signethiimebbesen-blog

[signethiimebbesen-blog]

The Use of Multimodality to Advertise Cosmetic Surgery

When it comes to advertisements, an approach to selling a product, a belief or a concept can be the use of multimodal communication strategies. Oxford English Dictionary defines multimodality as “the use or availability of several different modes, methods, systems etc.” (OED, s.v. multimodality, n.), which for example can be the use of textual, visual or linguistic modes in order to convey a message or to advertise a product.

When advertising concepts like cosmetic surgery, “the image of an idealized female body” (Martínez Lirola & Chovanec 2012, p. 487) is often used in order to attract people, specifically women, because of the increasing need to look a specific way. The discourse used in magazines, adds, tv and so on is constructed in a way where it seems like cosmetic surgery is something you need, and it is portrayed as a more legitimized practice. Therefore, the language used is typically highly persuasive (Martínez Lirola & Chovanec 2012).

Furthermore, the use of multimodality in such practices is often to convey both an implicit and an explicit meaning, where specifically the text and the image as a combination is highly successful in terms of persuasion. Today people demand ideologies to be communicated through visual and literate strategies in order for them to understand the complexity of the specific idea. The reason for this is that “the construction and articulation of ‘common sense’ is often not explicit, that is it relies on non-verbal communication and other semiotic modes” (Martínez Lirola & Chovanec 2012, p. 489).

The combination of the images portraying ideal-looking women and the discourse that is highly persuasive, positive and directed towards problem-solving seems to be a successful way to advertise cosmetic surgery. It is interesting to note, however, that the female body is being treated almost as an object; an object with the purpose of advertising the specific clinic behind it. In conclusion, this way of advertising is a “calculated, strategic use” (Martínez Lirola & Chovanec 2012, p. 503) of the image of the female body in combination with thought-out discourse.

References

Martínez Lirola, M., & Chovanec, J. (2012). The dream of a perfect body come true: Multimodality in cosmetic surgery advertising. Discourse & Society, 23(5), 487–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512452970.

[signethiimebbesen-blog]

Mitigating the Harm of “Phishing”

Did you know that almost everything you do and put online will be saved in some form? Writing down personal information on social media sites, stating your address on online web shops and even enabling your location on a navigation app will be saved. A lot of people are actually unaware of this, perhaps because most of us choose not to read a site’s/app’s private policy as we cannot be bothered, really. In addition, misinformation is also spread across the internet, which poses risks to being scammed. This is referred to as “phishing”. Have you ever received an email that seems to be from a legit company, which tries to manipulate you into giving personal information such as your credit card information just with one click? If yes, then you have been exposed to phishing.

It seems that nowadays people are more aware of this threat and know how to detect it because of the awareness that is being raised. However, the risk is still there, and especially older adults are vulnerable to this concept of phishing, which is why scholars like Lee (2018) suggest that a way to mitigate the harm is to educate people. This type of education should not just take place inside the classroom but also outside it. She further argues that by educating individuals, it will then be easier for them to detect different factors, such as political and economic factors, that influence the media, for example in the way headlines are written. The results will be internet users who become more critical of the information that they see online (Lee 2018).

References

Nicole M. Lee (2018). Fake news, phishing, and fraud: a call for research on digital media literacy education beyond the classroom, Communication Education, 67:4, 460-466, DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2018.1503313

[signethiimebbesen-blog]

The Vegan Movement: Negative and Impolite Discourse

Veganism is a lifestyle and movement that continues to gain popularity and be in the spotlight through the media, especially through social media but also through newspapers. The discourse used when talking about this movement is essential for how it is perceived and more importantly, how vegans are perceived. The media can be blamed for the fact that vegans are often “stereotyped as ascetics, faddists, sentimentalists, or in some cases, hostile extremists” (Cole & Morgan, 2011, p. 134).

Cole & Morgan (2011) found, in their research, that 74.3 per cent of newspaper articles about veganism were categorized as being negative in the sense that the article was ridiculing veganism, characterizing vegans as sensitive and hostile, describing veganism as difficult or impossible to sustain and so on. These negative connotations to veganism again only affirm the stereotype that non-vegans associate with vegans.

