Category: Media Influence

In order to unify the people of a nation or race, a regime must find an enemy for their people to unite against. For the Nazi regime, the national and racial enemies of the German people were everywhere. From Bolsheviks to Jews, the Nazis had many scapegoats to blame for almost all of the problems faced by Germany. The issue for the Nazis was, however, that the truth of their enemies was much less harsh than the imagined picture of their enemies. The Nazi artistic, architectural, and aesthetic style, seen throughout the propaganda produced by the regime, was used extensively to determine and illustrate sets of people that, according to the regime, should be excluded by the people of Germany and that would need to be eventually expelled or exterminated.

Nazi propaganda and even architecture are seen to display the ideal of Nazi society, attempting to include those deemed worthwhile additions to their society, while excluding people and ideas that conflict with their world view. In order to understand the discussion of the Nazis’ ideology and worldview, an understanding of the terms used in the discussion must be had. Some of the terms used in this paper are aesthetics, ideology, propaganda, and Volksgemeinschaft. Aesthetics is defined by the Oxford dictionary as “a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty.” For the Nazis, this concern with beauty also included concern for the ideal. The ideal society, soldier, community, race, man, and woman are all depicted in their propaganda, showing the beautiful ideal. Propaganda is defined as “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.” This can mean, as it did for the Nazis, anything from posters and postcards to films and radio programs. Ideology is defined as “a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.” In the case of the Nazis, propaganda disseminated their ideology of a pure racial state based upon the exclusion of those deemed unfit. Those deemed worthy would be added to the idea of the Volksgemeinschaft.

The Volksgemeinschaft, literally translated, means “people’s community” and was the idea of a “racially unified” set of individuals that would be completely obedient to the will of the state or nation. The term with the least concrete definition does not need to have such a firm sense of concrete defining but nonetheless requires adequate explanation. Referred to throughout the discussion of Nazi ideology and propaganda is the idea of undesirables, those being excluded by the regime. The term undesirable is a broad term that covers all of the people that were seen as “enemies of the [Nazi] state.” This list of enemies included Jews, Roma or Gypsies, communists and socialists, and homosexuals. While these were the main targets of Nazi exclusion propaganda, there were many more that are not listed here. The knowledge of these terms provides an adequate entry to the discussion of Nazi style and propaganda. Nazi ideology, on the front of inclusion and exclusion from society, is quite clear in its division of who is included and excluded. Those that were included in the new racial nation that the Nazis sought were referred to as being a part of the Volksgemeinschaft. Defined above, the Volksgemeinschaft was the ideal of the Nazi racial state, incorporating the racial aspects of the Nazi ideal with the social function and discipline of the perfected fascist state. In Ulrich Schmid’s paper “Style versus Ideology: Towards a Conceptualisation of Fascist Aesthetics,” it is asserted that fascism while being a radical political ideology, is also to be seen as a social ideology.

The political part of the ideology sought to reform the government while the social side of the movement sought to reshape the social environment of the German nation. The phrase undesirables is brought to light and easily encompasses those that the Nazis sought to exclude from the nation. Politically the regime sought to exclude competing political parties, especially their rivals on the left side of the political spectrum, such as communists or socialists. In social circles, Jews, Roma (Gypsies is an outdated term but better known), and homosexuals, both men and women, were excluded from social interaction, faced harassment and discrimination, and were eventually sent to the forced labour and extermination camps.

Propaganda for the Nazi Regime was key to the continued control of the nation. Throughout the nation, propaganda was abundant in the form of “huge party-rallies, the mass celebrations and spectacles”for the public to attend, “the production of over 1100 feature movies” for the casual consumption of Nazi ideology, “and the abundant dissemination of posters [and] postcards” for the inclusion of the state and its ideology in everyday life. Shown in Katya Mandoki’s article “Terror and Aesthetics: Nazi strategies for mass organization,” the Nazi Regime substituted religion for art and propaganda. Due to the religious aversion to complete loyalty to the state, some churches or groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, were even included as a part of the undesirables. Funds that would have been allocated elsewhere were spent on extensive propaganda campaigns that, just like religion, conveyed “idealizations of purity.” This is shown also in Carsten Strathausen’s article “Nazi Aesthetics” where propaganda is used to construct an ideal that shows “the original in its purified, ‘true’ form.” For the Nazis, the idea of the world in its “purified, ‘true’ form” is how their ideology is displayed in their propaganda, not only what they wish to include in Volksgemeinschaft but also what they wish to exclude.

One of the most prominent features of Nazi propaganda is the depiction of Jews. Their depictions featured disproportionate physical features and very discriminate contexts. Figure 3 depicts a Jewish teacher being removed from a teaching position. The teacher is shown with very typical Jewish features as they were seen by the Nazis: Large nose, heavy brow, brutish figure, and angry grimace as he is being removed from a position of influence. Figure 4 shows the cover of a Nazi’s child’s book titled The Poisonous Mushroom which also features very typical Jewish stereotypes in the images. As shown in the fact that The Poisonous Mushroom is a child’s book, Nazi propaganda reached to every facet of German society. The Nazi exclusion of the undesirables is much of how the Regime defined its ideology of Volksgemeinschaft.

Nazi aesthetics, through their propaganda posters, films, and radio, shows itself to be a primarily visual set of aesthetics, meaning that its content is easily consumed. Due to the ease of consumption, as well as the vast amount of propaganda produced, the ideal that is created by the regime is quickly spread and consumed by those that wish to become a part of the Volksgemeinschaft. In “Nazi propaganda and the Volksgemeinschaft: Constructing a People’s Community,” David Welch found that the Nazi propaganda had made a complete presentation of the Nazi ideal. “Propaganda presented an image of society that had successfully manufactured a ‘national community’ by transcending social and class divisiveness through a new ethnic unity based on ‘true’ German values.” This set of true German values is demonstrated in figure 2, where there are two German Labour Front members, who have transcended the rigid lines of class and are working together to benefit the greater racial state of the Reich. Both of the men on the poster are physical depictions of the Nazi ideal: Tall, blond, strong, and possessing all the correct facial feature of Aryan men. Alongside this, they are both seemingly content in their fields of work, either in more educated fields such as with the lab coat or in the manual labour side of production, while also working with each other to better the nation, evident in their holding hands.

