Demographics of Snapchat

Social networking sites have begun to take over our society completely. We've gone from interaction that was mainly physical and face-to-face, to interaction that takes place by the means of technology. What are social networking sites exactly? They're designed to offer modes of self presentation and sociability. They are online platforms that intersect people, technology and practice. One social networking platform that I found interesting in particular is Snapchat.

Snapchat was launched in September of 2011. It was originally designed to send people nude pictures as the maximum length someone can see the picture you send is 10 seconds. However, Snapchat has grown into more of a social app than originally. Below, I attached an article that discusses the demographics of Snapchat and how it became the global phenomenon that it has.

Business Insider-Snapchat

This article mentions how Snapchat has grown to achieve a top-three rank in the iPhone app store in some of the wealthiest consumer markets. Since it's launch, teens have dominated the demographics. The majority of users of Snapchat are female aged 13-25 years old. Majority of users use Snapchat to communicate with their friends and family in a more easy, quicker way. However, there are a few more reasons that Snapchat has developed as much as it has.

The app, starting out like I mentioned before, as merely a (nude) photo app, has added a lot of dimensions to it. First, Snapchat added the feature of "My Story" to it. This feature allows people to post pictures and videos to their personal story and people can view it as much as they want to, for the next 24 hours, until the story expires and is permanently deleted. Along with the "My Story" feature of Snapchat, Snapchat has recently incorporated businesses into their app. They have begun to partner with certain businesses as a way for that particular business to market themselves. These businesses/corporation/networks, such as Cosmopolitan, Comedy Central, CNN, People, Food Network, Yahoo, EPSN, etc., have "stories" that are added everyday with the latest news and updates from that specific corporation.

So, the question I wanted to further discuss is are we, as a society, forever stuck in this technological way of communication? Do you think our technological footprints will just continue to flourish or will we run out of ideas?

In my personal opinion, I think that we are going to continue the pattern that we're already following. In fact, I believe that technology will prosper so much that it will completely take over. It already has in some sense. But I think that it's important at the same time, to think about where were headed. We really have no idea what else could possibly be created and what the next trend/fad will be. But it's important to consider the future and educate yourself. With the track that we're on now, I don't think that we'll ever run out of ideas. We are innovators. We want newer, bigger, better things and we keep getting them thus far. So why would, what has considered to be successful, ever stop?

Above The Influence

Lately on television I have been noticing a lot of public service announcements that are centered around drug use. The goal of a public service announcement (PSA), is to raise awareness or change behaviors and attitudes on a social issue. The PSA that you can see below is an ad created by Above The Influence, which is an organization created to bring attention to drug use and educate the public on the harm that can come from doing drugs. It says, "Kill yourself. Or, don't smoke meth." Below that, it goes on to list some of the many side effects commonly seen among drug users, and in particular, meth users.

Some of the other ads and commercials that have been done by Above The Influence are extremely graphic and disturbing, so much so that it can make the public feel almost uncomfortable. However, this PSA does a good job of illustrating how drugs, specifically meth, can do serious harm to your body and essentially destroy the life you've built. Below, I've posted another example of an anti-drug PSA created by Above The Influence. 

This ad is clearly a little less intense than the previous one, but it has the same general message for the public. In the outer ring that surrounds the arrow, some of the text reads "stress", "confusion", "seek help", etc. It's generally relaying to the public that these are all possible outcome affiliated with drug use. 

Above The Influence has tons of these ads as their whole campaign revolves around reducing the amount of drug use within our society, and around the world. By relaying this information to the public through the use of advertisements and commercials, they establish public relations. Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics. 

Above The Influence is giving the public useful information about the harmful effects drugs have on you physically, mentally and emotionally. By doing this, the public is building a respectful relationship with Above The Influence and is able to gain more useful knowledge about drug use for themselves, friends or family. 

So, the question is, how do we become more aware of the benefits public service announcements can provide?

Be more aware of them in general. PSA's are seriously everywhere. After I started thinking about them more in depth, the more I started noticing them. Drugs are a very serious issue, and are way more common than a lot of people think they'd be. Many people are naive of the harm that drugs cause, but PSA's help educate the public about these kinds of issues. It's also important that when you see a PSA, to look into it, and educate yourself about the issue at front. Do some research on why the PSA was created and how many people see the PSA daily and potentially how many lives these public service announcements change or save. Public service announcements have always seemed sort of dramatic to me, but lately, I noticed how beneficial and informational they can really be. 