There are definitely people who conform to this stereotype of shaming meat-eaters and praising about veganism, such as the youtuber Freelee. She became famous on YouTube for making videos, where she shames and humiliates other youtubers that promote the “mainstream” diet containing meat, where she uses very rude and impolite language. The reaction is very mixed with people supporting Freelee and agreeing with her comments, whereas others have found it very offensive. People like Freelee, who pushes their views on other people, are what causes non-vegans to think badly about vegans, and suddenly the view is that all vegans conform to this stereotype even though that is not the case.  

However, the meat-eaters are also to blame when talking about leaving rude and impolite comments on social media. It seems to be a vicious circle of people on both sides feeling attacked or offended, which results in them leaving more hateful comments. It is a shame that there seems to be both a stereotypical rude vegan who pushes their opinion on others as well as the stereotypical meat-eater who feels attacked, which causes them to leave rude comments on vegans’ posts on social media. There are people who conform to these stereotypes, but there are of course also people, probably more, who do not.

Furthermore, vegans seem to be more successful in inspiring others to go vegan when they are being a good example of living this way. It seems that meat-eaters also tend to be more accepting of the vegan movement when they are not being attacked, which makes a lot of sense.

In conclusion, nothing good comes out of impolite language and behavior on social media. People tend to get so passionate about something that the only right way seems to be to praise about them. With that being said, it seems that it has become less trendy to share the message of veganism this way, and perhaps the hateful and rude comments revolving around the vegan movement will continue to decrease so people will choose to lead by example rather than shame others in their decisions.

References

Cole, M. and Morgan, K. (2011), Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers1. The British Journal of Sociology, 62: 134-153. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01348.x

[signethiimebbesen-blog]

Gain Fame Easily: To Work or Not to Work as an Influencer

There are different tools used today that make fame much more attainable, which results in the term micro-celebrity. As Page (2012, p. 182) suggests, micro-celebrity focuses on “the construction of identity as a product to be consumed by others, and on interaction which treats the audience as an aggregated fan base to be developed and maintained in order to achieve social or economic benefit” (182). This phenomenon is particularly seen in the world of reality tv, where participants from these shows first gain their fame. Often, some of them will be contacted by brands who wants them to promote a specific product, which can be a good way for these micro-celebrities to maintain and develop their number of followers. You may have seen the same skincare product being promoted by multiple influencers or previous reality contestants. For fans, this seems as a way for ordinary people to gain fame, visibility and status (Page 2012, p. 182).

From @andershemmingsendk on Instagram

In Denmark, there is this guy who gained fame by making an Instagram account where people could send in funny pictures and memes of Danish influencers and celebrities. In particular, some of his posts compare previous reality contestants promoting a certain product and makes fun of the fact that this is “life after Paradise Hotel”. When “famous” people promote the same thing or do the exact same pose on their Instagram pictures, some of their followers will make fun of it, which might be because a lot of people do not recognize this as a real job.

But why is it that ordinary people have this urge to gain fame no matter the reason for it? Perhaps the reason origins in how these influencers, bloggers and “regular” celebrities display their life as something nice and an easy way to make a living with no education needed. They make it seem attainable, convenient and extravagant, so why not try to make a living for yourself the same way?

Page, R. (2012). The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312437441

[signethiimebbesen-blog]

Is Texting the New Talking?

With all the different forms of digital media that exists today; it is only expected that new ways of communicating arise. Something like talking on the phone is not the preferred tool anymore because of transaction costs, which is only one of the reasons why people nowadays prefer to communicate through WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat and so on. Because of this, the written language we tend to use when texting has evolved into something called “netspeaking”. This “language” is supposed to be similar to spoken language rather than the standard written language. This is what can be seen in word such as “txt” instead of “text” (Jones & Hafner 2012, p. 68).