One of the more subtle details in the poster, representative of one of the Nazi Regime’s most core values, is the two silhouettes of the soldiers in the background. Whether or not they are the same men in the front is irrelevant. There being two of them correlates to the men in the front showing that the ideal members of each group, again regardless of class standing or wealth, come together to support the armed forces of the state, either by homefront contribution or through active service. This poster is representative more of social rather than political influence, leaning back towards Ulrich Schmid’s assertion that propaganda is no longer a representation of a uniquely political ideology but also a social culture. As well in figure 2, the representation of the Nazi’s attempt at a modern function with restorative social change. Roger Griffin discusses how the Nazi state was discernibly anti-modern in its approach to governing, especially in its social exclusion of the undesirables. Nazi ideology is also apparent in their choice of architecture. Seen in figures 5 and figure 6, Nazi architecture is classical in nature, reminiscent of Roman style, and visually grand in nature, standing much taller than even necessary. Figure 5 shows the Nazi honour temple in Munich built to hold the dead Nazis that fell during the failed beer hall putsch of 1923. This building is quite reminiscent of classical architecture, an unsubtle attempt to compare the regime to great empires such as the Romans. Large, ornate columns and decorative roofs, with ornate fire stands and ceremonial guards, the building is almost an exact replica of Roman architecture.

The nostalgic side of the regime is here attempting to display themselves as destined or meant to rule, using an elite form of architecture to do so. This use of classical architecture is the creation of an ideal and through the definition of what the regime includes in its construction, they also outline that those who do not act with the same way that they do are excluded. In the same way, figure 6 depicts the Nazi administration building in Munich. Similarly to the honour temple, the party administration building is built reminiscent of Reich that did not exist, an ideological image rather than one based in reality. The large, ornate windows and decorative bordering along the roof and each floor, as well as the decorative eagles, show that they are again nostalgic for a Reich that did not exist. Despite the grandeur and style of these buildings, their materials very clearly show the modernity of the regime. As discussed in The Architecture of Oppression by Paul Jaskot, the preferred building material of the Nazi regime was concrete and steel.

The modernity of these resources contrasts very sharply the reason why the regime chose classical architecture. While the state is creating an ideal by using classical structuring, they are showing how modernity lays behind the scenes to make their activities function as efficiently as possible. While these materials hold some general resemblance to the classical Roman building materials, the facade is none too strong when brought to light. The Nazi portrayal of so-called degenerates or undesirables was just as unflattering, and misleading, as one might think. Jews, in particular, were at the center of many of the propaganda campaigns that were spurred by the Nazis, often being depicted “in their supposed ‘control of the world.’” This depiction of the Jews falls quite short of the truth, and the Nazis were very aware of this fact. The actual amount of Jews in Germany was quite disproportionate to the claims of the Nazis, with much of the Jewish population being concentrated in very few places. For example, in Ian Kershaw’s Hitler, The Germans, and The Final Solution a 1933 consensus from Bavaria is shown, accounting Jews to only 0.55 percent of the entire population of Bavaria. Further showing the concentration of Jews in Bavaria, Kershaw writes that “almost half of Bavaria’s Jewish population lived in the four cities of Munich, Nuremberg, Augsburg, and Würzburg.” With the amount of Jews much less than the Nazis claimed, and the places they inhabited in Germany much fewer, the ideological portrayal of the Jew by the Nazis easily took hold in many people’s minds. One example of Nazi propaganda in an image from the sympathetic tabloid of Der Stürmer.

The caricature shown is of a Jewish schoolteacher being removed from his classroom by a disembodied hand. His caricature features many of the overemphasized, stereotypical Jewish features that the Nazis favoured, like large brutish hands and an oversized nose. The choice to depict this Jewish man as a teacher was made so that the consumers of the image believe that Jews are in positions of power and influence. With the overdone intimidating features, the consumers of the image were meant to feel afraid of this potentially influential character and his possible wrongdoings. With this image spread to many of the areas in German that did not have any significant Jewish population, the portrayal of Jews soon overrode the truth of Jewish people. While much of the Nazi propaganda machine was focused towards adults as the direct supporters of the regime, children were also subjugated to anti-semitic propaganda as well.

The infamous child’s book The Poisonous Mushroom featured a boy and his mother using mushrooms in their local forest as a euphemism about Jews being poisonous and dangerous. The book was published by the same anti-semite that brought about Der Stürmer, Julius Streicher. As with many children’s books, there are quite a few images inside that help to convey the message about Jews to the child that consumes it. Here is a small excerpt from a translated copy of the book: The mother praises her boy for his intelligence, and goes on to explain the different kinds of “poisonous” Jews: the Jewish pedlar, the Jewish cattle-dealer, the Kosher butcher, the Jewish doctor, the baptized Jew, and so on.“However they disguise themselves, or however friendly they try to be, affirming a thousand times their good intentions to us, one must not believe them. Jews they are and Jews they remain. For our Volk they are poison.” “Like the poisonous mushroom!” says Franz. “Yes, my child! Just as a single poisonous mushroom can kill a whole family, so a solitary Jew can destroy a whole village, a whole city, even an entire Volk.”

The quote, oozing with Nazi ideology, demonstrates the attempt at the exclusion of the Jewish population, even so far as to have made it readily accessible to children. This compounds when combined with the lack of exposure to Jews in many parts of Germany, allowing children to fully develop opinions on groups of people without any exposure to them. One of the more popular images used in the analysis of the book is the cover image. The depiction here is of a group of Jewish men each bearing very stereotypical Jewish features, while the cap of the mushroom appears to be their kippah. Along with the language used in the book, the images create a very vivid image for the children of the Reich to be consuming. On the topic of the Volksgemeinschaft, The Poisonous Mushroom very clearly defines Jews as excluded from the people’s community. In conclusion, the Nazi aesthetic style, through everything within film and cinema, posters, and even architecture, bleeds the exclusionary ideology of the Nazi regime. The defining of those to be excluded was palpable in many areas of the regime’s function, while the use of propaganda spread far and wide throughout the Germany, influencing the minds of adults and children, bolstered by the fact that many people were only exposed to the ideological representation of the Nazis’ undesirables. Whether the outright denial of a group of people, such as in The Poisonous Mushroom, or incredibly subtle, such as in the monumental architecture, the Nazi ideology focused on the exclusion of undesirables and the building of their ideal state. With the incredible amount of propaganda produced by the Reich, it is no surprise that the leading view of those represented in propaganda was not the truth of those people.

