The pressure put on adolescents to be attractive and appealing to other people through television, film, and media is prevalent. Additionally, the portrayal of relationships in these medias often show unhealthy relationships as the standard. While there are some cases where the point of the show is to showcase an unhealthy relationship, many of the shows teens romanticize are displays of toxic relationships.

Many books and TV shows popular with teenagers, presents problematic issues pertaining sex between men and women. This is especially apparent between Edward and Bella’s relationship in Twilight. Twilight is a best selling young adult book that romanticized obsessive and abusive behavior. Anyone who’s familiar with Twilight can recall the scenes where Edward would sneak into her room to watch her sleep. Or the scenes where Bella would freak out with anxiety attacks because of their relationship, she even attempted to commit suicide when she can’t be with him. This screams the opposite of healthy and she chooses to drop everything if it means she can be with him. Another popular example would be Ross and Rachel from Friends. They constantly act off jealousy and selfishness and take it out on one another. When either of the two try to move on with someone else, something is always sabotaged by one. And the whole “break period” was just endless amounts of feelings being invalidated, and they lie to one another frequently on the show. While the show is comedy and not so much focused on the romance, it is heavily set on relationships and Ross and Rachel have always left an impression on viewers with their relationship. While i’m not saying people should not enjoy this kind of media, TV does inadvertently, influence many young teens perception on relationships. Men and boys receive these pressured through the media as well, and feel as though they should be acting the same way. 34%  of boys say that several times a week or more they hear male characters on TV or in movies who make sexual comments and sexual jokes about women characters. Through this statistic we can see that the way characters act, and especially the portrayal of relationships gets noticed and taken into account.

Even relations between friendships are frequently unhealthy and become stereotyped. Betrayal and undermining are common forms portrayed on TV with friendships, especially ones between two girls. A good example of this would be Serena Van Der Woodsen and Blair Waldorf from the show Gossip Girl. Serena’s relationship with Blair was undoubtedly toxic, for example she went behind her back and slept with her boyfriend. To take it even further she sabotaged her wedding just because she was jealous, constantly ditched her and tried to steal her “spotlight” whenever she had the chance. In the show she even says often that she needs to hold herself back from being better than Blair. None of these actions displayed in the show are normal to say to someone you claim to be your best friend. These kind of behaviors can be persuading to youth that it’s normal, and actually beneficial to get ahead in life. For people who believe in these show stereotypes, studies show that they are more likely to be cyber-bullied or be cyber bullies themselves.

For men on the other hand, most of their friendship relationships are used for comedy. Men’s friendships focus on their beginning with a somewhat similar format to romantic comedies. As a result of this the term of “bromance” has become prominent due to influence from TV. However, bromance comes from the idea that male friendships are too close to homosexuality, and they capitalize humor off of that. This kind of thing is problematic for a multitude of reasons, but it clearly dictates the behaviors of young boys. Many feel like they need to “act masculine” because of the way this is perceived and many feel the need to avoid feelings of friendship or any emotional expressions in extreme cases.

Marketing to kids seems to be a controversial topic with many differing opinions. The question of how to ethically market to such a young group of people, but it brings the question, why is marketing to kids valuable to companies? Kids are easily influenced by the things they see, making them the easiest target audience out of any other age group. In 2015 in the US alone, there were 53.7 million children aged 5–11 available as potential customers to these companies. Thats a large group of people that companies would be missing out on revenue from. It’s also easier to get younger kids familiar with brands at earlier stages in life to build a sense of “loyalty” and familiarity with the company. Kids who buy products have more influence, at younger ages kids tend to focus on having more materialistic items to show off to their friends. An example of this would be things such as silly bandz, rainbow loom, fidget spinners, or the recent pop-its. Its generates craze and excitement over a product that may not even have good quality and has no real basis. Because kids are an easy target and can be tricked, is it fair to be influencing them like this at such a young age?

The amount of advertising and marketing Americans are exposed to daily has risen over the past decade; studies show, that on average, people living in urban communities see up to 5,000 ads per day. This is especially true for children considering they influence the most in other peoples lives. The spending of industries on marketing towards kids has risen and its because parents are willing to buy. Now that we see many families are getting smaller and more homes are having dual income, parents have the money to spend on buying these cheap toys that make their kids happy. In kids minds these type of products are must have items, and the power of nagging kids is a lot more persistent and powerful thank we often give it credit for.