Double Satire

In today's society, a lot of what we as consumers see in the media are different forms of satire. There are a vast amount of televisions shows that have satire embedded in their foundation. For example, The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, The Colbert Report, etc. All of these shows comprise of satirical jokes and essentially rely on them to constitute the principal or dominant theme of the shows. Satire is literary/mediated work that diminishes or derogates a subject by making it ridiculous and evoking toward it attitudes of amusement, contempt, scorn or indignation. The two I am going to address specifically, are horatian satire and juvenalian satire. These two types of satire are very different from each other. 

The first type of satire, horatian, is typically more gentle, urbane, and aims to correct through gentle, sympathetic laughter. One of the first topics that I thought related to horatian satire is Miley Cyrus. Miley has been under extreme observation lately, or was more so in the previous year, when her imaged changed from charming, innocent Disney actress to a wild, sexual, pop artist. Below, I have an example of horatian satire directed toward Miley Cyrus. 

It is clear within this example of satire that the goal is to make fun of Miley's dancing and sexualization of herself at the 2013 VMA awards show. During this show, she exposed her new image to the world. She wore little to nothing, danced provocatively, and changed the way the entire world saw her as a singer/actress. This example is funny and isn't necessarily harmful. It's illustrating how majority of the public felt after watching her perform two years ago at the VMA's. 

I posted another example of horatian satire below so you can further grasp the idea of it. 

 In this example, the author is poking fun at those who believe biking is more financially efficient than driving. The comic explains that while the biker depicted thinks he's saving much more money by not buying gas, he's actually spending what he would have spent on gas on bike tires and bike accessories. This is an innocent and gentle way of illustrating the contradiction or argument that can occur between bikers and drivers.

On a different note, however, juvenalian satire aims to do the opposite of horatian satire. Juvenalian satire is bitter, biting, has an angry contempt, and moral indignation. Juvenalian satire can be seen within a lot of different contexts. One common context is politics. There are many comics that have biting messages about past/current presidents. Another context is race. Below, I have an example of juvenalian racial satire.


This example of juvenalian satire illustrates a black man being lynched and pulling the "race card". We often hear about these types of stories within the media when a black victim is accused of pulling the "race card" to justify something. By making satirical illustrations revolving around this sensitive topic, we're essentially covering up the underlying issue. People aren't focusing on what the real problem is when they accuse a black person of pulling the "race card". They're overlooking it entirely. This illustration was pretty bitter in that sense.

So the question is, how do you distinguish between horatian and juvenalian satire? And what should our reaction be when we witness biting satire?

It's mainly a personal decision. It's important that you, yourself, decide how to react. Some comics, like the examples I've included, are meant to make you smile and consider the topic further, while others are created out of pure distaste and aversion. It's up to you to decide whether or not you want to let it affect you. And if you are affected in any way by the form of satire, talk about it. It's beneficial to think out loud. Talk to your friends about it, your parents, your roommates, etc. Discuss how it affected you and see if they feel the same way. It can become a learning experience by doing this. And not only a learning experience for you, but for those who you choose to share it with.

Victoria Secret

Victoria Secret runway shows are known for being very sexualized and representative of the clothes and garments that Victoria Secret associates with. Three years ago, however, at the annual Victoria Secret show in New York, something happened that stirred up more controversy than was ever intended.

Karlie Kloss, who at the time of this show was twenty years old, was supposedly representing the month of November as she walked down the catwalk. However, Kloss did so by offending many, many people. Kloss wore a Native American costume complete with a headdress. Instantly, there was an outrage among viewers.

People who identify as or with Native Americans claimed that Kloss's outfit at the show was horribly offensive. Below, I posted an article that illustrates why this model's costume became such a scandal.

Hollywood Reporter

Here's another article with more pictures of Kloss sporting her costume.

Huffington Post

One of the biggest points to take away from this article is the fact that Victoria Secret was essentially endorsing cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation is when something (businesses) or someone takes elements of another culture, often sacred and symbolic, and presents it in a shallow manner. It's turning someone's culture into a trend or commodity.

Cultural appropriation is the main issue we are presented with here. Although Victoria Secret did apologize and ended up removing the costume from the show completely, it doesn't change the fact that they did it in the first place. Their image was severely tainted in the public eye because of this mishap. Let's break down how this New York scandal is the exact definition of cultural appropriation.