There are multiple perspectives on reality TV, which is why many people ask, ‘What is reality TV?’. The definition given in the Dictionary is as follows: “Reality TV is television programs in which real people are continuously filmed, designed to be entertaining rather than informative” (Dictionary). Things today in our everyday lives are being filmed for others’ entertainment. Love and relationships, someone’s ability to cook, a family’s financial income, anything and everything is being filmed. Now, with the mass production of reality shows, there are supposed guidelines and expectations to everyday lives. No one is going to do what they like, but instead, follow these ‘stars’ who have set what society accepts. Outlandish trends that have been set by today’s stars are, a thin body with enhanced buttocks and breasts, lavish cookie-cutter homes, and relationships built for popularity, not love.

The visual or guidelines to the ideal female body have always associated with terms as slim, thin, skinny. That is not the case with how the body of a woman is viewed today. Some TV shows have set outlandish trends, such as enhanced buttocks and breasts. The Kardashians are in the lead for these trends because they are the most popular group to promote that body image. Their social media platforms have a copious amount of pictures that broadcast and flaunt their outrageous hour-glass figure. Raking in millions of dollars for a few posts of public indecency. Their hit reality TV, ‘Keeping Up with the Kardashians’ shows that and more. The author of DASH Amerika, Buysse, once asked the following: “As watchers of the reality television show and digital humanists alike, we ask: ‘What does it really take to keep up with the Kardashians?’”. This truly highlights what the consumers of reality TV are going through. Many commonly believe that their physical attributes must be similar to these so-called stars, but without the money and the lavish lifestyle, it is nearly impossible for views to meet these pathetic guidelines. Along with physical traits, many long to have lavish homes as seen on TV.

There are numerous reality TV shows that are a group of people, maybe a couple, or a single person, on fixing or flipping houses. Some popular ones that many know consist of ‘Fixer Upper’, ‘Flip or Flop’, ‘Property Brothers’ and one that was the most commonly known, ‘Extreme Makeover: Home Edition’. As time has passed, there have been numerous shows added to the genre. With more and more overlap in this selection of reality TV, the more common every house renovation is. Modern houses seem similar within each show. Cookie-cutter homes. Home renovation should be about what an individual wants, not modern. Many get shamed if they don’t follow these pathetic guidelines these TV shows have set. Many have become followers and are afraid to do their own thing. When in reality, what everyone sees on TV is not what the family gets. Journalist Lauren Piester looked into this and stated: “None of the furniture or decor that Jo so carefully arranges is included in the budget, so the homeowners only get to keep it if they want to pay extra. Not all the rooms in each house get redone, and there have been unsubstantiated claims that Chip only actually works on the house while cameras are rolling”. The decor is the same in every single house because it is never truly bought, it is simply used for decoration for the show. Proving that there is nothing original about these reality shows on home makeovers, and that they are truly a stunt for money and views.

Relationships typically are, and should be, private between the two who are in the relationship. No matter husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, fiance, no matter the length or extremity of the relationship, what goes on within it is typically private. With the reality TV shows like the ‘The Bachelor’ and ‘The Bachelorette’ broadcast a relationship between 1 male or female, with a total of 30 ‘contestants’. Everything within the building relationships within the show is broadcasted nationwide for everyone to enjoy. Once the shows wind down it comes down to two contestants and the final one is the one who gets proposed to. The winner is typically the fans choice. That is not true love, and neither is the following: “In the reality television program ‘Temptation Island’, which topped ratings in many countries, young couples agree to test the strengths of their relationships by living with a group of attractive, eligible singles of the opposite sex” (Vandenbosch). Not only do these shows promote shallow relationships, they are broadcasting building relationships for viewers as content. This is where these producers promote relationships for fame and attention, not true love.

Outlandish trends that have been set by today’s stars are a thin body with enhanced buttocks and breasts, lavish cookie-cutter homes, and relationships built for popularity, not love. U.S. News discovered results of a survey that presented the following: “Researchers asked 1,100 girls aged 11 to 17 about their viewing habits. On the one hand, watching reality TV was tied to increased self-esteem and the level of respect girls expected in dating relationships. On the other hand, it also was tied to an increased focus on appearance and a willingness to compromise values for fame” (U.S. News, ‘The Reality of Watching Reality TV’). These results truly represent how the stars of reality TV can have such an impact on all viewers of all ages, specifically young teenage girls. The outrageous stereotypes and the impossible body goals to reach leave many feeling discouraged. The perfect homes on TV. Make many long to have lavish homes when the ones shown are just for show. Now many have low expectations when dealing with relationships while the ones being broadcasted are artificial. Reality television has set awful expectations for society and should shift their content to show the real reality.

The proposal that reality television helps structure reality is connected with aspects of the representation of ordinary people on screens. The purpose of this report is to investigate how extreme versions of reality are represented through ordinary people and how these promote preferable lifestyle choices. While it is argued that reality television is a construct of reality, it can also be understood that it is produced to promote social change. How do reality television programs help structure reality? Reality television structures amplified versions of reality through editing and production methods to entertain and influence audience lifestyle and consumer choices. Reality television is not a new concept, dating back to the 1970s Britain experienced the introduction of a documentary-style reality show ‘The Family’ (1974). During the late 1990s, reality television transformed, highlighting ordinary people looking for love, competing for prizes, documenting life, and undertaking change. This report examines ‘World’s Strictest Parents’ (2008-2011), ‘How Clean Is Your House’ (2003-2009), and ‘You Are What You Eat’ (2004-2007), and why reality is constructed in these programs. Three main characterizes identified through these shows encompassing acceptable behaviors, idealistic images of femininity, and promoting good consumer tastes within the society.

Literature Review

Many television critics and media scholars agree that reality television is an inaccurate representation of realism. Annette Hill’s research suggests the performance of real people on the screen becomes a framing device. Hill notes that ordinary people ‘act up’ for the cameras, and therefore, this appears to be less real. Anita Biressi’s research also explores these theories noting that reality television is constructed under controlled environments, participants are carefully selected, and narratives are heavily scripted. Both Hill and Biressi state that stylized elements fashioned as soap operas dramas fabricate entertaining scenarios where real people react to highly artificial circumstances. However, viewers of reality television were likely to believe the contents dramatized footage over documentaries authenticity. Furthermore, Lyn Thomas expands on these concepts noting that lifestyle television features a narrative structure where ordinary people exhibit extreme realizations and life-changing moments. Moreover, it is suggested that the term ‘lifestyle’ in its self is resonated from reality television.