Theres also the issue of “loyalty” I mentioned earlier that hooks kids into the marketing ploys of companies. In 1991 a study was done with pre-schoolers to test brand recognition in young kids. 12 brand logos were shown that included some for kids and some for adults, including logos for cigarettes. The kids were able to remember most brands, but the ones that stuck the most were Disney and the cigarette brands which. Approximately 30% of 3-year-old children correctly matched the cigarette brand. This study shows that kids do in fact remember what they’re shown on TV and it can resonate with them. Therefore, if brands wanted to build loyalty in companies amongst the public, they could do it with kids as young as around three years old.

Marketing to kids is not a bad thing however, its how things get sold and things get used, its an inevitable part of the economy that keeps it going. However the issue is how the media is portrayed said advertisements and commercials. If the target audience in the market is young children, it should be the number one priority and responsibility to keep them safe and away from bad influences. If information on children is captured, companies need to keep that safe. Especially in cases where marketing for online video games are concerned, where kids may use their personal emails or names. The younger kids are the future of the world, and that being said things need to be implemented to teach them to become informed consumers as they start off on the media earlier and earlier. Content marketing will only continue to grow as time goes on. However instead of encouraging kids to buy things, we should be pushing them in the direction of becoming thoughtful consumers who are able to compare products easily. Being ethical in marketing practice is something the media needs to become more aware of as younger kids make up a large majority of sales.

People have challenged each other views for most of history for social conformity. Things such as public humiliation, shunning, and ex-communication are a few to name. “Public shaming is a long-standing public ritual that helped to uphold social bonds and make sure people within communities were equal and understood the norms, and to ensure no one got too high and mighty,” says Amanda Koontz, UCF associate professor of sociology. As of recent we can see this through the internet, especially through social media. Social media has changed how and when these kinds of toxic behaviors occur. At any time any amount of people can go online and call out anyone online they see fit, and it is easier than ever to get a group following to call out or “cancel” people online through cancel culture.

The phrase cancel culture seems to have come from the 80’s when it was referred to in the sense of breaking up with someone. While it is difficult to say exactly when cancel culture first started, we can see some of it in the 2010’s when celebrities were being “called out” on their behaviors. During 2017-2018 it became a lot more apparent during online and social media posts during the #MeToo movement and the #BlackLivesMatter movement. By 2019 the term cancel culture became a lot more mainstream in media usage which made cancel culture unavoidable as a political issue.

Over the past several years, cancel culture has become deeply intertwined with political discourse. There are several opinions on what cancel culture truly means, wether it’s to hold people accountable for their actions, or a way to punish and attack others, or maybe it’s a mix of both. Cancel culture has been used by all sides of the political and social spectrum, however cancel culture has been more closely associated to those who are more left-leaning.  58% of U.S. adults say, calling out others on social media holds people accountable, while 38% say it punishes people who don’t deserve it. What was interesting about this study is that they found that people’s views on cancel culture different greatly depending what party they belonged to. it showed that more Democrats find cancel culture to be a positive, holding people accountable. Whereas, Republicans believe it is unjust punishment.

The most common issue behind cancel culture is the intent of those who are pushing it forward. As we can see in the study there are many opposing arguments about calling out other people through social media. People have different perspectives on cancel culture and about wether or not they are trying to publicly shame someone, or just trying to be helpful and educate each other. While it is considered acceptable by many, it has also been called toxic and a way of simplifying complex issues. If presented appropriately cancel culture can be used in a way of accountability, where it makes the other person to consider the nature of their actions. However, a lot of the time it leads to people being offended  and others choosing not to understand said issue, they will accept but be unwilling to listen to others. Cancel culture prevents any exchange of opinions or investigation of the truth, when in some cases this sort of action is necessary.

Over the past couple of years in the United States the political/ social climate, combined with the adjustment to COVID-19, has created an atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety especially within the media. People are experienced a heightened state of isolation, leading to more time being spent online and the further development of the digital world. The issue of social media is very large and complex, humans are flawed, and it’s in our nature to make mistakes.

As of late the epidemic of fake news and the rise of “do your own research” is something that has become increasingly apparent in American society. Thankfully there is more awareness amongst society that the media is becoming increasingly filled with false information that can lead the public astray. The media landscape over the past couple of years has changed drastically as there has been an increase in journalism, social media, and the public’s engagement. Most Americans reach for their news through forms such as Google, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, or local media websites. Mobile devices and the latest developments have allowed us to have a vast amount of information at the touch of a screen. Especially for the younger upcoming generations, they are most likely  to get their news through online sources relying mainly on their devices for communication. Because of this it has caused a rapid concern for fake news, and fear that it will only continue to increase.