First of all, Kloss is seen wearing a headdress (war bonnet). The headdress is said to be one of the most symbolic and sacred aspects of the Native American culture/attire. As Ruth Hopkins from the Hollywood Reporter article writes, a war bonnet is only something worn if earned. In addition, it is traditionally worn exclusively by men and each feather comprising the war bonnet is symbolic of an act of braveness committed by those men. Hopkins was tremendously offended by Kloss's headdress and for a very valid reason.

Second of all, Victoria Secret is doing exactly what the definition of cultural appropriation says, turning someone's culture into a trend or commodity. Victoria Secret runway shows are fashion shows. These shows that are put on every year are intended to exhibit fashion, clothes, and trends.

So what is the solution when we witness cultural appropriation?

Don't endorse it. It's important to recognize when you see cultural appropriation. When you see it, don't act like it's normal. It's very offensive. In this 2012 fashion show, many viewers thought it was normal and nothing was offensive about it. But it's important to think about how it's affecting people other than you. It's key to look at this front other people's perspectives. As I was reading what Ruth Hopkins was saying in the first article, it made absolute sense as to why there was such an outrage created. And lastly, don't be afraid to say something. I can only imagine how many people thought in the back of their minds that this could possibly be offensive and could be marginalizing Native Americans. The majority of people who spoke out against it were Native Americans, however. I'm not implying that everyone needs to take a stand, but little differences in what is seen as acceptable in today's society can lead to a bigger change than you might have thought possible.

All-American Muslim

Arabs and Muslims are commonly misrepresented in the media. They are often associated with negative connotations because of the events that happened on 9/11. There's one specific show that aired on TLC that raised a lot of controversy within North America. This show, called All-American Muslim, lasted one season before it was cancelled and taken off the network. It followed the lives of five Muslim families in Dearborn, Michigan. This area of Michigan is known for being a very active Muslim community or "hot spot" in the country and is home to the largest mosque in the US.

Below, I listed an article that explains the show in further detail and features a video illustrating what the aim of the show was.

All-American Muslim

As you read in this article, this show originally attracted millions of viewers but as controversy began to unfold, it dropped to 900,000 by the first season's finale episode. I thought this show was interesting to say the least because of the mere idea behind it. The fact that producers of the show thought it would be a good idea to put the lives of Muslims on display to the public is one that I don't understand. Regardless of the fact that the Muslim religion is seen as being a negative religion and people heavily criticize it, there seems no point to this show.  I began to wonder if they would start a show that centers around other religions? For example, would TLC air a television show that follows the lives of five Christian families or five Catholic families? Most likely not. But because there is a socially constructed definition of the Muslim religion being negative or "evil", it provides us with a great opportunity to create a new television series?

This show, like I stated earlier, created a vast amount of controversy. But people weren't upset about the same things I was upset about, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph. I listed another article below that discusses why this show was cancelled and the type of controversy that surrounded it.

The Attack on "All-American Muslim"

As the article reads, the show was primarily cancelled because of the audience's reception of it. Many people, specifically the Florida Family Association (FFA), believed that this show was merely "propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values". The FFA is a very pessimistic group that campaigns against homosexuality and Islamic-American relations. They argued that this show is distracting society from the present-day concerns that the US faces from the Islamic religion.

To tie back to my original thought, why was this show created in the first place?

This show was most likely created to illustrate to society that Muslims are "just like us". They're American, they're funny, they have children, they have jobs and lead lives other than their religious affiliations, etc. It's very sad to me that there has to be a show created like this one to essentially persuade Americans that there isn't an imminent threat to the US because of their presence in North America. This show could have been created to promote diversity, too. Diversity is the awareness and acceptance of difference. If this show was created to promote diversity, it unfortunately failed. Americans possess this evil representation of Muslims and although the events that happened on 9/11 were abominable and horrendous, it doesn't mean that all Muslims are planning to subjugate the US.

My final question is what is our responsibility as consumers when we see discrimination against religion in the media?

We need to become more diverse ourselves. Whether or not the purpose of the show was to promote diversity and whether or not they were successful with doing so, is beyond us. It's our responsibility to ensure that WE, ourselves, are diverse. We also need to avoid buying into these socially constructed definitions of religion. A big contributor as to why Muslims are seen as a potential threat is because we all agree with each other instead of questioning it. Instead of wondering what's wrong with this scenario, we go along with it. Society and people are what create meanings. It is up to us to construct different, more diverse meanings and to better society the best we can.

