Our Planet, Our Environment

David Suzuki Foundation. What You Can Do: At Home. 2007. 15 June 2008 http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/at_home.asp.

Tanneeru, Manav. Global Warming: A Natural Cycle or Human Result? 2008. 15 June 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/11/globalwarming.overview/index.html.

Green Expander. 20 Shocking Facts on the Environment. 20 Oct. 2008. 15 June 2008 http://www.greenexpander.com/2007/10/30/20-shocking-facts-on-the-environment/.

Live Television Production @ MuchMusic

My experience as part of a live audience on Much on Demand (MOD) was quite interesting. If it is one thing that I learned there, it was that what you actually see on TV as a viewer is nothing like the experience of actually being at the television studio and seeing the production of the show.

As a viewer you see so little of what actually goes on. You aren't even exposed to the director, who is a more important part of the show than most people might think. He tells the hosts and at times, even the audience, what to do and when to do it. People have to listen to what he says and the outcome of his directions create what we see on TV. Everything is extremely set up.

The directors of MOD were Kuami and J.P. When we first walked in, Kuami asked us to clap and cheer like huge fans of a celebrity. This was about an hour before the show was even to go on air. He showed us a hand motion. Every time Kuami did that, the audience was to respond by clapping and screaming, so the viewers at home would get a sense that we were really huge fans of the guests, who would soon arrive. However, the environment at the studio was really nothing like that. The two directors also held up big cards every little while, telling the hosts what was coming up next e.g. a commercial, phone question and the cards even informed the hosts what to say every once in a while. For example, one time Matt was talking to the members of N.E.R.D., who were the guests of the show that day, and kept pushing for the answer to a question, all the while J.P. continuously signaled him to look over at Kuami who was holding a card with what Matt needed to say next written on it. At another point in the show, once N.E.R.D. had left, one of the hosts was brought in to sit in one of the audience members' place and interact with another audience member. The person that had to be moved ended up being me. The director came up to me, asked me if I could do him a favour, I said, “sure” and then he asked me to stand on the side and that this was only temporary. I complied and host Hannah sat in my place and asked my friend who'd been sitting beside me a question.

Another thing that was really different about watching TV and actually being in the studio watching it unfold, is that you notice that everything is extremely set up. From the screaming and clapping right down to when the hosts are going to laugh. Every single thing: what the hosts say, who asks the questions and what part of the room they ask it from, the audience answers to hosts' questions and even my getting up for Hannah and then sitting back down afterwards was rehearsed. This is to ensure that everything runs smoothly during the live take.

The lights, cameras and screen graphics are all operated by different people. They know exactly what their jobs are. For example, the person responsible for the lighting has to ensure that the lights are bright enough for high definition viewing and light enough to be able to see everyones' faces properly on TV. The cameraman, of course, are also important. At MuchMusic there were several cameras in the room taking footage from their own part of the room, so that every camera's footage is from a different angle. Another very important job is that of the producer. They have to pick through the takes of each camera and then decide which one is going to go live on air.

During commercials, everyone is busy ensuring that the next time they're on air, everything runs smoothly. For example, Leah would get her hair fixed, the hosts would rehearse their lines as well as chat to audience members and take pictures with them and the director would talk to the hosts and audience members, telling them what they were supposed to do and when. Because the hosts are rehearsing a lot of the times, I would sometimes get confused about whether we were on air or if we were at a commercial break. The environment at all times during the show is quite busy, but casual. People are always doing something.

In my opinion, I think working at MuchMusic would be a pretty exciting place to work because you get to meet different people everyday and while I was there, it looked more like they were having fun than actually working.

Unknown artist. “MuchMusic.” No date. Online image. Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. 15 June 2008.

Unknown artist. “Much on Demand.” No date. Online image. Forum.CONNpost.com. 15 June 2008.

How Much is Too Much?

When Edward Steichan said: “every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible,” he was totally right.

Whether we know it or not, photo manipulation is all around us. What it all really comes down to is ethics (what one believes to be right or wrong). This term is very important to news reporting because the news media like photojournalists have a responsibility to report truthful news. The issue comes into when photojournalists manipulate images but still use them to represent reality.


This was the issue surrounding the controversy involving 2 images of O.J. Simpson in 1994. O.J. Had made big news when he was accused of murdering his wife and her partner. In 1 news magazine: Newsweek, O.J. Simpson's original mugshot was displayed while in another new magazine:Time, his mugshot was altered to make him look darker. Many major new organizations as well as black journalists said that Time magazine's manipulation was racist and made O.J. “look more sinister and guilty.”