The studied literature suggests all scholars agree that reality is questionable in both reality and lifestyle television. Numerous studies are directed towards the ethical and moral implications of reality and lifestyle television genres. Many reality television shows demonstrate the extremities of what social expectations regarding rights and wrongs. Gay Hawkins notes that current affairs style shows have been replaced with reality television where ethical issues become forms of cheap entertainment. Additionally, it is suggested that the fundamentals of television are based on ethics because instability provides audiences with aspects of normality in society. Moreover, it is suggested that reality television offers a platform to send moral messages to audiences in the form of scare tactics. Laurie Ouellette research develops on these theories. Ouellette cites that discipline, rationality, and responsibility are types of public service announcements that are performed through television daily. Moreover, it is suggested that reality cooking shows can bring social and governmental changes. For example, Jamie Oliver’s reality show ‘Food Revolution’ visited UK schools and examined the food quality, later resulting in legislative changes to school dinners.

Annette Hill’s research further raises ethical concerns that reality television participants have their civil rights removed during filming. Furthermore, questionable morals involving filming school-age children are subjected to government policies. It is essential to consider where reality television programs are located. Maggie Andrews and Fan Carter note that the domestic space is increasingly used to formulate reality television series where parenting is seen as a set of discursive skills. Ethical parenting skills and disciplinary tactics are subjects, where experts intervene with ideas of ‘tough love’. Examining ‘Supernanny’ as a case study, Andrews and Carter compare the expert’s interactions with unruly families as a modern day, Mary Poppins. Additionally, New Labour discourses suggest that good family life, ethics, and values in society are all fundamentals of a family unit. Therefore, it is noted that this approach to reality television is an example of Fairclough’s cultural governance. Moreover, it is suggested that the first and second wave feminist theory demands that the domestic space be revaluated. Reality television has become a method to showcase female power in society. Beverley Skeggs expands on these theories, the family, femininity, raising children are key cultural subjects which television is historically has been interested in. Moreover, Charlotte Brunsdon’s research notes that soap opera and reality television is culturally regarded as ‘trash TV’ because it is prominently set within the realms of the domestic space.

Research Method

To answer the proposed research question, this report will use a qualitative research method. Various scholar’s theories concerning how reality is constructed through lifestyle and reality television production methods are explored in reference to entertainment and influences on lifestyle choices. The initial procedure is to explore the library database to establish a list of academic peered reviewed sources. Focused study areas were in social sciences, television, film and media, and cultural studies were the reports, targeted information was sourced. Proceeding these searches, each journal articles bibliography was compared with the relevant information to create a list of further authors and research topics. Additionally, scholarly books were sourced. Completing the initial research, three highly successful reality television series were selected to support each theory and to provide relevant examples in each topic area. ‘World’s Strictest Parents’ (2008-2011), ‘How Clean Is Your House’ (2003-2009), and ‘You Are What You Eat’ (2004-2007) are all placed within a similar category. This method was useful because it enabled the development of the initial ideas to be compared with scholarly resources.

Discussion

As stated above, ‘the real’ is often a construct in reality television through scripted narratives and extreme representations of ordinary people. It can be argued these extremities impact audiences’ perceptions of acceptable behaviors. ‘World’s Strictest Parents’ (2008-2011) by BBC Three, highlights the struggles involved bringing up disobedient teenagers and offers intervention via offering international travel to experience stringent family life. Opening scenes, the teens are depicted at their worst, smoking cigarettes, drinking, swearing, and anti-social behaviors. Real people acting up for the cameras and editing footage is vital in framing how television presents the truth. For example, a compilation of moments where Calvin acts up in front of the cameras ending in scenes where Calvin and Rosie are blatantly disrespecting the parent’s authority over cigarette smoking. During the show, the teens are depicted in the sequence of life-changing events. Beverley Skeggs notes that reality television relies on behavioral modification, rules, discipline and one’s desires for social change. Examples are, Calvin, visiting an orphanage, the moments are edited to highlight his behavioral change. Ouellette cites that television offers the prime location to showcase that bad people make bad choices. Moreover, Jack Bratich mentions that these programs are performative acts which function to promote good decisions. Therefore, reality television does not only represent the construction of ‘the real’ it offers the chance for real interventions.

One key aspect is how reality television constructs reality through feminine ideologies as a vehicle for social conformity. Channel 4’s ‘How Clean Is Your House’ (2003-2009) features Kim Woodburn and Aggie MacKenzie, two television hosts which embody societies ideologies of the perfect housewife. The narrator explains key concepts while the narrative drives the show allowing audiences to join at any part with a full understanding of the show’s content. Dramatic scenes and intense music frame unexceptionable ideas of cleanliness within the home. Through the show, many comparisons are drawn between a clean home and happy heterosexual relationships. Laurel Foster states that a clean home reflects expectations of femininity and how the role traditional housewife should conduct herself within society. For example, the narrator states, “It’s quite clear Michelle needs sorting out”. It must be noted that ordinary people choose to exhibit their extreme behaviors both as an attempt at celebritization and the need for personal intervention. In each episode experts test, several swabs Aggie sampled which reinforce the necessity for intervention. Bacterial cultures are found, and drastic results are shown later in the narrative reinforcing these ideas. Gay Hawkins raises ethical questions that reality television handling of sensitive material becomes cheap entertainment. Moreover, it is suggested that Foucault’s use of pleasure invites people to question how we meet societies exportations, furthermore how we need to correct these to conform. Employing these tactics ‘How Clean Is Your House’ reinforces societies ideologies of femininity through the domestic space while manipulating reality.

Lifestyle and reality television makeover series amplify the real to highlight extreme cases of overweight individuals, thus promoting consumer choices. Channel 4’s ‘You Are What You Eat’ (2004-2007), nutritionist Gillian McKeith challenges overweight individuals and families to modify their eating behaviors. Opening scenes depict various problematic health factors. For example, weight, health, appearance, abilities, and lack of social acceptance. Mise-en-scène techniques help over-emphasize representations of the participant’s poor lifestyle choices. For example, dim lighting, props, composition, and selection of clothing assist with fabricating an emotional audience response. Bratich suggests that reality television is more concerned with inventing reality then representing the real. Exacerbating reality to represent a poor diet a week’s worth of unhealthy food is laid out while the narrator reads a lengthy list of fried and take-away dishes. Skeggs notes that reality television uses professional advice as a vehicle to reinforce the ideologies of good taste through consumerist cultures. For example, Gillian sent the participants to the greengrocers with strict orders on what to purchase. Professional delivers informative health statistics which help frame elements of authenticity to viewers. “The reason I want to measure your waist is because that can give me an idea of the risk factor for you with heart disease and type two diabetes”, as what was said during the show. Dana Heller notes that factual entertainment television is an initiative from Channel 4 to provide a public service to the community. Moreover, the Independent Broadcasting Authority notes that the challenge is to produce programs that are entertaining while promoting good behaviors. Creating elements of realism, ‘You Are What You Eat’ employs numerous editing devices to represent a small minority to promote healthier consumerist choices.

