Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Facebook Page Ad
As a reminder, I'm taking over my husband's business page, Red Tie Cinematography. I chose an ad to direct more traffic to our website because that's where all of his videos are and the form to contact him directly. I kept the ad focus within Utah because that's where the majority of our clients come from. I also chose a photo of Dustin rather than his logo because I wanted it to be more personal and add a face to the business. I also opted not to choose a photo of a couple he has filmed because it is hard for perspective clients to "picture themselves there" being filmed rather than seeing two strangers. I also decided not to do a video ad for fear of people not wanting to put in the time to linger and watch it. I kept the ad very simple and quick and included a call to action- "book your special day now!" At this time, we can't run the ad but I hope in the near future we can and see how successful it is! Here are my screenshots:
Attitudinal Response
For this assignment, I decided to review my first well informed post which was on Racism. I feel like this is one of those controversial topics that nearly everyone has a set "viewpoint" on or automatic response. I certainly did and still do. As I read over my WI post, I noticed that I did try to see the issue from all sides and discuss alternative opinions of it all however I did see my automatic response peeking out ever so slightly. I saw it with the first example I shared about the students starting "white unions." I found myself automatically applauding them and thinking "yeah, what's wrong with that?" Although I didn't bluntly state that in my post, I know that's what my true reaction was.
Before I even started the assignment and just saw the topic coming up, I thought "great.. here we go with the non-sense." Being completely honest here, I don't think my automatic response is simply racism doesn't exist. My automatic response is more that I feel sometimes minority races play the victim card and/or create a racism situation when there really isn't one. I saw my attitudinal response again with the articles I shared putting the blame on white people so to speak. Before I even read the article, I read the title, "white people- if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem." I almost instantly got a negative feeling and couldn't wait to dive into the article and argue everything she wrote. That being said, after I read her articles, I did take a minute and reflect on what she was trying to get across. Although I didn't agree with everything she said, I could understand how black people feel and how we sometimes un-knowingly are acting racist in some way.
I feel like my automatic responses to Racism come from a variety of things. First off, obviously I am white. That is something I can't change and I can't pretend that it doesn't impact my feelings on this issue. As much as I would want to walk a day in someone else's skin to see how racism affects them, I can't. Although I really don't feel any sort of supremacy over anyone else especially over another race, I have to factor in my own race as a part of my attitudinal response. Another factor that stems my thinking and creates a barrier is where I grew up. Bountiful, Utah and then as an adult, Saint George, Utah. I was and am literally surrounded by white people and their viewpoints on racism. I often hear "black jokes" and conversations about how someone is crying out racism again, followed by rolling of eyes. I don't think I am an extremist on other side of the pendulum however I am definitely in the middle somewhere. I have to admit that I chuckle at some of those jokes and I too occasionally roll my eyes when I hear those stories of racism.
I think that both the well informed assignment as well as this one is helping me to realize I am not completely innocent. There may be little flickers of racism or racist thinking instilled in me. The only thing to ask myself is do I see it as an automatic attitudinal response that has no real backing or critical thinking or do I see it as my true opinion and stance, if you will. I believe it is a little of both. I do still firmly believe that some individuals do hide behind the color of their skin and use it to either claim a wrong doing or to get their way. Yes, I realize that sounds harsh but that is my own solid opinion. However, I think that when I do see/hear a story or a video or see a photo dealing with racism; rather than automatically thinking this is one of those situations (referring to my stance above) I need to clear my head, fully engage myself in the story and figure out for myself what is going on and the dynamics therein. Then, I can think critically about the people involved and how they may be perceiving the situation and make a conclusion, not judgement, about what I saw/heard.
In conclusion, I need to stop automatically viewing racism as an annoying issue that needs to stop being blown out of proportion. Instead, I need to realize this is a real issue that in many cases, individuals are really suffering from. Instead of assuming I know how someone feels or what they are meaning to say, I need to understand who they are and what they have experienced. I need to get past the easy response and band-aid solutions and get to the core of the issue and realize what I personally am contributing to the problem and how I can stop.