James, Gaines, the managing director of Time magazine at the time said that changing Simpson's mugshot was “defensible.” “...The cold specificity of the picture had been subtly smoothed and shaped into an icon of tragedy....” But Simpson hadn't even been convicted yet. Gaines also called the image “art.” The only thing is, what's a NEWS magazine doing using “art” to represent a true news story. “Art” is human creativity whereas “news” is straight-down reality.

Knowing what I do about the O.J. Simpson magazine cover controversy, I, personally, don't think that the manipulation was "intended" to be racist. Although it is definitely a possibility, I think the bigger intentiion was to sell copies of the magazine. So if they manipulated the image a little, made it look darker, and slapped the title: An American Tragedy on it, it would really sell becuase it would make the readers pick up the magazine out of curiousity, more so than the Newsweek magazine cover.

What distinguishes ethical photo manipulation from the unethical is the intent of the photographer. Intentionally deceiving the viewer, perhaps by using a manipulated photo to represent reality would be unethical. If a photographer's intent is to report, then his/her photos should accurately show what the photographer saw. Once a photo is altered, it becomes an illustration and “art.” If the photographer wanted to manipulate a photo in order to illustrate a point, it would only be ethical if that intent was made clear to the audience.

With photo manipulation being used everywhere; from billboard advertisements we see everyday to news images, such as this photo of Lebanon,

it's getting harder to know what images are actually real. Right now we turn to the news for true info, but if this photo manipulation continues to grow, photographs might just come to be thought of as things to be retouched. Then the credibility of the news will certainly be in question. If the news media is not credible, then we might just stop turning to them for real “news.”

It's also important to keep in mind why people in the media manipulate photos. It's not because it's fun, but because different media organizations compete against each other for the most sales. As for photojournalists, it's their job to take "the right picture." It's what they live on. So when they can't get that perfect shot, they find it easier to just doctor the image to make it look like an award-worthy picture.

The question is, has computer retouching of images gone too far? Well, in my opinion it has. There are many images out there that are deemed to be great, award-winning images. In many of these cases of has turned out that they'd been retouched. For example, the following image of the train andthe Tibetan antelopes going the other way.

It was said to be a fascinating picture that represented the fact that nature could live side by side with technology. However, bloggers discovered the reality; this was another case of photo manipulation. So, as you can see, it's gottten to the point where we don't know what images to believe and what images not to believe.

How much do you think is too much?



Rose, Trevor. "YOU and YOUR RIGHTS." The Washington Post Newspaper in Education Program. 19 Dec. 2002. Rpt.

Unknown artist. “O.J. Simpson's Mug Shot.” No date. Online image. Falsification of History. 15 June 2008.

Hajj, Adnan. “Altered Lebanon War Photo.” No date. Online image. National Press Photographer's Association. 15 June 2008.

Unknown artist. “Tibetan antelopes.” No date. Online image. PhotoshopNews.com. 15 June 2008.

Exposure to Media

Friday, Feb. 22, 2008
Activity:
Walked home from school
Media Encountered:
-saw an ad for Schneider's hotdog through Mac's convenient store window
-saw a lotto-649 ad stand in front of Mac's
-passed Big-Bee and saw ads for Dibs Ice Cream, slushies and lotto-649 through their store window
-saw 2 cars with "Great Glasses" written on the side

Activity:
Watched TV (CNN)
Media Encountered:
-saw ads for cialis, Acura, Aleve, Ditech, ActiveON, HeadON, RenewON

Activity:
Called a friend
Media Encountered:
-talked about the movie she was watching called "Vacancy"

Activity:
Watched TV (Nick)
Media Encountered:
-saw ads for Apple Jacks cereal, Proactive and saw the trailer for "College Roadtrip"

Sat., Feb. 23, 2008
Activity:
Watched TV (CHCH)
Media Encountered:
-saw ads for "Extra" gum, Windex and Pillsburry

Activity:
Checked my E-Mail
Media Encountered:
-saw several ads for Lavalife

Activity:
Went on MSN
Media Encountered:
-saw a picture of Angelina Jolie when "MSN Today" popped up

Sun., Feb. 24, 2008
Activity:
Glanced at the Stoney Creek News
Media Encountered:
-saw an ad for "Parks Furniture" sticking out of it

Activity:
Talked on the phone with a friend while watching TV
Media Encountered:
Talked about how friend's cousin has too mcuh time on her hands because she's 25 and still watches Disney shows like "Hannah Montana" and "The Suite LIfe of Zack and Cody"

After paying extra attention to my media exposure over the past 3 days, I have come to realize that there are so many different forms of media and we encounter them in almost any activity we engage in.