Furthermore, an interesting aspect to “netspeaking” is how it is a mixture between both written and spoken language (Crystal 2012, p. 28). It combines aspects of how we speak and the efficiency from spoken language, while it is in fact still written language. For critics, this raises the question of how texting might be the new talking. There are a lot of affordances to Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), for example, it seems to be less effort to communicate this way contrarily to face-to-face communication. Does that mean we might avoid social situations where face-to-face communication is required? Not necessarily. Before digital media, people would not go to someone’s house just to ask them what they were doing or if they remember what the school assignment for Monday was. It just means that there is a simpler way to ask unimportant questions, to communicate about practical stuff and, well, to kill time when you are bored.

References

Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139164771

Jones, R. H., Hafner, C. A. (2012). Understanding Digital Literacies. London: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203095317

[signethiimebbesen-blog]

Memes and Virality: No Fixed Recipe

In a world of memes, GIFs and other phenomena, it can be difficult to get people’s attention with what you are creating. What makes them funny? Why do we incorporate them into our daily online conversations? And who decides which are successful and which are not? Only a small number of memes actually go viral, while most do not. In order to make a meme successful and go viral, do the people behind use a specific recipe or is it all just random? What exactly makes a meme go viral?

As Weng et al. argue (2012, p. 1), it has become a competition to get people’s attention on social media since there is so much out there and not enough room for everything because of our finite attention. We are exposed to an overload of information through social media, but there is a limit to how much information we can consume. Furthermore, it seems that there is “heterogeneity in the popularity and persistence of memes” (Weng et al. 2012, p. 1) and no fixed formula to make your meme go viral.  

There can be many reasons for the heterogeneous results in which one important factor has to do with importance and relevance of the subject. The memes that have gone viral and stayed viral for a long time might have something to do with them being shared by “traditional media and real-world events” (Weng et al. 2012, p. 4). It makes sense that a meme is more likely to go viral if it has been shared on the television news or a news site rather than just Facebook, because Facebook is already in possession of so many memes. People find it more important and relevant if it has been shared on something like the news, since Facebook might not be the tool you use to get important information but more just a way of killing time. In addition, it seems that a meme is more likely to go viral if it has been shared by someone who is already famous and has a large number of followers on social media.

There is no fixed recipe in order to make one’s meme go viral. It is not enough to just check the boxes of humor, element of surprise, emotions, relevance and so on. Although it is a good start, there is no guarantee that virality will be reached. The memes that have gone viral before does not share a homogenous pattern of how they went viral, which makes it difficult to point out ways to make something go viral, and no matter how far you go looking for it, the recipe to virality will remain unknown and unfixed.

References

Weng, L., Flammini, A., Vespignani, A., & Menczer, F. (2012). Competition among memes in a world with limited attention. Scientific Reports, 2(1), 1-8. doi:10.1038/srep00335

[signethiimebbesen-blog]

Fan Fiction: Plagiarism or Inspiration?

In a world with all these stories told through different types of media that are accessible to us, it is easy to get inspired and difficult to create something original. Fan fiction is a term much debated in regard to being inspired by something else and turning it into your own; Burns & Webber (2009, p. 1) raises the question of whether fan fiction should be considered plagiarism or rather something that can participate in encouraging teenagers to write.

Fan fiction can be defined as “fiction […] written by a fan rather than a professional author” (OED, s.v. fan fiction, n.), which is based on known characters from a made-up universe portrayed in television, books, films etc. Where does this need for reading fan fiction as well as writing it come from? People want more of what they already love and are considered to be fans of, and the original authors do not always necessarily meet this demand, which serves as an opportunity for young writers to continue the story in their own words. Today it is not rare to stumble upon fan fiction, and usually it is not considered to be plagiarism; it is rather praised and recognized by fans. One could also argue that it seems quite innocent, since, to put it briefly, it is basically just young fans being inspired by work from a known author.

However, fan fiction is also being written by adults, who attempt to get their work published, which in some cases has resulted in lawsuits. It is not easy to recognize when the copyrights of a previous work have been violated, because of the complex laws regarding copyright. Luckily, a lot of online resources are available to help, where some of the ground rules are that you should not try to sell your fan fiction and if the original author asks you to take down a story you have posted online, you should probably do it (Burns & Webber 2009, p.2).