Before I even started the assignment and just saw the topic coming up, I thought "great.. here we go with the non-sense." Being completely honest here, I don't think my automatic response is simply racism doesn't exist. My automatic response is more that I feel sometimes minority races play the victim card and/or create a racism situation when there really isn't one. I saw my attitudinal response again with the articles I shared putting the blame on white people so to speak. Before I even read the article, I read the title, "white people- if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem." I almost instantly got a negative feeling and couldn't wait to dive into the article and argue everything she wrote. That being said, after I read her articles, I did take a minute and reflect on what she was trying to get across. Although I didn't agree with everything she said, I could understand how black people feel and how we sometimes un-knowingly are acting racist in some way.
I feel like my automatic responses to Racism come from a variety of things. First off, obviously I am white. That is something I can't change and I can't pretend that it doesn't impact my feelings on this issue. As much as I would want to walk a day in someone else's skin to see how racism affects them, I can't. Although I really don't feel any sort of supremacy over anyone else especially over another race, I have to factor in my own race as a part of my attitudinal response. Another factor that stems my thinking and creates a barrier is where I grew up. Bountiful, Utah and then as an adult, Saint George, Utah. I was and am literally surrounded by white people and their viewpoints on racism. I often hear "black jokes" and conversations about how someone is crying out racism again, followed by rolling of eyes. I don't think I am an extremist on other side of the pendulum however I am definitely in the middle somewhere. I have to admit that I chuckle at some of those jokes and I too occasionally roll my eyes when I hear those stories of racism.
I think that both the well informed assignment as well as this one is helping me to realize I am not completely innocent. There may be little flickers of racism or racist thinking instilled in me. The only thing to ask myself is do I see it as an automatic attitudinal response that has no real backing or critical thinking or do I see it as my true opinion and stance, if you will. I believe it is a little of both. I do still firmly believe that some individuals do hide behind the color of their skin and use it to either claim a wrong doing or to get their way. Yes, I realize that sounds harsh but that is my own solid opinion. However, I think that when I do see/hear a story or a video or see a photo dealing with racism; rather than automatically thinking this is one of those situations (referring to my stance above) I need to clear my head, fully engage myself in the story and figure out for myself what is going on and the dynamics therein. Then, I can think critically about the people involved and how they may be perceiving the situation and make a conclusion, not judgement, about what I saw/heard.
In conclusion, I need to stop automatically viewing racism as an annoying issue that needs to stop being blown out of proportion. Instead, I need to realize this is a real issue that in many cases, individuals are really suffering from. Instead of assuming I know how someone feels or what they are meaning to say, I need to understand who they are and what they have experienced. I need to get past the easy response and band-aid solutions and get to the core of the issue and realize what I personally am contributing to the problem and how I can stop.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
On The Media #3
Cartel Land- Fighting Violence with Violence
For this week's show I decided to listen to the interview with Matthew Heineman and Bob Garfield about the documentary, "Cartel Land." I heard about this film when it came out and those that saw it. said it was a must see and very well made. I never got around to seeing it and had forgotten about it until I saw it pop up in this weeks lineup. I'll admit, I probably should go and watch it before writing this post but I think I can still write a good analysis based on the interview itself.
The first thing I thought about is this idea of civilian "armies" and how that may coincide with civil disobedience. I think this is a huge social issue that people feel the right and duty to act. I really believe there is an appropriate time and place for these two things. I think if the people feel unsafe or unheard or threatened by something that the government is unwilling to act on, they have every right to take up protest or arms to defend themselves. That being said, there are always ways this right can be abused, for example the battalion against the cartel that this documentary examines. When I read the original synopsis for the film, I thought "good for them!" and how inspiring that this group of people are willing to put their lives at risk and fight this violent and powerful organization. Then my eyes were opened a little through this interview and hearing/seeing clips from the film and hearing Matthew's perspective on things. It was a little shocking to me what these vigilantes were willing to do and what they felt they "had" to do. So I guess that is the question, where is the line when fighting something you believe to be evil?
Of course, my answer to this question is going to be subjective to what I believe is right and wrong and certainly shouldn't be generalized to everyone. I don't think it's as easy to say you can't fight violence with violence because unfortunately it is necessary sometimes. If someone is shooting up a place, do you think it would be best to fight them with your words? Most people would agree, that you need to equally meet the gunner with a gun and take him/her out. However, if you are trying to fight against this gang because they are doing violent and illegal things and yet you are fighting through means of violent and illegal acts.. who is the criminal now, or I guess maybe the "worst" criminal? This whole idea, I think is very psychological and individual to what one person believes to the next. I found it very interesting that Matthew experienced this same cognitive dissonance throughout filming of trying to keep track of who was the "bad guys" or the "good guys." As Matt said, it's hard to say if you are against the torture or violence of someone who is always doing those things and maybe wouldn't think twice of doing it to your family if the situation arose. The humanistic side of me says that there is never a place for torture to get information or to punish yet the logical side of me thinks if there was an individual who had critical information of something much greater like a terrorist attack or who the "boss" was.. maybe it's okay?