Whether I was walking home from school or or checking my e-mail, I was exposed to various media: ads on posters visible through store windows, ad stands and ads on web pages. We don't often stop and think about it, but media is really all around us. Even when I took a quick glance at the Stoney Creek News sitting on the dining table, what first popped out at me was not a news story but an ad for Park's Furniture sticking out of it. Through this I now realize that there's media in media.

What surprises me is that media is especially found in places where we'd never think to look if someone told us to look for media. For example, I encountered media both times that I talked on the phone with my friend. On Friday, we ended up talking about the movie that she was watching, called “Vacancy.” Then on Sunday we talked about how I was watching “Phil of the Future” as I talked to her and she told me about how her cousin has too much time on her hands because she's 25 and still watches shows like “Hannah Montana” and “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody.”Without even watching these shows and movie for myself at that moment, I was exposed to them by my friend.

I think we all get enough exposure to media without even turning on the computer or TV, which are two huge ways of interacting with media. For example, when I watched the news on CNN, not only was I interacting with the news about what was going on in the world, but I was being exposed to media just as much when I watched commercial after commercial during the break.

Being on the computer, mainly the Internet and MSN, we are all exposed to little bits of media everywhere. When I signed into my e-mail account on hotmail.com, one of the first things I noticed was big pictures of 2 people on a Lavalife ad. Then when I signed into MSN, “MSN Today” popped up. As I dragged my mouse over to close the window, I couldn't help but see a picture of Angelina Jolie with a headline talking about her. Now, you know you're being exposed to too much media when you're practically forced to look at it even when you don't really want to.

Unknown artist. “Media..” No date. Online image. Media. 15 June 2008.

Media Inventory

I use TV most because that's how I spend a lot of my free time at home since my brother is always on the computer

Mom uses phone most because that's the only way she communicates to people who aren't face to face from her- she doesn't use a cell phone or MSN, etc.

Dad uses cell phone most because he's the only person in the house who has one.

Brother uses computer most because he's always on YouTube, playing games and talking to friends on MSN.

Dad uses TV the least because works and is more occupied with other things.

Brother uses phone least because he mostly communicates to friends on MSN, etc.

Mom uses cell phone least because she doesn't have one plus doesn't care to use the technology.

Mom uses computer least because she isn't very interested plus no time because brother is always on, otherwise I'm on and sometimes dad goes on.


My Family Members' Favourite Media Tools:
Mom- TV
Dad-Cell Phone
Brother- Computer
Me- Computer & TV

The telephone is the least favourite because there are more interesting ways of communicating when you're not face-to-face from someone. For example, the cellphone and the computer (internet).

Children of Different ages and sexes do prefer different items because of the society that they've been raised in. Advertisements as well as people that children advertise and influence them to like certain things. For example, dolls are geared towards girls and cars towards boys.

The item that is used most is the computer because of it's variety of uses: videos, music, homework, communication (MSN, facebook, etc.). It also has almost any information you want at your fingertips.

The item that is used least is the telephone because we can substitute another item for the same purpose plus more. For example, the computer (MSN, Facebook) and cellphone (also have texting, etc.).

FREE SPEECH!...Or Maybe Not So Much?

As most of us are aware, the media has great control in deciding what the public hears and sees.

We all turn to things like the news to tell us what's going on in our communities and around the world. However, if you ask most people, they'll tell you that they turn on the news to hear and see factual, objective information. Journalists and the news media should NOT be allowed to express their biased/political opinions without a limit. Yes, they have just as equal a right to free speech as any other citizen, but the only difference is that when they are working as journalists, part of the job description is to be objective, not subjective

However, nowadays that isn't always the case. Some members of the news media do tend to carry their opinions on their sleeves. Viewers are smart enough to make their own judgements and create their own opinions based on FACTS presented by the news media.

I would totally agree with a ratings system or an on-screen message for news that would inform the viewer whether opinions were being represented or pure factual information. This would be a great way of ensuring that viewers were not manipulated into taking in peoples' opinions as facts.

However, when it comes to celebrities and other personalities, I think as long as they are in no way related to the news media or any other organization that claims to tell the “news”, they should definitely be able to express their opinions, both biased & political. Why? BECAUSE WE'RE A NATION THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE FREE SPEECH. And free speech is what defines us as a democratic country.