Conclusion

While it is argued reality television is a construct of reality, it can also be understood why it is used as a vehicle to encourage aspects of change. As noted above, reality programs are interested in ordinary people ‘acting up’ for the cameras while editing these moments in a stylized fashion. Stylizing reality programming is becoming a cheap form of entertainment and is raising ethical implications concerning governmental policies and participants civil rights. Additionally, parenting skills are scrutinized within the domestic space and experts are featured to help frame elements of reality. Constructions of reality are achieved through ideologies of social conformity. ‘World’s Strictest Parents’, ‘How Clean Is Your House’, and ‘You Are What You Eat’ all use intervention as a vehicle to meet with societies expectations. Mise-en-scène techniques, editing, staging, and casting all amalgamate together to reinforce how reality is constructed. Moreover, heterosexual relationships, domestic duties, and the ideal body weight all reflect societies expectations of femininity. Reality television provides audiences with fabricated images of the ‘real’ to fashion obedient teens, perfect housewives, and slim women all contributing to the consumer economy.

Violence is everywhere around us, from the rise of the ISIS empire to the advent of school and college shootings and the continuous attacks on the LOC, violence has become a daily part of our lives and leads us to the question why it actually happens. Whenever I flip the pages of the newspaper, I see hundreds of articles on road rage which very much highlight the prevalence of these kinds of behaviors in different ways. The rise in fights was on a different high when I entered high school where people cheered instead of trying to stop the alteration altogether. It always made me wonder why people are getting so excited when they know people can be hurt. I saw the same thing happening in the movies I used to watch at that time.

Coming to the question about the influence of violent media, with my personal experiences, I think it depends on how people perceive what is shown to them, with many people becoming aggressive in their nature, there were some who were able to understand the difference between artistic depiction and real life and therefore found a cathartic path within that. There was a very interesting case in Australian where a man had stalked and harassed a woman for days but then acquitted by court because he had said in his statement that it was what he watched in the movies and this incident somewhat affirmed my belief regarding the general influence of media. There have been studies which show that violent behavior enhances aggressive behavior but there are many which have found it to be a cathartic outlet.

The very first experiment which tried to shed light on this phenomenon was Albert Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment in 1961, he observed that children were likely to violently attack a doll if they had witnessed their parents do the same. In a study conducted in 2006 by Huesmann and Taylor, they concluded that media violence poses a threat to public health as it leads to real-world violence. Specifically, their data showed strong evidence that short-term exposure to media violence in younger viewers stimulates immediate aggressive behavior with their peers at school. Long-term exposure was significantly correlated with destructive behavior beyond childhood and into adulthood. Their conclusion was in accord with Bandura’s initial theory in that the researchers concluded the portrayal of “justified” violent behavior allows children to consider their own violent behaviors appropriate. The researchers agreed that media exposure is not the only factor that contributes to violent behavior, but asserted that it is an important one. Due to numerous studies, the psychological community overwhelmingly supports the notion that violent media exposure is harmful.

The Children, Youth and Families Office of APA conducted a thorough review of the literature published between 2005 and 2013 focused on violent video game use. This included four meta-analyses that reviewed more than 150 research reports published before 2009. The research demonstrated that violent video game use has an effect on aggression. This effect is seen both as an increase in negative outcomes such as aggressive behavior, cognitions, and affect and as a decrease in positive outcomes such as pro social behavior, empathy, and sensitivity to aggression.

In a series of five experiments involving over 500 college students (Anderson & Carnagey, 2003) , researchers examined the effects of seven violent songs by seven artists and eight nonviolent songs by seven artists. The students listened to the songs and were given various psychological tasks to measure aggressive thoughts and feelings. Results of the five experiments show that violent songs led to more aggressive interpretations of ambiguously aggressive words, increased the relative speed with which people read aggressive vs. nonaggressive words, and increased the proportion of word fragments that were filled in to make aggressive words . The violent songs increased feelings of hostility without provocation or threat, according to the authors, and this effect was not the result of differences in musical style, specific performing artist or arousal properties of the songs. Even the humorous violent songs increased aggressive thoughts. The findings contradict popular notions of positive catharsis or venting effects of listening to angry, violent music on violent thoughts and feelings.

There is research suggesting that guns don’t need to be featured in the media to cause aggression; the mere presence of a gun is enough to elicit aggressive behavior. For example, having a gun sitting on a table makes people behave more aggressively (Berkowitz & LePage, 1967), and recent work shows that having a gun in the car makes people (even non-gun owners) more aggressive drivers (Bushman, Kerwin, Whitlock, & Weisenberger, 2017). These effects even exist in children, whether or not the gun is real or is just a toy (Benjamin Kepes, & Bushman, 2017). A 2002 report by the US Secret Service and the US Department of Education, which examined 37 incidents of targeted school shootings and school attacks from 1974 to 2000 in this country, found that over half of the attackers demonstrated some interest in violence through movies, video games, books, and other media

Many of my friends are into wrestling and violent video games and they used to say that these games help them relax.They said it helped them release this pent up energy.With so many studies indicating that violent media leads to aggressive behavior, there is another side with well organized set of arguments about why it may actually do any harm but act as a healthy outlet. There are counter arguments that states violent media does not cause violent behavior. Video-game-enthusiasts-turned-advocates argue that most gamers, no matter their age, have the emotional intelligence and the ability to understand the difference between reality and virtual reality. Others say that those who play violent video games experience a form of catharsis that enables them to reduce their level of aggression by engaging in role-playing. James C. Klagge, a professor at Virginia Tech, suggests that exposure violent media, allows younger people to let go of negative and angry emotions without causing harming to others or oneself.

Cheryl Olson, cofounder of the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Mental Health and Media, conducted a study in 2004 on 1,254 public school students in South Carolina. She observed children playing in a schoolyard and then examined their exposure to violent games. While Dr. Olson noted a correlation between playing violent games and what he called “delinquent behavior” only in those children who had aggressive traits. The study concluded that there was not enough evidence to support a causal relationship between violent media and violent behavior.

