Research Blog: Reality TV and its Effect on Teenagers

My Research Blog:

Does Reality TV pressure teenagers to act or dress sexually?

Everyday people are either on their cell phone, texting, watching TV, using the computer or listening to music on their new iPod. Media is all around us and we can’t help but use it in our everyday lives. It has come to the point in our lives that we must adapt. The new interesting technology that is continuously being produced is becoming a major part of our lives. The media is a major branch in finding out news, what’s going on with your friends on the networking cite (Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc.) or listening to new music. However as many positives that media provides there are negatives as well. 

This blog will research the question, does Reality TV pressure teenagers to act or dress sexually? It will provide research about the question and what researchers and educators believe about the effects of reality TV on teenagers.

                                            Jersey Shore = Joke

Reality TV shows are a big deal nowadays. There are many shows to choose from. For example you have the famous Jersey Shore, this show follows the lives of a group of Italian-American 20-somethings in New Jersey, Miami and soon for season three, drum roll please…Italy. Wonderful! They plan on continuing to disgrace the Italian culture in the old country that is Italy. That is my opinion and it shouldn’t be in this research paper but I must say it, being Italian myself these people are making a stereotype for all Italian-Americans. I shake my head at the way these people live. Going to the gym, fake tanning, going to the clubs, getting drunk then repeat next weekend. To televise such things and show it to teenagers at a young age who are vulnerable and insecure because they want to be apart of “what’s in style,” is terrible and has a great effect on them. I would like to post a video that I found on youtube by a student from Purdue. 

This video is great because it provides imagery for the viewer. It puts that person in a situation where they must think: how would I feel if it was my teenager that is being negatively affected by what they watch on MTV. 

                                 Sex not only sells, but it also influences as well

An article on the website eHOW, written by a professional writer by the name of Danielle North provided a study on teenagers and the sexual effects of Reality TV. In the year 2004, a senior behavioral scientist at RAND Corp Rebecca L. Collins conducted a survey that researched the amount of television with sexual explicit behavior that teenagers watched. She also studied the amount of sexual experience the teenagers had one-year after the survey was conducted. According to North, it was found that “teenage exposure to sexual content on television shows increased the likelihood of initiating sexual acts and the effect of shows that depicted sexual behaviors and those that just discussed sex had the same effect on teenage audiences.”

In 2008, Anita Chandra, another behavioral scientist at the RAND Corp, conducted another survey over a three-year period. This survey studied “teenagers' exposure to sexual content on television and any resulting first-hand experience with pregnancy.” North states that “they found that teenagers who regularly watch television programs containing a significant amount of sexual behavior are two times more likely to become pregnant or impregnate someone than those teenagers who do not watch programs with sexual content."

                                                         Teen mom

Teenagers can now view a new reality TV show called “Teen Mom.” A 

show

 about teenagers who were most likely influenced somehow to have sex and accidently have a baby. Now you can watch episodes about their pregnant lives on TV. No idea where MTV was headed with this show, but it is a perfect example of reality TV’s effect on teenagers. Teenagers see “cool kids” having sexual intercourse on TV and feel the need to engage in it in order to be “cool.” Then their friends talk about it because it was on TV. Then next thing you know sex is happening frequently in teenagers because it’s the cool thing to do.

In an article I found from the Media Awareness website it provides information about teens and sexual activity. The article states that “A survey conducted in 1997 by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 61 percent of young teens, ages 13-15, rated entertainment media as their top source of information on sexuality and sex health.” Media Awareness state that this is a concern because “although two-thirds of TV shows contain sexual content, only one in ten includes any reference to safe sex or the consequences of unprotected sex.” The lives of the teens on television have no resemblance to those in the real world. Reality TV shows portray relationships of teenagers as sexually active. This sends a negative message about safe sex and healthy relationship.  

                       Conclusion

            Research reveals that Reality TV truly has an affect on young teens sexually. It shows that watching shows like The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, or The Jersey Shore has an increase of teens to behave or dress sexually. Teens want to be in style and be like their friends. They view what happens on these shows as “cool.” But being “cool” hasn’t really paid off as well as they thought. Teen pregnancies are increasing year after year. Reality TV is not all to blame but part of the blame.

I am not bashing reality TV all together; I rarely watch it because I don’t understand the significance of it. But I believe it has a major affect on teenagers today because media companies that host reality TV shows are targeting them. Why are they being targeted? Because they don’t know any better. Sex sells to those who don’t know any better. The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the western world. What is also among the highest rate in the world? Child obesity. They say that technology is to blame for that too. Video games, computers and television make kids lazy. All a child wants to do nowadays is be inside and sit in front of the TV. My point is that TV has a major affect on everyone today. We need to realize that in order to be more in tuned with reality we must go outside instead of staying in and watching a fake depiction of reality on TV.

Works Cited

Gilbert, Sarah. www.dailyfinance.com. AOL, 09/04/2010. April 25, 2011.  

North, Danielle. www.eHOW.com. Demand Media Inc, 2010. April 25, 2011.

www.media-awareness.ca. Media Awareness Network, 2010. April 25, 2011.

In the Media: Does the media today pressure teenagers to act sexually?

