This particular article discusses the amount of people that are watching television commercials today and the surprising statistic that television is still the most memorable form of advertising today. I chose this this article because I have always been curious to the effects of television advertising and marketing, and who still currently watches these ads.
The data collected in this article was collected using a survey of 4,199 people and was conducted by YouGOv, based on questions set by Deloitte. The survey was taken between July 9th and July 12th, 2015. It was taken in an online format.
I am still wondering after reading this article if their survey group was large enough and included a wide enough range in age and ethnicities of participants. I believe this article and the study to serve a lot of relevance in our society and the way we market today, but I would like for them to take this study a bit further and introduce an even larger audience.
TV advertising skipped by 86% of viewers http://t.co/DqqVPysMxh
— Andrea Drake (@dredrake227) September 28, 2015
According to Norris and our online reading, an overall disaster readiness strategy is created through the development of four “primary sets of adaptive capacities”. These capacities include, “Economic Development, Social Capital, Information and Communication, and Community Competence.” Now to me, this all looks like a bunch of mumbo jumbo so before we get into the communication techniques aspect of these capacities and how they might be used to create community resilience let’s first define what community resilience is. According to Norris,
“Community resilience is a process linking a network of adaptive capacities (resources with dynamic attributes) to adaptation after a disturbance or diversity.”
OR according to Norris, other individuals have their own way of defining community resilience as well. He references:
My favorite way to define community resilience comes from the document (also pictured in Norris’ work) by Egeland, 1993. They define it as,
“The capacity for successful adaptation, positive functioning, or competence…despite high-risk status, chronic stress, or following prolonged or severe trauma.”
So now with this basic understanding of making a positive recovery from a tragedy we can move on to what communication strategies might be used in doing so. Norris touches on aspects of communication that we have discussed in class in terms of getting a message across. He addresses the importance of correctly relaying correct information, using a trustworthy messenger who reflects the values of the community, and how to relay the information. Norris references September 11, 2001 in identifying strategies for communication. He writes,
“Communication infrastructure is also a valuable resource. On the basis of their experiences in New York City after the September 11th terrorist attacks, Draper et al. (2006) maintained that it is advantageous for a life-line (or hotline) system to be in place beforehand. These communication systems can be ramped up after the disaster to coordinate and deploy volunteers, and later they provide a central means for the pubic to learn about and access services (see also Norris et al. 2006). Media also can be engaged to publicize available services and educate the public about typical reactions to disaster (e.g., Gist and Stolz 1982; Norris et al. 2006).”
Norris calls attention to the common crisis communication theme of planning beforehand. This helps create order when everything appears to be out of place. Additionally, he references the media as a communication strategy. What better and faster of a way to disperse information than through the media. In class we have discussed television and radio usage but most importantly the use of social media as a communication strategy. Facebook and Twitter are phenomenal means to get a message to the public, and fast.
Now how do all of these add to community resilience? The answer is simple. Through the planning ahead communication strategies not only is restoration much easier to achieve but so is dictating how to restore, what resources are needed, and where to locate them. The strategy of media and more importantly social media enhances these objectives. Additionally, social media can serve as a network to establish advocates in the community, a mean for volunteers to be in the loop, and for those affected by the disaster to find comfort and hope. It is through these strategies that community resilience is able to and can be fully achieved.
Although I did not particularly enjoy collecting the community information surveys, it was not the worst thing that I’ve ever had to do for a class project. I have never done anything like this before so it was sort of a learning experience for me. No one actually LIKES taking surveys, so I was forced to learn how to convince people to do something they had no desire in doing. Being rejected numerous times only gave me more confidence in asking more and more people. Most of the people on campus were very willing to take the survey so that was not a problem.
While entering in the results of the surveys, it was interesting to see the variety of different answers, and the similarities in answers from certain age groups. I noticed that almost every young person that took the survey got most of their information from the internet. Several older individuals got most of their information from newspapers and television.
I hope I never have to make someone take another survey, or take one myself ever again, but I guess I’m glad I had the experience.