Hitch

There are many shows and movies today that depict different types of races in a different way than what is commonly seen in reality. This is often referred to as what Sut Jhally calls, enlightened racism. Enlightened racism promotes the myth that blacks who don't "make it" have only themselves to blame. One of the first movies that came to mind when I was trying to think of an example of enlightened racism was the movie Hitch, starring Will Smith. In this movie, Alex Hitchens (played by Will Smith) is "The Date Doctor" of New York. He makes a living off of helping men land the women of their dreams with just three dates. Below, I attached the trailer from Hitch.



This movie provides us with two specific aspects of enlightened racism to talk about. First, Alex Hitchens is depicted as being a successful business man merely because he helps men get dates with the women of their dreams. This is not essentially realistic. Will Smith's character in this movie hides and distorts how most black people live. His character could also possibly distort how any person lives. In today's world, it would be almost impossible to be a "date doctor" and be necessarily well-off. While watching this movie, you can see that Alex Hitchens has a nice home, dresses well, provides for himself, and leads a lavish lifestyle. This is not very logical.

Second, because Alex Hitchens is depicted as being a handsome, successful man of New York, it makes his character easily relatable to viewers. His character is portrayed to be "like us".This is another common aspect of enlightened racism. The fact that he's a smooth-talking and good looking resident of New York is very aspiring to some people. Smith's character is the portrayal of the idealistic man. Smith's character is portrayed as upper middle class.  This potentially obscures the connection between race and class.

So, what can we do about enlightened racism? What do we do when we see it?

It's important to remember that enlightened racism is something very commonly used in media devices when it comes to different races and other various groups of people. It's important to stay aware of the use of enlightened racism in the media. When you see examples of enlightened racism, don't just acknowledge it, think about how the use of enlightened racism completely changes the scenario of how things really are. It's important as consumers of media to be aware and be able to discuss our findings within the media. You should know that just because a person or a group of people are depicted a certain way within the media, doesn't mean that all people/groups of people are like that, too. There's real hardships and struggles that are placed throughout people's lives and with the use of enlightened racism, these hardships can be overlooked. There's a false front to what, in reality, is really happening.

Martin v. Zimmerman

There are a lot of times in the media where the wrong story is given to the public. The story that a lot of people hear is often the best story, not the truth.There is unfortunately a lot of distortion that occurs in the media because of this.

Below, I listed an article that puts what I am talking about into perspective.

Trayvon Martin Case

When this case was a bigger spotlight in the media, there were many controversial aspects that surrounded it. One of them,is referred to as framing. Framing is essentially when the author of the article chooses an aspect of a topic and makes it stand out more. It has four elements; the problem, the cause, moral evaluation, and the solution. The problem in the article that I linked is that they talk about the pictures of the victim and the perpetrator. The victim, Trayvon Martin, is depicted in his picture taken by his family as a sweet and innocent teen. On the other hand, Zimmerman's picture shows him from a previous mugshot and the article states that he looks "puffy and downcast". This is the cause of the problem. The news station framed Zimmerman to clearly look like he was completely guilty. There is another problem that lies within this article. For instance, the article reads that NBC altered some of Zimmerman's comments during a phone call to make it sound as though he is racist. This is another cause for the problem because the news station is clearly framing Zimmerman again.

Our moral evaluation would consist of a couple of things. There are many people who think that the only reason that Trayvon Martin was shot is because he was black, and Zimmerman was racist. Other people believe that Zimmerman had a right to be suspicious and he had the right to shoot him. There are multiple sides to the story. There are other examples where different authors switched the scenario, changed the story, and altered what really happened that night between Martin and Zimmerman.

The treatment would be that people stop assuming what happened and what didn't happen. It's important to consider trying to stop assuming things about situations that you haven't educated yourself about.

It is clear in many articles written on this case that the author has chosen a side an is inevitably biased in his writing, which makes framing more likely in his/her writing. Framing is very misleading to the public. So what do we do about this?

We, as viewers, need to be skeptical when reading stories from the media. It is beneficial to us, as consumers, to read different sides of the story and educate ourselves about what's really happening. There will always be some sort of controversy that is associated with the Martin and Zimmerman case. There will always be some sort of framing that occurs, as well. What's important is to be educated. It's important to be able to identify framing and to know that there's always two sides to the story.