in their time, and more controversial and shocking to viewers, such as homosexuality (still somewhat of a taboo), what defines being a man or woman, racism, et cetera.

In both sitcoms, the protagonists are both white, male adults (Michael Bluth is the protagonist in AD and Archie Bunker in AITF).  This formula doesn’t seem to change very much in most mainstream, primetime television (the only exception in a family sitcom with a female leading lady is Roseanne, and as far as I know, there haven’t been any successful sitcoms with a non-white female as the lead).  Also, in both sitcoms each character has an offbeat personality that is to be laughed at rather than with.  In addition, the two families are dysfunctional, and there is a difference in the ordinary nuclear family structure regularly seen in older television shows like Leave it to Beaver.

On the other hand, the humor in both sitcoms is somewhat different.  In more modern sitcoms, the humor circles around awkwardness and absurdity.  Punch lines are becoming less frequent, although the dialogue may maintain wit, and there is no exact point when the viewer should laugh – hence there is also no laugh track.  This allows the viewer to be more independent since they are not told when they should find something funny.  Still, the humor is the same in that both use satire, although it is less apparent but intended, in All in the Family.

Another difference is the structure of the series.  Most family sitcoms in the past, and even some more ‘traditionally structured’ sitcoms in the present such as Modern Family, have episodes in which every day is a new day – whatever happened in the episode previous to this one is usually not pertinent to the following one.  However, in Arrested Development, it is a continuous story (with several sub-stories) that is playing throughout the whole series.   This might be due to the change in technology since in the past viewers could not access the entire seasons to television series easily, which has obviously changed nowadays.  

Additionally, the way that the show is shot has changed as well. The cameras nowadays take more license to angle themselves in a more informal manner, whereas decades ago the shows were shot in a very simple format that doesn't vary dramatically.  With more shows jumping on the mockumentary television bandwagon, the actors even now look at the cameras, knowing they are being watched.  In Arrested Development, the camera is frequently shot as if it is someone spying on them - peering through blinds and from behind trees or just shooting in shaky cam. These details show that the audience want sitcoms to be further realistic and less fabricated in order to relate more to its situations.

In seeing the evolution of sitcoms, it reveals how times have changed in revealing what is taboo and what is not, and it makes me wonder what we will find shocking decades from now.

Sorry for the long entry; I tend to ramble.

Industries and Institutions Instrumental in Radio Content

While the development of radio was heavily influenced by technological change, government intervention, and audience demand, the largest force in the shaping of radio was industries and institutions; industries were the major financers of radio, then and now, thus they had the most say in the content on the radio. 

Industries and institutions influenced radio through the advertising-based model of radio. Using this new technology, they realized they could make advertisers invest in some air time to give their products exposure in exchange for the advertisers’ money.  Since the advertisers had the money, the development of integrated advertising also took a part in shaping radio. The majority of the entertainment on the radio was heavily sponsored by advertisers.  For example, game shows were usually sponsored by advertisers, such as Tums (as seen in our text) or Sunbeam (as seen in the picture below).  The influence of advertising and the actions of large networks such as AT&T in the ‘20s and Clear Channel are very vital in shaping the content on radio since they have the money, which is essentially synonymous with power.

Starting in 1922, AT&T began shaping the radio with their own vision, which was entertainment supported by advertising – something that is all too familiar nowadays.  The AT&T station soon broadcasted their first commercial that advertisers responded to immediately.  This rise of network radio led to a large impact on culture. Advertising on radios began to shape American culture by glamorizing consumerism and the need for excess, hence our current culture. This culture is defined by items rather than ideas. People started to identify with others through what they consumed rather than what they thought. In addition to this (on a more positive note…) it allowed people in the United States to have more insight in how Americans in different regions lived, and it increased the experience of being more of a nation.   In Radio Days, this was very apparent – more people began to listen to music which they probably would not have heard before radio (such as Aunt Bea listening to a variety of popular music as she tended to her garden), industries began to have national exposure which allowed them to sponsor certain radio shows and programs that advertised their products (this is apparent in Joe’s want of the Masked Avenger toy), and Joe’s mother’s infatuation with rich celebrities, who advertised the ‘good life’.