…and the blog topic of the day is (drumroll please):
Is the Daily Show with John Stewart and/or the Colbert Report really political news?
I feel like this question is one that could yield many different results. One of those questions that the answer just depends who you are asking. If asking someone who thrives on “hard news” their answer to this question is most likely going to be a solid no. When asking a media savvy young adult, they would probably say yes. If you are asking John Stewart and Stephen Colbert you might want to take a look at their websites.
According to the Daily Show’s website,
“The Daily Show is an Emmy and Peabody Award-winning program that takes a reality-based look at news, trends, pop culture, current events, politics, sports and entertainment with an alternative point of view.”
They claim to be “unburdened” by the standards of journalism today and even accurate facts. With this in mind they still claim to present political news. This political news, however, is just spun in a satirical light. The Colbert Report also has a website. They claim to be a spin off of the Daily Show starring a political humorist on a satirical television show. So itsofacto, they too claim to be news but held to the same lack of standards as The Colbert Report.
These shows are presenting politics in a humorous way that draws the attention of a younger generation. This brings me back to our class discussion last Thursday. Those who seek out political information are more likely to promote political participation. AKA those watching these two programs are more likely to promote political participation.
What makes Jon Stewart such a popular figure within the US political culture? One word: humor. Jon Stewart since his arrival on Comedy Central has always made certain that his show is strictly a comedy show and shouldn’t be considered a source for news. Think about this though, isn’t it ironic how he says this but within this day in age someone like him is such a key cog when it comes to being a news outlet.He does such a good job of commenting on politics that are at the front of the headlines by adding a little bit of his own humor in to relate it back to people. I’m much more inclined to watch this sort of “political” show than I am just regular Fox News because I know I’m at least going to get a good laugh at what is said and who knows, I might actually learn something pertinent along the way! Here’s a good quote that I found from Jon Stewart on rising oil prices:
“This morning, prompted by increasing concerns about terrorism, oil prices reached a record high as the cost of a barrel of crude is a whooping $44.34. Wow, it seems shocking that a product of finite supply gets more expensive the more we use it. … Now the terror alert means higher oil prices, which oddly enough means higher profits for oil companies giving them more money to give to politicians whose policies may favor the oil companies such as raising the terror alert level. As Simba once told us – it’s the circle of life.” –Jon Stewart.
So let’s break this quote down; he first informs you of what’s going on and gives some details to back it up (oil prices reach $44.34 a barrel), he then throws in some humor and questions why it’s getting so high, and finally relates it to my generation by throwing in a Lion King reference. If you ask me, it’s absolutely brilliant how Jon Stewart can throw in his political information while being on the side of an adulterated comedy.
But within this humor-based show does he really convey political news? I’d sure like to think so. This goes back to one of the first things that we talked about this semester. Political communications and political news is really anything where the host, in this case Jon Stewart, relays some sort of political information to his viewers…is he doing this?? Of course he is! Like I said earlier he likes to convey that he is solely a comedian, I’m not buying it. Here’s why I think he implores ploys such as this one; if he were to claim to be a source for political news source then they would lose a lot of views around my age demographic who tune in to get the lighter side of politics. I’m sure as heck not going to tune in if I thought his show was solely news based, there’s plenty of other ways I could get that information. You draw people in by saying it’s a comedic show and then you show your political views once you’ve got them all tuned it…it worked with me.
Is he biased? Of course he is. Watch this video and tell me he isn’t leaning one way more than the other.
He has opinions and that’s one of the reasons these sorts of shows are entertaining, they appeal to us, they seem more real. I’d much rather watch someone with an opinion than someone who is by the book and basically takes on the role of a robot.
And is he good for political participation and the ever growing knowledge of the US when it comes to politics? Absolutely! Like I said he appeals to my generation with his comedy and low blow punch lines. Anytime you can appeal to my generation in regards to politics you’re doing something right. Whether people agree with him or not they’ve engaged in some type of political activity!