So in 2003, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks diecided to use that right of free speech. At a concert in London, England, she told the audience while laughing, “"Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." It turned out, using her right of free speech had many consequences. Lipton, the Dixie Chick's sponsor of their 2003 “Top of the World” tour disassociated themselves from the group, many country radio stations pulled the group's songs off air and former fans destroyed their CDs. Why? Well, President Bush's popularity was sky high which was why people were shocked and upset that, “Texas' own have attacked the state and the president.” For example, Terry Dorsey, host of WBAP 820 in Arlington, Texas said, “Natalie Maines is not paid to espouse her ideas on stage.” Others told the Dixie Chicks to “Shut up & sing.” What didn't come to the minds of many was why. Maines is a citizen of the U.S., and as such has the right to express her opinions freely. By telling the Dixie Chicks that they need to "Shut up and Sing," they were sending a messgage to everyone else who doesn't agree with the government to also shutup. What happened to democracy? So instead of asking the question, should they be allowed to express their biased or political opinions, we should be asking the question, why not? It's just the news media that shouldn't have been allowed to express their opinions as some did.

Songs aren't news; they have the opinions, feelings and emotions of the artist(s) embedded in them. The Dixie Chicks weren't the only non-news media related celebrities that spoke out politically against George Bush, the president of the United States.

During a live Hurricane Katrina fundraiser on TV, Kanye West said, “George Bush doesn't care about black people,” referring to the late and slow recovery efforts in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He was then immediately cut off air, which I think is wrong. What ever happened to FREE SPEECH? Although I would definitely say that this comment was much worse than Natalie Maines' comment about President Bush, Kanye West wasn't as highly criticized for it and didn't have to pay as many consequences as the Dixie Chicks. Weird, right? Well, not exactly. The key was that Kanye West made his comment after President Bush's approval rating had dropped and was at it's all time low because of the late response to Hurricane Katrina. Natalie Maines' comment came at a time when the president's approval rating was high. What message does that bring to the public...It's wrong to publically say the oppposite of what the majority is believing but when the majority also starts to believe that way, then it alright to express your belief?

Many other artists have written protest songs. Pink and the very popular Rolling Stones are just some examples from the recent past. However, it's important to note that Pink's song has unofficially been banned from American radio stations and DJ's have been told not to talk about her song if if she's a guest on their show. TALK ABOUT CENSORSHIP! This all sends out a message to the public that says that you really don't have the right to free speech as much as you think you do and if you use your right to free speech and go against the majority belief, there could be consequences.

Protest songs aren't a new trend at all. There have been many in the past. In the sixites, youth culture was defined by protest songs. They were well recieved too. Just take Edwin Starr's 'War' for example. it rose to become the United States' #1 song in 1970. Another proetst song of the past is Bob Marley and Wailers 'Get Up, Stand Up' (1973), rebelling against opression and Phil Ochs' 'I Ain't Marching Anymore'(1965) , rebelling against war. Check out this list of even more past protest songs:
http://www.spinner.com/2007/07/13/20-protest-songs-that-mattered-no-20/.

All in all, do I think that there should be NO limit to free speech? The answer: no. There should be certain limits as are already in place such as no hate speech (e.g. racist and sexist comments) and things of that extent. But expressing our feelings about the government should not be limited...because isn't that what a democratic government is all about?

Froomkin, Dan. Was Kanye West Right? 13 Sep. 2005. 15 June 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/09/13/BL2005091300884_pf.html.

Edgers, Geoff . Protest Singers Renew Their Cry. 16 Apr. 2006. 15 June 2008 .
http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2006/04/16/protest_singers_renew_their_cry/

Unknown artist. “Dixie Chicks' album.” No date. Online image. 8notes.com. 15 June 2008.

Unknown artist. “Pink-the singer.” No date. Online image. EnjoyFrance.com. 15 June 2008

Unknown artist. “Kanye West singing.” No date. Online image. DirectNews. 15 June 2008.

The Controversy About L.A.M.B.

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about Gwen Stefani and her 4 backup dancers a.k.a. her "Harajuku Girls." Different people have expressed different opinions on this. However, I have to say that I haven't been able to come to a final conclusion about whether Gwen Stefani's representation of Harjuku girls is right or wrong.

Most North Americans probably had never even heard of the word Harajuku until Gwen Stefani decided to adapt Harajuku culture. Now, I say “adapt” because not only are her "Harajuku Girls" not Harajuku girls, but they don't represent Harajuku girls very well either. It's been mentioned that these 4 Asian girls are "dressed like girls with Americanised Harajuku." [1] The way that these girls are portrayed in the media isn't how real Harajuku girls act and dress. So I can understand people's anger towards this representation of Asians and Harjuku culture. However, it is just the way that Gwen Stefani has been able to incorporate some Harajuku culture into her own American culture.