Nowadays, radio is still running on this same advertising-based model, although it is more focused on music rather than shows or other entertainment.  Advertising is now also integrated into this music, thus the popular music that is played (and over-played) on the radio is further perpetuating the culture of excess through its songs by hip-hop artists rapping about the good life (compare this to the glamorous older white couple talking about their luxurious lifestyle), and popularizing political and cultural ideas through outspoken talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern (who are also most likely being paid through sponsors as well) .  All in all, industries and institutions have the greatest power in the content of the radio since they have the money to do so.  

the lifetime movie network is on its way in making women paranoid schizophrenics

Cultivation theory basically argues that exposure to mass media fosters a view of the world that corresponds with the mediated “reality.” Many people who watch heavy doses of sensationalized local news (usually people who are inside most of the day) are more likely to be more frightened than others since they believe that these things on the television are consistent depictions of the real world, and when just a few real life incidents confirm what they have seen on television, they believe it is true.  What is “normal” in the real world is also distorted – based on typical local news, it is more “normal” for an African American to be the perpetrator of a crime, it is more “normal” for a teenager to shoplift, it is more “normal” for a woman to be victimized, and it is “normal” for such incidents to happen so frequently.

The epitome of a Lifetime Movie Network movie.

In my experience, the best way to explain cultivation theory is through the dramatized women’s television network, Lifetime.  I always found it ironic that this network was named this since the incidents are occur in every movie they show happen to few to no people in the world and are definitely not things that occur in an ordinary lifetime.  In a typical Lifetime movie, an above-average looking woman is always the protagonist, one who either gets raped, is lured into an unhappy, abusive marriage, is being stalked, has a torrid affair, witnesses a murder or commits a murder, or all of the above (including the occasional haunting).  According to a TIME magazine article (click here) , in the early 2000s about 1.9 million households watched this network and in 2001 it was the number one cable-network based on ratings: this means over 2 million women were exposed to at least one of these unrealistic movies in a year.  The network even attempts to make the viewer think that these incidents happen regularly in real life by creating “True-Movie Thursday,” in which they air movies which are based on actual stories, such as the Natalee Holloway case.  These movies create paranoia in the viewers, typically female audiences above 20, altering their perceptions on who to trust and instilling a sense of misandry (since men are usually the antagonists in these films).

For example, in this Lifetime Original movie above, “The Tenth Circle,” a girl gets raped by her ex-boyfriend, there are fatal twists and turns in the plot, and an extreme range of emotions (almost to the point of parody). Such movies induce a sense of mistrust of people one considers close and ultimately paranoia. In many cases, people accept what these mass-mediated movies tell them as if they were actual first-hand accounts.  The constant tragedies which occur in these films make it seem as if it is a certain reality that a girl, without doubt, will get raped if she takes a walk alone outside or that a woman will be murdered if she trusts a man without an extreme amount of caution. These irrational fears are played with by the network and increase the more and more one watches such things.  

raymond, raymond, raymond

Hegemony is the dominant group enforcing its ideas on what is normal and what is right. The best example of hegemony I can think of is a television program that "everybody loves."  In fact, even I enjoy this show despite the fact that I believe it perpetuates stereotypes and reinforces gender roles.  In the award-winning television show Everybody Loves Raymond, the protagonist of the story is a middle-aged, middle-class male with a nagging housewife and children in the middle of suburbia (Sounds like 80% of sitcoms, right?) However, the twist is that his intrusive mother and crude father live across the street from them. While the show is known for its quirky characters, it still maintains the essence of normalcy.

Ray, in the center, being charmingly stupid.