Craig Anderson, PhD, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University stressed, “Media violence is only one of many risk factors for later aggressive and violent behavior. Furthermore, extremely violent behavior never occurs when there is only one risk factor present. Thus, a healthy, well-adjusted person with few risk factors is not going to become a school-shooter just because they start playing a lot of violent video games or watching a lot of violent movies.”

I think this debate has been going on for years and will still go on as there has been increasing research supporting both sides of the field. I don’t think any of us can provide a clear cut answer to this. I would end by saying that the situations in which the person is in terms of environmental, physical and mental state might play a very important role in how we behave.

Social media does promote crime, all crime done over the social are called “cybercrime”. It is now the greatest threat to every individual and organisation in the world. The impact of cybercrime can cost a huge amount of money to a country and can cost the life of an individual (CSIS, 2018). According to Cheng (2012), cyberbullying is a harassment, intended act done by a group or individual over the social media to their targeted victim who cannot stand up to defend himself. Lastly, the most common harassment of cyberbullying is known as “name-calling”, it is when a cybercriminal or a group called offensive names to their targeted victim (Pew Research Center, 2018). Cyberbullying occurs in school, university and even in work places and the consequences of this type of crime include low self-esteem, depression, a change in personality, self-harm and suicidal thoughts who are victim of cyberbullying. It makes cyberbullied victim feel angry, afraid and helpless in a society.

Moreover, social media has forever changed the way of stalking, it has now become cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is someone who uses a computer monitor the move and activities of their victim online. According to Study Breaks (2017), with the evolution of the internet stalkers can now stalk their victims from behind a computer screen. They have no longer need to be physical presence in order to follow someone move and activities because through geotags and posts which allow their target victim to share their location and what they do on the social media. In 2019, a man in US has been arrested after sending a picture of a cake to a woman wishing her a “Happy Death day” and threat to kill her (Neale, 2019). The impact of cyberstalking can cause psychosomatic and psychosocial problem to victims which it makes victim feel stress and have trust issue to unknown people (DreBing et al., 2014).

Furthermore, social media is use phishing as a tool to get confidential information without the owner knowing, including usernames and password, bank account number, personal information (Jakobsson and Myers, 2006). Hackers use phishing to target the person behind the device rather than the device use by the person. This crime uses a link to deceive web pages which make users to believe that they have gotten to a secure website, and enter the information requested. In 2016, a CEO gets fired after he fell into one of the oldest classic tricks done by a hacker in the email scam book which it has cost a lot of money to the organisation (TheINQUIRER, 2016). The impact of phishing for an individual and organisation, it can affect their financial and hackers can prevent user from accessing their bank account which hackers can transfer all the money to his account through many mirrors bank account to cover his tracks over the internet. These types of crime have growth with the evolution of technology such as smartphones, computers and the internet which make it easier and faster to promote crime on social media.

However, according to Graaf and Meijer (2019), social media is a game changer to solve crime. Ordinary individual and organisation can detect or be victim of cybercrime which they can help the police force to acts against these criminals with enough evidence gather to charge them. Denouncing these crimes make the society feel empowered and safe, and it reduces the level of crime committed in the society. In 2010, three British women turn into investigators on social media to bring an American “suicide voyeur” to justice who was encouraging depressed people to commit suicide and wanted to watch his target die using a webcam (Alderson, 2010). The finding of the three women were sent to the US authorities to charge the suspect with the evidence gather against him.

Likewise, social media is now use by police forces as a means of improving the confidence of the society and better comprehend the needs of the society. The police force uses social media to acquire effective local media strategy in order to neutralise some of the effect cause by the national media reporting (Copitch and Fox, 2013). They create public awareness by encouraging citizens to denounce suspicious activities occurs on social media and create post to inform the public about the investigation’s process and post picture of suspect who are committing a crime which it needs to be identify. In 2016, a man was scrolling through his social media newsfeed when he recognised a picture of his friend committing a crime, he felt obligated to denounce his friend to the authorities to make the arrest (Dughi, 2016).

However, social media is now use to enhance research and learning at university level by helping student to improve their communication skills by expressing themselves in writing to share their poetry or talk about their ideas with other students and get comment like opinion from their friends they trust which it can encourage students to write more. According to Minocha (2009), social media has additionally been utilised for formal learning with academics by creating open or private group for classroom practices. Lecturer can send courses or guidelines for an assignment or any academics research related in order to improve communication between student and lecturer and provide a platform where teachers can answer any academic question (Minocha,2009). The use of social media by students in their everyday lives and more use of technology in academic context can lead to increase preparation and engagement in their research (Ivala and Gachago, 2012).

There is no doubt, the media has the power to shape how we view a particular issue or belief, but the question must be asked, is it always impartial? The MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics states that writers must remain honest, independent, respect other rights, and be fair. Is the media following this code? And if not, what is their agenda?

Australia Day is now well known for the overwhelming mass of articles and news reports that follow in its stead and is a perfect example of the masterful works of the media. For the past few years our national purpose has been a lively debate, and many are discussing what it means to be a modern Australian. Australia is still a young nation, and is often seen as Britain’s child, so of course we are still figuring out our identity, much like a teenager. Also like an adolescent, Aussies are taking in new information every day. So, when given articles by the media that represent what values they should live with, they will be influenced, even if only a little. ‘We killed it: Australia Day is officially dead’, and ‘Don’t deny our Australian identity’, are examples of the powerful effects of news reporters and the techniques that they commonly use. Articles such as these contribute to Australia’s national purpose.

The article, ‘We killed it: Australia Day is officially dead’, by Welcome to Country introduces the view that Australia will not be united as a nation until we agree on a unified idea of who we are. The author uses a rhetorical question to separate the readers from the government, where word choices such as ‘living in a fantasy land’ are carefully selected to position the audience to see the government as ignorant and incompetent. Additionally, the author utilises inclusive language such as ‘our’ to encourage the reader to work towards change as they themselves are also impacted. Furthermore, the article is non-mainstream, thus the inclusive language in the rhetorical question also works towards creating a groundswell of support as a unified mass towards a modern Australia, showing the authors knowledge of current society.

