In class we viewed a few special examples of media being used to create environmental awareness. It is not dificult to see that each of these example is an effort to foster a concern for the environment. The question is however... if not marketed correfctly, can they way in which these are portayed do more harm than good?
If topics are too serious often people turn away not wanting to accept responsibility or deal with a tough issue. If they are dealt with in a manner that is too light-hearted, or focused on just a specific group of people, it can becomechildish, silly, and even fake.
What do you think?
Responses are due no later than Thursday 11:59 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Cap'n Planet struck me as yet another means of selling sugary breakfast cereals to kids; rather than raising environmental awareness amongst youngsters. It's the same ol' musclely do-gooder fighting against the clumsy forces of evil. Even though the villains happen to be seeking to smog up the town instead of steal diamonds, I don't believe this has any effect upon the kids watching the program. And that's just it: this show is marketed toward kids ages 9 to 10. Maybe younger if they could trick them into following the 10 year-olds' example. I'm not saying i have an idea of a way to reach the masses in non-fruitcake fashion, i'm just saying Captain Planet is just PBS's shitty nock-off of X-men (or maybe Condor Man) I was also annoyed at how the show used cute animals being caught in traps to achieve its means.
As for the music video, hands down, that is the stupidest thing i have ever seen. Reruns of Gilligan's Island included. I don't even want to talk about it.
One last thought: What is the motive to release smog on a city? Who gets their jollies from that? GO CELTICS!
I have heard recently about a trend towards more people believing in global warming, but the new converts are pessimistic and, only now having jumped onto the GW bandwagon, decide that it's too late to do anything. This becomes rational to continue business as usual because, just like with the Tragedy of the Commons, it's too late to save the world, and if I don't exploit it now, someone else will.
Another thing that has become huge recently with great intentions but uncertain results is the new carbon market. We don't really hear about it here in the US as much, but the idea is to create a UN agency that looks at "environmentally friendly" projects and awards "carbon credits" to those projects. These credits are essentially worth the amount of pollution that the environmentally friendly project is saving. These credits can then be sold to other industries that aren't meeting emissions standards, working much like the proposed cap-and-trade systems.
The problem is this: carbon credits are being awarded to so many different projects, some of which would have been built anyway, that instead of reducing emissions, carbon trading may actually allow more emissions and make the traders fabulously wealthy at the same time. Just think about the upside. You build something (like a hydroelectric dam) which you would have built anyway, but now you get a boatload of carbon credits to go with it which you can turn around and sell, allowing more total pollution to be released. I like the idea of carbon credits, but I'm not sure fundamentally that a capitalistic approach, which got us into this mess in the first place, can solve global warming.
A final issue that started out with good intentions, but really doesn't achieve anything are emissions caps for individual countries. Hypothetically, lets say the US imposes strict emissions caps (which it won't do unless all of Washington suddenly grows the balls to stand up to the f***ing oil/auto/industry lobby) which the steel plants in Pittsburgh can't meet. Instead of actually reducing their emissions, the steel companies instead decide it is cheaper to move to Mexico, where the standards are more lax. It would seem that emissions have gone down, but really the emissions have just moved elsewhere.
By the way, I'm pretty sure there is no "v" in ramifications.
I think that there are definately bad ramifications to marketing in the environmental sector. Take hydrogen power, for example. With all the advertisments for hydrogen power, the uninformed consumer cattle think of it as the future. However, few people know that the hydrogen cell emits preposterous amounts of carbon during its manufacturing, and that we alrady have viable oil alternatives. With the hydrogen draw, more funding is spent on a near-useless technology instead of proven alternatives. While I don't think that this was an ad campaign with good intentions, it is a perfect example of how a positive message does more harm than good.
Oh, by the way:
ram·i·fi·ca·tion
Pronunciation[ram-uh-fi-key-shuhn]
–noun 1. the act or process of ramifying.
2. a branch: ramifications of a nerve.
3. a related or derived subject, problem, etc.; outgrowth; consequence; implication: The new tax law proved to have many ramifications unforeseen by the lawmakers.
4. Botany. a. a structure formed of branches.
b. a configuration of branching parts
No "v". Sorry to bash on the typo.
in recent years there has been alot more media envolvent in environmental issues. they are the main sources of information about environmental problems. unfortunatly, because of the way america works, these environmental issues have been blow up. in our country we look for the biggest disaster or the most deaths or anything that is exciting and keeps us on the edge of our seat for news... this causes problems because although we enjoy shock and extremity in our news, we do not get a clear picture of the problems that face our environment, like global warming. becuase we get a skewed version of the environmental issues in our society, we feel like we cant do anything to hlep. it is a situation that was caused by the people of our country. we feel like we cant do anything about environmental problems because they are portrayed so large in the media, but theyare only portryed as such a giant issue because that is the only thing that will attract viewers.
besides that americans are lazyand dont want to do anything about problems that cant be solved very quickly.