What does it mean to be normal in the United States? In the show’s case, normalcy is the husband is the “man of the house” meaning he is the breadwinner and obviously the most important aspect of the show, hence the name.  Furthermore, Raymond is meant to be the funniest of all the characters. While the others, namely Debra, are funny themselves, they are usually being laughed at rather than laughed with.  Raymond is also a sports writer – the “ideal” job of all heterosexual men since of course, all men are infatuated with sports; and by ‘sports,’ it is basically common-sense that it means male-dominated sports. 

Debra is the ideal wife in the situation, besides the fact that she speaks her mind (which the men often joke it would be better if wives did not ‘talk so much’).  She is the cook, the maid, the one who takes care of the children – essentially, the complete package when it comes to being a housewife.  It is mentioned in the show that Debra had earned a business degree, yet she stays at home and “supports her husband” just like a good wife should do. Rather than following her own dreams, she remains in the background behind her husband in an apron (just as the picture above portrays).  Most often she is in the kitchen cooking, being constantly criticized by her mother-in-law (also a housewife) for being a bad cook, or in the bedroom being the gatekeeper for marital activities.  While Marie, the mother-in-law, and Debra are both strong female characters, their strength is often used in order to manipulate or prove a point to the males in the family.

In this clip below, the family berates Robert, the 40+ year old single brother of Raymond.

The question of why Robert needs to find a woman at all is not ever asked.  It is just “common sense” that Robert needs to settle down, have a wife and 2.5 children - just as Ray has.  If he doesn’t, he will “die alone” despite the fact that he has a close family.  In this clip, Marie inquires whether Robert is a homosexual (which subsequently gets a lot of laughs since homosexuality is looked down upon in our culture).  Thus the assumption is that if you are single and older, it must mean you are too afraid to admit that you’re gay. 

All in all, the show reflects how Americans think in terms of the American dream, how each gender behaves or should behave, and portraying what is “normal” in our culture. Does it create these stereotypes? In my opinion, it doesn't; it just reinforces what our society and culture believe is right. However, you can argue that teaching a group of people is done through redundancy, and that is exactly what the show does - it can be said that such shows essentially teach us how to be normal.

rtf 305, 1st post

I finally set up my blog using my 4th grade email address which was originally used for Neo-pets.  I'm taking this course in order to learn more about the thing I affectionately call my second mother, television. Television (and the like), also for many of the people in my generation, has fed me with truths and falsehoods, and given me 'the talk' before any adult had.  When I was younger, I used to think that my life was a movie. Right now, if this were a narration in my biopic, I would have a montage of clips of myself spilling crumbs of potato chips on myself and sitting in front of a TV screen. This is why I would never think of making a biopic.

I’m also taking this class in order to see how media has evolved over time, and how media is a reflection of society and how society is a reflection of media.  Our growing relationship with media constantly raises the question if life is an imitation of art or vice versa.  In my opinion, especially nowadays, I would have to say that I agree with Oscar Wilde – “Life imitates art far more than art imitates life.”

Whenever I hear about a crazy story about a person that obsesses over a lover of some sort and there is either a murder/rape/other tragedy that happens, I say “Oh Em Gee, this is exactly like Lifetime!”  Or I witness a fight on 6^th street, and I say “Oh Em Gee, this is exactly like Jersey Shore!”  I just came to the conclusion that I need to stop watching such terrible television shows. And that I talk like an idiot. Hm. Oh well, my point is that it’s ironic that we compare real life through television shows or movies, when in fact those programs are somewhat based on real life.  This reveals our overly close relationship with media, which also skews our perception about what is real and what is not.

Another reason I want to take this class is to watch episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm and perhaps one day become a hybrid of Tina Fey and Larry David.

One of my favorite blogs is the Huffington Post and I also enjoy the Sassy Curmudgeon. 

I am also going to put a picture of a baby animal on every entry. I'm hoping this will give me extra points.