Emotive language is recurrently placed in the article to evoke a sense of anger, thus causing disbelief towards the government. The author states, “They cannot continue clinging onto their racist colonial past and expect to be united.” By introducing the government’s ideas as outdated and illogical in a modern society, the reader manifests anger as many believe Australia to be multicultural and equal of status. Therefore, having a government that doesn’t abide by those values should not be in power, hence the audience will distrust the government. This is difficult to follow. Consider your sentence structure here. The author also declares, “We are currently at a stalemate where the government wants to use Australia Day as a propaganda tool.” Australians, while still not having a strong national purpose, find Australia Day to be important to our constantly developing identity. So, to have their government using it for political gain, will anger readers due to what would be viewed as disrespect, creating more distrust. Again, clarity. Your meaning is getting lost here. The article consistently disempowers the government’s racist colonial views and works to create support towards a modern multicultural society that has a unified idea of who we are as a nation, and is an example of the type of media text that influences society towards a modern national purpose.

The article, ‘Don’t deny our Australian identity’, posted by Kevin Donnelly on ABC presents the notion that we must disregard other cultures values and celebrate a unique identity to Australians. The author elicits fear throughout the article in order to evoke a response of unease from the reader and reject other cultural values. Donnelly makes the point that, “It’s now politically correct to argue there is no such thing as an Australian because the nation, like the USA, is a melting pot of different ethnic, religious and national groups all deserving of equal treatment and respect.” This idea manifests fear as it implies to the reader that if we accept everyone’s values, this will result in the loss of our own. Furthermore, the term “melting pot” often has negative associations, thus it amplifies unease as the audience does not know what it will produce. This causes the reader to reject the cultural values due to the possibility it may influence our own.

The author’s purposeful use of exaggeration is utilised to represent extreme ideas of basic concepts to turn readers against migrants. For example, multiculturalism. Consider sentence construction It is a widely accepted and praised concept; however, Donnelly points out that, “Taken literally, means that female circumcision must be allowed and, if a religion argues that women are second rate and men rule, then we have no right to complain.” By introducing extreme Sharia Law, it creates an ‘us and them’ dynamic as Australians believe men and women to be equal. Hence, the reader will turn against the migrants as they are to be viewed as people infiltrating our country. Could you use more specific metalanguage? This article constantly pushes outdated racist colonial views while disregarding others, it elicits fear and exaggerates certain modern beliefs to turn the reader against multiculturalism. This shows that even mainstream services, such as ABC, are heavily biased.

The media does in fact influence readers towards a particular idea, thus a hidden agenda is certainly present. Mainstream media is attempting to shape an outdated colonial Australia, however it fails to represent a truly unified modern society that many Australians are longing for. Whereas non-mainstream media are gaining thousands of subscribers by presenting values that will give birth to a new multicultural Australia, reflecting current society’s needs. In order to move forward as a nation, we must be accepting of everyone’s values. Many are hesitant as they believe they will lose their own identity, but we must equally incorporate every culture. Only then will we create a sense of a modern national purpose that every group may feel proud of.

On Facebook, I am a seemingly well-rounded student who has got it all together. On Instagram, I am a seemingly photogenic and aesthetic person. On Snapchat, I am someone who seemingly has a social life, going out all the time and having a good time. But who really am I? We create these different personas because of what we believe society wants from us, what we think is the ‘perfect’ person. Since the day we are born, we are overwhelmed with images of how to be the most ideal person: how to be perceived beautiful, successful, and happy in today’s society. But when can we finally be content with who we really are? I guess in this society, the answer is never.

As a baby, we don’t know what we want. We’re confused and innocent, and it’s the job of advertisers and influencers to tell us what we need. They know that “you can’t assume people know what they want” (Packard 2007:12). Especially for women, we are constantly looking for other people’s approval. As we grow older, “women’s minds are persuaded to trim their desires and self-esteem neatly into the discriminatory requirements of the workplace, while putting the blame for the system’s failures on themselves alone” (Wolf 1991:29). Once we learn what is considered ‘normal’, we focus our wants and needs to match that goal. It’s a constant cycle of gaining others’ approval, making them happy for a moment, and feeling good about ourselves because we fit in for that short amount of time. As this goes on, we lose a sense of who we actually are, and it’s scary. We’re “afraid that [my partner] someone could look at me for a minute and because of that see the ‘real’ me. There is a possibility that subconsciously I do not want anyone to see the ‘real’ me” (McGrane 1994:133). We create this false identity of who we are to fit in with everyone else. To start, we have to look attractive. For example, in college, hooking up with ‘fuglies’ can harm your popularity, and this judging process is done even when you’re with the person. In American Hookup, Wade explains how a “student described a hand signal system that women used across the circle: an open hand means a five on a five-point scale, a single finger means bail” (Wade 2017:34). However, in reality, when our main goal is to please other people, our source of self-approval is from the outside. Usually, approval from the outside leads to disappointment because you’re limiting what you truly want and filling that gap in with what people expect from you.

We look at ourselves in the mirror and cringe, thoughts running through our head, thinking that we’re not skinny enough, not pretty enough. We don’t look like that person we saw in that one Victoria Secret advertisement or that one skinny legend in our Calculus class. It’s very hard to look at the mirror and not be “self-critical and self-conscious about how I looked” (McGrane 1994:107). In today’s society, it’s important to dress a certain way. For example, at college parties, the typical women would wear “provocative items” which included “lacy bras, corsets, fishnet stockings — anything that hints at being sexy underwear” (Wade 2017:27). Wearing, for example, a t-shirt and shorts might even be looked down upon because everyone else has less clothes on than you. The video, ‘Consuming Kids’, gave an example of how we are being influenced by the media and society every day. The more recent Bratz dolls depict a sexier look, wearing less clothes and more makeup. However, Bratz dolls’ target audience are younger girls, ranging from the ages 6 to 12. At a young age, we see these Bratz dolls, the advertisements, the ‘perfect’ people. Over 125 million Bratz dolls were sold in a little less than 5 years. This means that around over 125 million girls were influenced by the Bratz doll looks. The perfect images make us doubt who we are, making us feel insecure and inadequate and thinking that we have to change ourselves to look like these Bratz dolls.

But why do we feel like we are not enough? Because of advertisements, influencers, and today’s marketing tactics. We are trained from a young age that we have flaws, that we are imperfect. We are constantly being “urged by psychological counselors to become ‘merchants of discontent’” (Packard 2007:19). Marketing has a way of always making us want more, making us feel that we are not enough. Because of the way that advertisers like to portray a certain image, it creates a “secret underlife poisoning our freedom, infused with notions of beauty, dark vein of self-hatred, physical obsessions, terror of aging, and dread of lost control” (Wolf 1991:10). We are afraid of being considered ‘ugly’, and, therefore, women fall under the influence of modern marketing and buy cosmetics and other similar products for millions of dollars.