I am currently researching about Media and its effects on teenagers. The question that I am researching is: Does the Media pressure teenagers to act or dress sexually. In my research I found a study that later televised on "The Today Show." Here is the link to the article and the video. However I am not allowed to use something apart of the "big six" for my research and NBC happens to be owned by GE. GE is on of the 6. So I found this site called eHOW who is owned be Demand Media Inc. This website provides the same exact question I ask. It then has information like History, Benefits and risks with media today. Here is the link to that page. I then found the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Its made up of physicians, social workers, researchers and educators. They provided an article based on Teens and the Media. It provides facts and tips that are very helpful to my research on this topic. This is all that I have came up with so far but I will continue to research.

Television and Advertising

In the first reading All the News that Fits, Donna Woolfolk Cross provides the reader with examples of various news anchor jargon used to distract the viewer from real information. For example:

"John- Thanks, Tom. Gee, that's too bad about Fall River. But at least we're having wonderful weather here, eh?
Tom- Oh, you bet. (Cheerily) Its been just beautiful. We're planning on going out to the lake to take the kids sailing this weekend.
John- Great idea. Nothing like being near the water in springtime, I always say. Well, Tom, here's a late breaking story about the drowning death of a twenty-eight-year-old Springfield housewife..."

Cross states that "the job of TV news is to distract us from disquieting thoughts while preserving the excitement provided by an illusion of danger and fear." Cross also states that the faces of television newswomen are never wrinkled." And she's correct, every woman in the news today look young and sexy to distract the viewer.

Here is a video example of an attractive news woman whom to be honest, distracts me with her great looks.

In the second reading With These Words I Can Sell You Anything, William Lutz states that advertisements don't have to be entirely truthful. "puffing," is an exaggeration about the product that is so obvious just about everyone is capable of recognizing the claim as an exaggeration. Lutz gives examples of puffing words such as: "exciting," "glamorous," "lavish," and "perfect." however when an advertising claim can be scientifically tested or analyzed, it is no longer "puffing." Lutz also states that "new" and "improved" are used a lot in advertising.

Net Neutrality

There are some questions floating around about the issue of Net Neutrality and some are: What is Net Neutrality? What is at stake if we lose Net Neutrality? and Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality? 

Net Neutrality is the fundamental principle that preserves the free and open Internet. This means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. 

I found a great video on Free Press on the subject and in the video it states that "the deal is that the companies that provide telephone and cable are not allowed to access the 'pipes' that connect us to the internet. Everyone gets the same speed and quality." It also states that the big telephone and cable providers want to set up a "restricted fast lane" BUT only for their partners and services. Websites would have to pay a hefty fee to use the network, this ultimately make those companies "gatekeepers." Unfortunately for them the over 1 million Americans have petitioned congress to protect our Internet's level playing field.  

I found another video on YouTube that showed Obama on the subject of Net Neutrality. This shows that the Democrat party is for it. In his Net Neutrality statement, President Obama argues that the smaller voices get squeezed out if some websites were to be accessed more than others.

I then found an article from fiercewireless.com. In this article, Phil Goldstein states that the Republicans in the House of Representatives continue to push to block the FCC's Net Neutrality rules. This proves that Republicans are fighting against what the American people are fighting for. As 

President Obama said, "The Internet is perhaps the most open network in history and we have to keep it that way." 

FreePress Source:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101

Video of President Obama's stance on Net Neutrality:

FierceWireless article:

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/house-republicans-continue-attack-fccs-net-neutrality-rules/2011-03-16

Reflection on the New York Times Article: "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand"

                In the political cartoon drawn by Josh Hagler to the left, it shows how the Pentagon operated in the summer of 2005 to convince the American people to go Pro-Iraq War. The Pentagon hid behind and puppeteer their military analyst puppets to get the message out.

In the New York Times article “Behind TV Analysts Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” by investigative reporter David Barstow argues how military analysts are puppets to the pentagon. These military analysts are ventriloquist dolls who are being told what to say in order to gain the support of the people. These analyst “puppets” are motivated by loyalty and money. In a CNN report on this matter in Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room, He talks to Howard Kurtz about the issue. In further investigation, it was found that some former officers had meetings with Donald Rumsfeld and sought out how they could influence on the subject of the Iraq war. For example, former officer John Garrett wrote to the pentagon “please let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay.” However I personally agree with the critics in that the pentagon was “lying” us into the war in Iraq. The video I found on this issue can be found at the bottom of this blog. It provides very interesting information on the topic.

In an article that I found from The Huffington Post 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/the-pentagons-corrupt-soc_b_97598.html 

written by Gareth Porter, he states “not only did the ‘military analysts’ routinely violate basic ethical standards of journalism by accepting trips completely arranged and paid for the administration; they were consciously participating in its strategy to manipulate public opinion by regurgitating the pro-war arguments they were given in top-level official briefings -- which they had to promise to keep secret.” Porter also argues that “the networks should be forced to fire every ‘military analyst’ who has been recruited, accepted all-expenses-paid trips to Iraq, uncritically mouthed the administration talking points while concealing their special relationship or maintained vested financial interests in Pentagon contracts through business relationships with contractors. I completely agree with Porter, to find out that the Pentagon hides behind hired military analysts and tell them what to tell us and lie to the American people to try and win their support is ludicrous.

I found another video on the topic that also provides information about the New York Times and how it “unmasked” the Pentagon. It states how the Pentagon used the analysts as “Media Trojan Horse,” in order to convince Americans to go pro-war. This video can also be found at the bottom of this page. I chose these sources because they support my point in that the use of the media to gain public opinion is wrong. They lied to the people and convinced them to support a war for reasons that that didn't make sense and later proved to be false.

CNN Video with Wolf Blitzer:

http://www.mycatholicvoice.com/media/3H2QYW

2nd Video: