I love taking notice of what commercials are paired up with particular television programs. I think it's possible to learn a lot about a program's point of view and assumed audience based on the advertisers that buy time during broadcast.
Recently, I happened to be home at 6:30pm on a weekday, and out of curiosity I flipped on a show that I never watch: CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. (I generally avoid this show because I find Katie Couric mildly grating, for reasons I can't quite pinpoint).
Anyway, as a disclaimer I must admit that I have ideas about who regularly watches the CBS Evening News - I could be wrong, but I'm guessing it's mostly folks who have just gotten home from work and are looking to catch up on a quick bit of news before eating dinner with the family. Oh, and in my mind these people live in suburbia. These are the assumptions I am starting with, and they could be totally wrong, but I have a feeling that my description is accurate for a good chunk of the CBS Evening News demographic.
So this is what I ended up thinking after observing the commercials: suburban Middle America is uncomfortable in a variety of ways, and pharmaceutical companies are ready to encourage folks to medicate themselves excessively to alleviate these discomforts.
During one commercial break, three ads were shown, all by pharmaceutical companies. The three ads were selling drugs to alleviate the following: irritable bowel syndrome, nasal allergies, and something called "restless leg syndrome."
Granted, some medications are necessary and help people to live better lives, and I'm not denying the existence of allergies. But my primary reaction to seeing these ads one after the other was: why are Americans suffering from so many ailments, and why are we so ready to load up on medicine?
Personally, I am of the opinion that lifestyle changes would lead to greater health in America than would mass dependence on drugs. How about exercise, healthy eating, and a more reasonable balance of work and leisure (can't deny the connection between mind and body)? While we're at it, let's throw in friendlier workplace conditions and more reasonable wages for all Americans, so that people don't have to spend so many hours worrying about how to take care of their families and pay their bills.
But this is just where I stand, and it's certainly not going to lead to any profits for the pharmaceutical companies, on whose advertising dollars the CBS Evening News depends.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Why write?
It's been over a week now since my last posting here, and I think I know why...Ever since I started this blog with a single post, I have found myself slightly overwhelmed by the number of topics I might find myself discussing through text. What would be the direction of my blog? Would there even be a "direction," or would this be something that emerged only as time passed and posts accumulated?
In an attempt to dive into my questions about writing even more deeply, I began reading Negotiating with the Dead: A Writer on Writing, by Margaret Atwood, last night. This, of course, only got me thinking more, and prompted ever more questions in my head: Why write? What is the urge to write? What is my urge to write?
I suppose that writing can serve many purposes: communication, persuasion, documentation, explanation, entertainment, etc...But talking can also serve many of these purposes, in the form of conversation, debate, storytelling, etc. So how do I choose what to talk about and what to write about?
What is the difference between talking and writing? I suppose, if one has written something, and someone else is reading it, then there is no opportunity for that someone else to interrupt the writer, as is possible in live communication. Of course, the reader could also very well choose to close the book, or journal, or article or whatever, to stop reading...and isn't that the ultimate interruption? There's no chance to win your reader back if they refuse to listen.
Win your reader back?
Is this a contest?
A fight?
A debate?
These thoughts on writing are occupying my mind.
I don't mean to imply with these questions that I desire to win people over to my point of view (though, this is surely bound to be the case sometimes). Rather, I ask these questions because I am curious as to why people take the time to read particular authors, or listen to particular speakers.
In an attempt to dive into my questions about writing even more deeply, I began reading Negotiating with the Dead: A Writer on Writing, by Margaret Atwood, last night. This, of course, only got me thinking more, and prompted ever more questions in my head: Why write? What is the urge to write? What is my urge to write?
I suppose that writing can serve many purposes: communication, persuasion, documentation, explanation, entertainment, etc...But talking can also serve many of these purposes, in the form of conversation, debate, storytelling, etc. So how do I choose what to talk about and what to write about?
What is the difference between talking and writing? I suppose, if one has written something, and someone else is reading it, then there is no opportunity for that someone else to interrupt the writer, as is possible in live communication. Of course, the reader could also very well choose to close the book, or journal, or article or whatever, to stop reading...and isn't that the ultimate interruption? There's no chance to win your reader back if they refuse to listen.
Win your reader back?
Is this a contest?
A fight?
A debate?
These thoughts on writing are occupying my mind.
I don't mean to imply with these questions that I desire to win people over to my point of view (though, this is surely bound to be the case sometimes). Rather, I ask these questions because I am curious as to why people take the time to read particular authors, or listen to particular speakers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)