In conclusion, we are being manipulated and controlled by our society today that has been created upon our insecurities. We look at what is being advertised, notice it within our peers and our surrounding environment, and think that we have to look like that as well. But in reality, everyone is unique, and everyone is enough as who they simply are.

Have you ever envisioned yourself on the reciprocating end of a story that sensationalizes only a portion of relevant information towards you? Shon brightly through a negative light, the media is evidently responsible for disseminating of adverse stereotypes and false descriptions of innocent victims who are silently suffering with mental health issues. Through the influential forces of manipulation and stigmatization, the media holds the power to control society’s thoughts and attitudes towards mental health patients. Inaccurately depicted throughout all media platforms, this specific marginalized group is negatively portrayed, left without a voice. The issues of the mental illness stigma, the effects of the negative depiction from the media on mental health patients and the manipulation of someone’s personal story in the absence of the truth will be addressed which aims to emphasize the need for our nation to stand against the adverse representations of mental health patients.

In the absence of the truth, the media treatment of mental health patients contributes to the stigma that is evident in the turbulent nature of our world. Trapped in the cycle of illness, mental health patients are continuously portrayed within the media as dangerous, unpredictable, murderers and are to blame for their condition; but is this the truth? What we see through the media isn’t reality, but a misrepresentation of false depiction. Media platforms have distinctive ways of telling stories, using specialized language to capture the eye of the public, which is highlighted in this article. Emphasized through the use of a jaw-dropping statistic that is intentionally presented in large, bold text; the dramatized headline ‘1,200 killed by mental health patients’ forces the reader to believe there are 1,200 victims of mentally ill killers on the streets. These techniques evoke the maximum emotional response and forces the audience to believe that their information is trustworthy, sparking fear in the public eye. Despite the fact that mentally ill patients are more prone to be victims to themselves, the repercussion of an unconscionable act of violence is the mainstream ideology within our society that forces us to label the perpetrator as ‘crazy’. This is a result of the sensationalized media, which continues to emphasize the dangers and stereotypical depictions of these innocent victims. “Felt as if I had to wear a mask to hide that I was unwell. With a number of masks to wear, I felt I got ‘lost’ with who I was supposed to be, and who I truly am. You shouldn’t have to hide from the media. You shouldn’t be ashamed of having a mental illness, yet I felt I needed to” (Blue, 2019). How many innocent victims have to express their pain and suffering before our society opens their eyes and holds the media accountable for taking the humanity out of the information they provide.

The mental illness stigma that is inaccurately exaggerated throughout media platforms tend to only discuss the parts of the situation that dramatize the incident to gravitate people towards viewing without depicting crucial portions of the story that hold equal relevance. Due to the sensationalized media, the public begin to form a blind opinion based on a breaking news headline, contributing to the fear towards mental health patients. As highlighted in these dramatized headlines, the media constantly exposes these stereotypical portrayals of mental health patients. Manipulating our ideas and attitudes causing the viewers to fall prey to adopting these problematic perceptions, distancing the audience from the issue that needs our empathy and attention. Negatively depicting mental health patients, it is evident that the media constructs their stigmatized perspective through the use of strong emotive language. Written in bold on the front cover of a magazines and news articles, the media appeals to the emotions of fear, positioning the audience to feel obliges to fearing the victims, which is exposed in these two images on the left. Mental health patients have long carried a stigma that is forever exaggerated in the media, altering society’s beliefs and attitudes.

It is estimated that more than 2 million Australians’ refuse to seek help for mental health issues very year due to the continual stigma that discourages people to speak up. Dramatized to make the maximum emotional effect, it is evident that the misrepresentations of reality that is embroidered throughout different media platforms is the reason for the increase in mental health patients. Despite these misrepresentations, our society is still drawn to the inaccurate portrayals however do they realize the excessive harm that it is causing? Illustrating a false picture of what they believe will capture the attention of all eyes. The media remains feeding the stereotypical portrayals to our society, expressing the perpetuation of the mental health stigma that is still a prevalent issue in our nation today. Unaware of what occurs behind closed doors, the media uses the pictures of pills, the videos of physical violence and the label that elicits fear to inaccurately portray mental health patients, which is undeniably not the true reflection of those who are silently suffering. Whilst they get smaller, the cameras get bigger; focusing on these mistaken representations the media is reluctant to shine a light on those who are slowly perishing. Instead, the media’s use of omission, along with other techniques and conventions, reinforce the bias and unfair media construction of mental health, which is evidently shown through the number of lives who have been hiding behind their own shadow.

Inclined to label the perpetrator as ‘crazy’, the absence of the actual situation doesn’t stop our society from automatically falling for the negatively depicted information that is emphasized in the media. Reinforcing the adverse construction of the media’s landscape of the issue of mental health, recent news article highlights a leaked photo of star center James Roberts that has circulated on social media, showing Robert being carried out of a nightclub unconscious by four males. The aftermath of this leaked photo that spread like fire throughout all social media resulted in Robert admitting to having a mental issue that was related to alcohol and drug addiction. All it took was one photo and his career and social status was in severe danger. “Schapelle Corby suffers serious issues with her mental health as her life is controlled by drugs and will struggle to handle life in Australia’, according to author of her life story” (White, 2017). This article that emphasized a specific media representation of mental illness, highlights how the media negatively depicts those who are suffering. Eliciting the truth out of the information provided, the media tells her story to the world, the question is how does the audience respond? Using the emotive language like ‘serious issues’, the media forces the audience to believe that Shapelle is heavily addicted to drugs, which severely impacts her mental illness. However, they forgot to mention that she hates people staring and pointing at her as well as the cameras, which made her extremely paranoid about her arrest, but even more so the public scrutiny that was leaked through the media. Reinforcing the fact that the degree of mental health doesn’t really matter because the media sees it all the same especially for someone that is famous, it is clear that the media has the power to manipulate someone’s personal story into something that they believe could intrigue the public eye.

Unable to see the innocent victims who are suffering with a mental illness. Unable to recognize the devastation that the media is creating. Unable to obtain a true sense of reality. Humanity is blinded, completely oblivious by the misconception of mental health patients that is negatively portrayed throughout the different media platforms. We can hide from those who are portrayed as evil, however how long can we hide from the truth? It is evident that the media continues to manipulate our ideas and beliefs, illustrating a negative vision that manufactures destruction within our nation. So, how long until you will stand; stand for those who are without a voice.