Since around the presidential election in 2016, the amount of fake news circulating the media such as twitter and facebook and several other forms. Outside of politics, fake news as gravitated to other areas of daily media. It is shown clearly through the state of the country that fake news continues to be the main source as the United States becomes more politically polarized, decreases its institutional trust, and chips away at democracy. Americans consume their news through the digital age with computers, mobile devices, and television. Especially during the uprise of the COVID-19 pandemic it has become increasingly difficult to filter out what news sources are reliable. Many Americans are unsure wether the news sources they look to do their own reporting, roughly half of Americans or more were able to correctly identify whether three of the six sources asked about do their own reporting. Additionally, almost 80% of people have noticed seeing fake news on the covid outbreak which shows how important the issue of fake news is, especially in a drastic time when real facts are most needed to tackle the pandemic.

While the ability to recognize fake sources is increasing, a minimal of Americans are confident in their abilities to do so. However, majority of the population can come to the consensus that fake news causes confusion as it spreads around to the general public. The majority of fake news is spread via social media, whereas TV objectively does not have many fake news stations that exist. This is problematic in the fact that people can easily and knowingly spread false information, it is also concerning because the majority of young adults who will soon be more immersed with politics will be very apprehensive and untrusting towards companies and the government.

Fake news is often for entertainment and satire. The problem with this is that it is hard for people to discern what is satire and what is actual facts, because of this it makes it hard to control the chaos of fake news. Without being able to read the thin line behind entertainment and facts, it is incredibly easy to send the information to peers. With the information being sent, it is rare that people will read the whole piece and do their own in depth research to find the true story, and write off the fake news as facts. On the other side of this there is the issue of clickbait who’s main purpose is to serve viral stories that will generate lots of traction by deceiving the public to earn money. Despite the high volume of false news being spread through social media, it is constructed in a way to make it seem like real news. The difficulty of combating false news comes from these two sides, allowing the people reading to succumb to it.

In my blog post last week someone brought up in my comments that violence is not relative to just America and it is a global issue. It got me thinking about how the U.S. is different in terms of their media compared to a lot of other countries. As I had previously mentioned in last weeks blog America uses a lot of violence in their TV in comparison to the rest of the world. But if we compare Europe to America in terms of the media the conversation of violence and even sexual scenes would be totally different. In the US we rate explicit scenes with more scrutiny than extremely violent scenes, but this is the total opposite from Europe. European television has a lot of nudity and sex, the American perspective of what we think is too sexual and racy in our television is what Europe would consider a tame scene.

In the U.S. the MPPA is the power or group that rates most forms of media into its respective categories such as G, PG, PG-13, R, and  NC-17. The MPPA was established in 1922 by the major Hollywood production studios in response to increasing government censorship of films. The concept of having a body rate movies is because America was concerned that their youth would be corrupted by the media that was being released. This was taken even further when the Hay’s code was released which solidified the desire for “pure” movies to be released for viewing. For more than three decades, the code applied rigid moral scrutiny to films, banning everything from interracial dating to “lustful kissing.” It died officially in 1968 — but in practice, it was always taking hits. Films were based on wether it was deemed “morally acceptable” but after World War II it was declared that the First Amendment protected movies. The current day MPPA makes judgements based on ethical and moral perspectives including violence and sex.

MPPA will allow high levels of violence even for children which is evident in kids cartoons however the slightest suggestion of something sexual, even a noise that could be interpreted as sexual is a scene that could be cut. Many cannot understand the reasons behind this as sexual intercourse is a normal part or growing up and experiencing adolescence, it’s even something that will be taught in school. America seems to take the stance that they should not expose children to things they do not know about yet. However European opinion believes  showing these kinds of things through movies may be a more responsible way to educate adolescent’s rather than finding out through surfing the internet. This just shows the difference in mindset on how Americans and Europeans view sex and violence completely flipped. Being naked is generally no big deal and TV serves to show realistic experiences in all aspects including sex.

Foreign television that includes nudity and more sex isn’t even relative to just Europe but a lot of other countries. The most explicit displays of sex and nudity on TV occur in Europe, Japan and some South American countries, particularly Brazil, says Robert Picard, chairman of the communications department at California State University, Fullerton. Japan is a lot comfortable with nudity in TV because they overall are more comfortable with their bodies.  While they don’t air sex scenes like Europe because they are more reserved in that aspect, the mindset of nudity in TV media is a stark difference from the US. Additionally some South American countries such as Brazil are well known for its steamy soap operas.

While  you can argue that the U.S. is not the only country that is restrictive with nudity and sex scenes since Southern Asia, the Middle East, and Africa are similar in ideals, do we really gain anything from censoring? The restrictions overall do not really protect adolescents and almost hinders them from exploring their sexuality because they have nothing to relate their experiences to. By not portraying things such as sex and nudity, it contributes to the problem for a lot of struggling kids.