In the United States and other Westernized/developed areas of the world, people have become increasingly obsessed with what some are hailing as the 'green revolution'. The 'revolution' is that people are (gasp!) starting to try to degrade the environment less not by reducing consumerism, but by doing it in a more 'green' way. Yes, all three R's are being praised in the revolution (which some cynically refer to as the 'green scare'), but on what scale? The media and consumerism-based corporations would have you believe that by buying their new phosphate-free, pine-scented, eco-friendly, organic dish soap, that you are doing your part in stopping global warming. Of course, first you have to drive the five miles it takes to get to your local superchain grocery store in your SUV. The whole thing strikes me as rather ironic, but the majority of people have good intentions towards the 'scare'.
Corporations, on the other hand, are simply doing what they've always done: trying to increase profits. With documentaries exposing how harmful Americans are becoming the new rage, people are more and more enticed to stand up, shop and not be that person described in the movie. Corporations see this trend, this desire to improve the environment, as a new path for new dollars. Little is sacrificed from buying these products, except a few extra dollars from the wallet to pay for the more expensive goods. In reality, it is far too late to fix the extreme damage we've caused simply by 'going green' and buying hybrid cars.
If we want to save the environment now, it will take more than childish media or new labels on the same harmful and often unnecessary products. A revolution should be more than new things to purchase. People are worried that Earth is going to the dumps, and are trying to compensate. That's a reasonable decision, but we need to realize and act upon the fact that simply shopping smarter will not fix anything. If an actual revolutionary change to improve the environment is desired, more action must be taken. We have to reverse overpopulation and environmental degradation (much of which happens on an industrial scale to provide us with so called 'green' products), and change our very way of life. How much are we willing to sacrifice in order to actually stop and reverse the damage we've caused? It's a nice fantasy, but not one that many are willing to fulfill.
One of the dangers of creating a show specifically directed at children, like Captain Planet, is that if you are unsuccessful not only will you be unsuccessful but you could end up making you audience believe your product is uncool. To me it seems that not only did Captain Planet fail as an environmentally aware show, it also made kids feel stupid caring about the environment. The first thing I wanted to do after seeing the show was throw a bunch of trash n the ground just to spite the silly captain.
In some ways the media does tend to focus more on larger scale destruction, then on ways the everyday person can help fight climate change, but there still has been a general shift in public support of taking the next step. Ultimately, however, I feel like the more exposure to environmentally aware media the better.
Serious issues are the hardest to address through the media. Even though you are trying to appeal to all viewers, the message usually only reaches the few who were entertained, or who were previously concerned. A prime example of media trying to reach an audience through entertainment is Captin Planet. The problem with its attempt at success was that they only targeted an age that would not take the issues of the environment seriously enough. I gaurantee you that the kids who watched Captain Planet watched it for the joy of television, and not to educate themselves.
Another example would be the music video we watched in class. The people who made it had good intentions and clever messages, but none of the major points sunk in because the video was too cheesy. I think the idea of celebrity endorsment is great because for some reason, the more involved Oprah is, the more involved half the world is. Although the music video had a catchy tune and dancing celebrities no one learned anything from it. This is especially sad because the video held some really valid and simple points, like recycling, that could actually improve our environment.
I think often times if these issues are posed in a serious way, they are ignored because they are too scary. Or they are overly criticized because people don't want to acknowledge them or notice that they are a contributer to the problems. An example of this was the movie The Inconvenient Truth. Because it was made by Gore and he took very opinionated stances on the issue many people didn't like it. Miranda Morton even said, "Yeah, I thought it was really dumb."
You can clearly see that there is a fine line between what works and what doesn't when it comes to conveying problems to people through media. I don't really have a solution to this but I think word of mouth is one of the best ways to educate people and make our world more aware of how we are effecting the environment.
Though I did not get to see either Captain Planet or the music video (as I was at Outdoor School - the best place ever!) I am familiar with the problems mentioned it this question. It is very difficult to address problems in a way that is neither overly depressing, nor ridiculously silly. I think the most important thing to remember if you are trying to produce an awareness film of any kind is who your audience is. If you are mainly marketing to people who are already aware of some of the problems facing our world, then Captain Planet is probably not a good approach. Rather, giving specific information and innovative ideas for combating environmental issues would probably be more effective. If, on the other hand, you are targeting skeptics, being too heavy-handed with doomsday predictions will just serve to further convince them that all of the environmental problems have been blown way out of proportions. Concrete figures and earnest appeals might be a good choice in this circumstance.
And no matter who you are talking too, the last thing you want to do is convince them that there is no hope. Because if there isn't any hope of making the problem better, then where is the motivation to try? It is not necessary to address every issue at once. Even a small step, if taken in the right direction, constitutes progress. And once progress is made, it becomes easier to keep the momentum going.