Burns & Webber (2009, p. 2) further argues that even though some people are against young people writing fan fiction, there are actually a lot of benefits to it for example that it develops writing and reading skills. What is also important to note when it comes to writing fan fiction is that one has to be aware that the story, or rather the universe, is not original. It is difficult to accuse someone of plagiarism if the author has been given credit for his or her work.

In the society we live in today and with the world of digital media evolving at its fast pace, it can be quite difficult to get your head around all the rules of copyright and plagiarism. This uncertainty can result in people, perhaps teenagers, being sued for violating these copyrights. But does it not seem innocent for young people to post a piece of fan fiction online as long as it is clear what the literature is inspired by and as long as the author does not make money from it? However, what about something like Fifty Shades of Grey by E.L. James, which started out as fan fiction based on Twilight by Stephanie Meyer? Is that innocent fan fiction or is it plagiarism?

Let me know what your thoughts are!

References

OED Online. 2019. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Accessed January 28, 2019. www.oed.com.

Burns, E., & Webber, C. (2009). When Harry Met Bella. School Library Journal, 55(8), 26-n/a. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.idpproxy.reading.ac.uk/docview/211858029?accountid=13460

[signethiimebbesen-blog]

Are Filter Bubbles on Social Media Making Us Narrow-Minded?

When using social media platforms such as Facebook or Instagram, there are algorithms that sorts and filters all data and information so only what seems relevant to your social media account shows up. These algorithms definitely have some affordances, for example how there is no need to sort out everything you do not find interesting when scrolling through your news feed on Facebook, which can be quite convenient.

But does that mean the internet is hiding a great variety of things that might be interesting and relevant to us? If Facebook or any other social media platform hide away all the perspectives and ideas, which could have relevance for our lives, then some disadvantages may arise. As the quote on the picture suggest, yes, smaller incidents or events closer to you might be more relevant to us in the moment rather than a global thing happening on the other side of the world, but is that not problematic? Should we just close our eyes, or rather have someone hide these things from us just because we might not find it interesting or relevant for our daily lives? Or because it is something that is happening far from where you are?

Another problem is how you can be wearing blinkers in the sense that you are only exposed to one viewpoint, which is what can happen when it comes to politics. For instance, if you are a democrat you probably do not “like” things on Facebook from the republic party, which means you can become very narrow-minded in regard to your political viewpoints. This is problematic because there needs to be room for the possibility of you changing your mind in what you believe in. If you do not get to see the other side of the story, you could in a sense be voting blindly. People are lazy today, and we do not take the time to seek out information about two parties in case of elections, which is why filter bubbles are problematic. If these filter bubbles did not exist, there would be a better chance for people to see various viewpoints, not only in regard to politics but also in regard to other aspects, where there can be different viewpoints. An obvious solution to this is for people to actively seek out and be aware of these filter bobbles, but that is probably easier said than done.

What is your opinion on filter bubbles and how it can affect people’s viewpoints?

[signethiimebbesen-blog]

The Affordances and Constraints in the World of Social Media

People often have something to say about digital and social media whether that being positive or negative. When it comes to a social media platform like Instagram, there are definitely affordances and constraints. Instagram enables people to be creative by sharing aesthetically pleasing pictures perhaps with an even more deep and creative text connected to it. However, some might look at the negatives of this in that it creates a need to be perfect and have this perfect life, because you look at these beautiful pictures and assume that the person behind these photographs must have a perfect life as well.

I am, however, pretty certain when I say that that might not be the case. Everybody has bad days, even the ones behind the perfect squares that you see on Instagram. Furthermore, it seems that these days, there is also a tendency to share the imperfectness and the daily struggles of one’s life on social media. The affordances of sharing imperfect pictures on Instagram could be that it enables us to have the courage to share parts of ourselves that are not that perfect either, which creates a more relaxed environment. But what if sharing something flawed becomes the new perfect? This trend can perhaps make people scared to post something that is beautiful because of the risk of getting hate from people.

It seems that no matter what you post on social media, there will always be affordances and constraints. Instagram enables you to be creative and share your life with your friends, but you are also not necessarily able to distinguish between what is real and what is not. It is a topic that continues to be discussed, and it can be very difficult to find your place in the world of social media.