As the interview shows, in our culture, media seems to portray vigilantes and acts of civil disobedience as negative and wrong and maybe sometimes it is but I do believe most of the time it is warranted and done non-violently. I really like and appreciate that Matthew was able to stay objective and that his motives for the film was to show every side of it and to put you in his perspective and observations of it all. I still can't believe he did put himself in those situations of such high risk and vulnerability. That brings up a whole different topic of media and the cultural context of what some journalists and filmmakers are willing to do these days to cover a story or an issue. Unfortunately, after all of this, I still don't think I've been able to come to an official stance on this. As I said, I really need/want to watch the film to fully appreciate all of the angles and information that's presented. I will reiterate that I think there is a validity to civilian armies and acts of civil disobedience but I also think there is an issue with what is ethically and morally right when doing so.
For this week's show I decided to listen to the interview with Matthew Heineman and Bob Garfield about the documentary, "Cartel Land." I heard about this film when it came out and those that saw it. said it was a must see and very well made. I never got around to seeing it and had forgotten about it until I saw it pop up in this weeks lineup. I'll admit, I probably should go and watch it before writing this post but I think I can still write a good analysis based on the interview itself.
The first thing I thought about is this idea of civilian "armies" and how that may coincide with civil disobedience. I think this is a huge social issue that people feel the right and duty to act. I really believe there is an appropriate time and place for these two things. I think if the people feel unsafe or unheard or threatened by something that the government is unwilling to act on, they have every right to take up protest or arms to defend themselves. That being said, there are always ways this right can be abused, for example the battalion against the cartel that this documentary examines. When I read the original synopsis for the film, I thought "good for them!" and how inspiring that this group of people are willing to put their lives at risk and fight this violent and powerful organization. Then my eyes were opened a little through this interview and hearing/seeing clips from the film and hearing Matthew's perspective on things. It was a little shocking to me what these vigilantes were willing to do and what they felt they "had" to do. So I guess that is the question, where is the line when fighting something you believe to be evil?
Of course, my answer to this question is going to be subjective to what I believe is right and wrong and certainly shouldn't be generalized to everyone. I don't think it's as easy to say you can't fight violence with violence because unfortunately it is necessary sometimes. If someone is shooting up a place, do you think it would be best to fight them with your words? Most people would agree, that you need to equally meet the gunner with a gun and take him/her out. However, if you are trying to fight against this gang because they are doing violent and illegal things and yet you are fighting through means of violent and illegal acts.. who is the criminal now, or I guess maybe the "worst" criminal? This whole idea, I think is very psychological and individual to what one person believes to the next. I found it very interesting that Matthew experienced this same cognitive dissonance throughout filming of trying to keep track of who was the "bad guys" or the "good guys." As Matt said, it's hard to say if you are against the torture or violence of someone who is always doing those things and maybe wouldn't think twice of doing it to your family if the situation arose. The humanistic side of me says that there is never a place for torture to get information or to punish yet the logical side of me thinks if there was an individual who had critical information of something much greater like a terrorist attack or who the "boss" was.. maybe it's okay?
As the interview shows, in our culture, media seems to portray vigilantes and acts of civil disobedience as negative and wrong and maybe sometimes it is but I do believe most of the time it is warranted and done non-violently. I really like and appreciate that Matthew was able to stay objective and that his motives for the film was to show every side of it and to put you in his perspective and observations of it all. I still can't believe he did put himself in those situations of such high risk and vulnerability. That brings up a whole different topic of media and the cultural context of what some journalists and filmmakers are willing to do these days to cover a story or an issue. Unfortunately, after all of this, I still don't think I've been able to come to an official stance on this. As I said, I really need/want to watch the film to fully appreciate all of the angles and information that's presented. I will reiterate that I think there is a validity to civilian armies and acts of civil disobedience but I also think there is an issue with what is ethically and morally right when doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)