Cap'n Planet, obviously was a bad advertising method that was forced onto children about environmental awareness. The sad concept that environmentalist need to see that teenagers nowadays being surrounded by consumer goods don't care at all about the environment. Not trying to sound like a downer, but it is the truth. Getting kids and even worse teenagers to care about something that does not pertain to their lives is a challenge.
I personally cannot think of any brilliant ideas to advertise to teenagers, but i can see that institutions such as schools make a greater effort to voice out the awareness. It could be making field trips, doing projects, or something that is simple doesn't override them with information, but gives teenagers the basics. I mean children spent most time at school it might as well be slightly enforced on them.
I do not think that having Hollywood stars will make a big impact-it only shows in the moment feeling. Hopefully, since global warming is rising and more people are seeing its consequences that education in children will rise in a clever way.
By the way this is Andrea Chunga Celis...
While the intentions for Captain Planet were very good the overall outcome/ product was very weak. The thought of educating kids about the environment is a very good idea. However the show was a failure.
The way the show came acrossed, it could only be marketed to kids between the ages of about 8- 10. Anyone younger than that simply would not understand. Anyone older than that would veiw the show as stupid.
Now to comment on the music video. WOW. Kotos for all the stars appearing and stuff but The video was something I would expect to see on seasame street (if even that). Having the weird bull thing and all the other cartoons, there was no flow/ reasoning behind the actions in the video. It made no sense, nor did it go along with what the song was trying to convey. Not to mention the fact that the song was, to say the least, definately not an off the charts hit.
The idea of trying to get people involved in environmental actions through the media is a brilliant idea. However, out of the attempts we have seen, there hasn't been anything that has caught my eye or done anything to make me think it will help citizens change their unfriendly habits.
In order to make this idea work more research has to be done, more expiriments made, and a cooler product must come out of it all.
There is no such thing as bad publicity...or so the industry has been pushing for years. Well, I hate to break it to them, but this was pretty bad publicity if you ask me. A Yak? A Yak? A dancing, singing Yak? Though, at any given time, a few children will be at the perfect age to appreciate and even enjoy the over-the-top music video, they will soon grow out of their innocence and into shame. Because of this shame they will deny ever having watched said music video, much less having enjoyed it. Those Hollywood millions will have been put to waste on a small, juvenile target audience.
Still, I also believe that we do take a message from something, even after embarrassing it horribly and making fun of it. When I watch a cheesy movie that tells people the values of friendship and loving others, I don’t stop appreciating my friends and family just because the source that told me to was less than Oscar worthy. In the same sense, children aren’t going to burn forests and pollute the environment just because a movie they watched when they were six was cheesy and terrible. The movie was far less effective than it could have been, had it been cool, but it still got a message out to an audience, no matter how under appreciating. In a sense, I guess there is no such thing as bad publicity after all.
I think that the television shows and music video were of good intention, however, they disenchanted people from recycling by making the very act uncool. On the one hand, recycling is good for the environment and the trees will think you're cool if you do it, but unfortunately trees are really old and take a long time to complement you when you help them. On the other hand, not recycling is uncool to people, who provide instant gratification, thus, being cool is the essence of being uncool in a period of do's and do not's.
Postumously, the effect of global warming on the average human will increase the rate of decay because bio-mass decays at a higher rate in tropical temperatures. Once the human race dies and cockroaches take over the planet they will be living the highlife sipping 'conas on the beach with some bitches at their side.
When marketing enviornmental awareness, I dont think that there should be any strategy to portray the issue to a specific audience. Making it seem any more or less serious than it actauly is, wont work. People need to know the truth about what is happening to our enviornment. If someone is actualy trying to inform people about the issue, and make a change, telling the truth is going to be the best way. But if someone is trying to appeal to kids through a cartoon, they dont want it to seem so complicated and boring that kids wont watch.
THIS IS AMELIA BOTTERON:
Although in some ways cartoons like the music video and Captain Planet can be viewed as too childish, the media is a very powerful thing, and it should be used to raise awareness. People are sheep. They want to follow what is popular, and more and more, it is popular to be "green". What is important to get across to people is that this cannot be just a fad like shirts that say "green is the new black", this has to be a way of life. It not only has to be cool to be green, but is also has to be not cool not to be green.
I know it seems silly, but there needs to be a way for us to relate these issues to the masses without boring them or scaring them, although fear is a proven way to get people to do what you want, we do not want to be little George Bushes.
This is an issue that must be delt with carefully. If we are too harsh, people won't want to hear it, and if we are too soft, people will think it's a stupid cause.
I think that environmental awareness is more of a societal thing than anything. When we lived in South Africa, environmentalism was not much on our radar. When we moved to America, however, we were a lot more consious of the environment, because it was more convenient. We started recycling, because it was convenient, and soon it became part of our lifestyle.
For this reason, I don't think that we necessarily need advertising to encourage environmentalism. Rather, laws and regulations should be put into place that make environmentalism convenient. Once environmentalism is mainstream, and it is harder for people to obtain non-environmentaly friendly prodcts, it will become a lifestyle change that will just be accepted.
In terms of advertising and programing, there needs to be different programs/ advertisements that appeal to different ages. For young children, a program about the importance of recycling, or an environmentallist sesame street monster would get the point across. For older kids and adults, it needs to be more subtle, and done in ways that people can relate to. Having tv shows include recycling boxes on their set is one way to start. Often, showing real situations is a good way to get a message accross.
I think the efforts that people have made in the past have been somewhat successful. I don't think it's done much harm. It might be quite silly, but silly doesn't necessarily mean uncool. But I mean I'm not everyone. Only a complete idiot would think that recycling is stupid. They're the stupid one, and I hope they know it. I see recently that people are becoming much more aware about what's really going on in the world.. I've seen a million advertisements lately trying to target people and promote "going green" as being a smart decision. Trends in clothing are promoting recycling and saving the earth, I don't see any harm in that. So maybe there are some people who just put out the image without really doing anything.. but it's the thought that might actually make people more aware. We are in a new age, where people are actually waking up. I think it also helps for comedy to be involved in the movement. People like Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are very influential and could do alot in promoting these ideas through comedy. It's a very good thing that we're finally making "loving nature" the 'cool' thing to do. =)
“Captain Planet he’s your hero, gonna’ take pollution down to zero”
After reading everyone’s comments with my boyfriend, it turns out that he used to watch Captain Planet when he was five. He thought it was awesome but he never made the connection because as of now he isn’t environmentally friendly, so obviously the show didn’t do its job.
While children are impressionable at a young age it isn’t until around middle school that they begin to understand large scale issues like global warming. I remember it wasn’t until 6th grade that I learned that people in the Middle East despise us and that our gasoline comes from there as well. It was the attack on the world trade towers that got everyone’s attention for the entire day. In that moment of terror, disaster, and confusion our entire country united with one concern, would our loved ones survive?
I wish that our country could unite on the issue of global warming. Like Mr.MacDicken says many people feel guilty about it so they ignore it and refuse to hold themselves accountable. I don’t think anyone is guilty of anything until they learn that their actions are causing destruction. We were all born into a world already polluted by our ancestors and instead of pointing the finger at manufacturers, oil companies, and power plants, why don’t we make messages and programs that will educate others in an intelligent way. As educated citizens we can make new laws that would stop global warming.
A simple music video for children won’t make a difference. Having an Environmental Science class in every high school in the U.S. and making it mandatory would make a drastic change. We are required to take Health and P.E., so why is it that we don’t have a class that would educate us in global matters that will affect us no matter what occupation we have, where we live, or how money we make etc.
Most people tend to think in the short term rather than the long term. The difficulty with global warming is that so far any damages have been too subtle for most of the uneducated to be aware of it. In order to stop global warming, teens and adults need to be educated in the long term effects and what some simple everyday things can do to help fight it. This education should be mandatory.
In the past many people have wanted to help developing countries or communities that are stuggling. But they have been hesitant because they don't believe that one person can have an effect. I do agree that the media tries to spread their message and ideas forcefully so that people will go out and take the advice of the media to help others or issues in the environment. But the reality is, is that the media doesn't get the message accross effectively.
One the other hand...in the past couple years our societies awareness and effort to "go green" has increased. For the longest time I was confused when I heard someone use that phrase. And now I think that it the media had only a very small part in the progress that we have made. I think that word of mouth between friends, neighbors, and family has played a major part in helping more people become aware of the environment and the effects that we can have on it.
Absolutely there are good intentions bad ramifications when it comes to environmental awareness. I believe it is extremely difficult to raise environmental awareness and issues in media because it has to be done very precisely and well-thought out to have any public effect. For example, the music video did nothing. It was a crappy idea to get kids involved and educated about environmental awareness because no regular child would leave that on the TV after the first ten seconds or so. It did not really connect with children as it included a bunch of old celebrities they would not have known anyways. To have media actually have an impact, it has to connect, interest, and educate its viewer without dragging out or presenting too much of a burden. An example that worked was "Who Killed The Electric Car" because it impacted me even though I really had no previous familiarity with the electric car issue. It did so because it explained the matter without being boring and dry and also had somewhat of an emotional effect, as it angered many of the people in our class. When media fails, i.e. it is boring, too fruity or too grave, it turns people away from vital environmental issues and therefore poses unwanted ramifications.
Post a Comment