But then agian, would this fly if these 4 girls were of another race; say black? For sure there would be people out there who would automatically think slaves.

However, we have to know that these girls chose to work with Gwen Stefani, they are indeed getting paid big bucks and really they are just backup dancers. As Lauren said in class, they're "actresses;" and are just “acting”. So what's the big deal? When people say, "She's even named them "Love," "Angel," "Music" and "Baby"”[2] (basically given them pet names), you have to consider the fact that many celebrities don't go by their real names. Just look at Diddy, Madonna and so many others. So what's different about this case?

Also, different people are being stereotyped all the time. Of course that's not exactly right, but I'm saying that this isn't a first. Other Asians are also stereotyped in North American media. Just look at movies like Kill Bill.

Then again, you do have to consider that, many people, especially Asians will think that ''at least it is a measure of visibility,” which, according to American comedian Margaret Cho (who is a real Asian)“is much better than invisibility.''[3]

These "Harajuku Girls" aren't allowed to talk and Gwen Stefani always says that they're not really there but just her imagination. Not only does this make you question how sane Gwen Stefani really is, but I think it definitely crosses the line. This is practically saying that Love, Angel, Music and Baby aren't even human. Talk about disrespect! And because these girls are Asian and represent Harajuku girls, in a way it's disrespecting both of these groups as well. No wonder some people are mad.

So is Gwen Stefani even trying to represent "Harajuku" culture or is she just using 4 Asian girls who North Americans will believe to be Japanese and slapping the name “Harajuku” on them so that she can exploit them for her own good? Well, I think it's obvious that she's exploiting them. If Stefani really wanted North Americans to know about a subculture that she's so inspired by, then she'd probably let them talk. Even if they're not really true Harajuku girls, they might know some relevant information about the subculture. After all, they are representing Harajukus. She might also have actually learned a close pronunciation of Japanese words that she uses in her songs because it's been mentioned that, "In her songs, Stefani mispronounces the word Harajuku. Instead of the Japanese pronunciation, Stefani spells “hair-ajuku,...” So far, to me, she has just come across as ignorant.

Oh, and not to mention that her clothing line is called L.A.M.B. It just seems like Stefani, through her backup dancers, songs and tours, wanted North Americans to get the basic idea that her 4 backup dancers are Harajuku girls and as she says in on eof her songs, Harajuku girls are “super Kawaii (cute)." So by naming her clothing line after these so called “Harajuku” girls, she is trying to convey the message that her clothing line is “super kawaii".


There are also Harajuku Dolls available on the market. That would be great and all, but there's a problem with them. They don't look too differently than the Gwen Stefani doll, especially their skin colour. This is not only not the skin colour of Gwen's Harajuku girls, but it's not typically the skin colour of most Asians.

So what message does this send to kids, especially Asians who play with these dolls? Well, it's probably going to make them get the idea that the featured skin colour-white-is better than their own. Why do I jump to such a conclusion? Well, because this is what happened during the short film directed by Kiri Davis. In it, a bunch of young African-American children were given two dolls: a black one and a white one. They were then told to choose which one they preferred. The doll that these black children chose as “nice” and fun to play with was the white one. This goes to show how what children see affects what they think abut themselves.

"According to the Jan/Feb 2006 edition of Blender magazine, American comedian Margaret Cho [an Asian] has labeled Stefani's Harajuku Girls a "minstrel show" that reinforces ethnic stereotypes of Asian women."[1] I agree with the fact that Stefani is "re-enforcing" stereotypes of Asian women, but I also think that she's CREATING stereotypes of Harajuku girls in North America.

[1]
Harajuku Girls. Harajuku Girls. 2005. 15 June 2008 http://www.chinatownconnection.com/harajuku-girls.htm.

[2]
Ahn, Mihi. Gwenihana. 2008. 15 June 2008 http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2005/04/09/geisha/index.html.

[3]
Slezak, Michael. Margaret Cho's Not Laughing about Gwen's Harajuku Girls. 2 Nov. 2005. 15 June 2008 .

Unknown artist. “Harajuku Dolls.” No date. Online image. Art of the Steal. 15 June 2008.

Unknown artist. “Harajuku Girls.” No date. Online image. D-MEN TES. 15 June 2008.

Portrayal of Women in Advertisements

Turn on the TV, flip through any magazine, surf the net or just eye a billboard and what do you see? Images, images and images. You might never really think about it, but have you ever noticed how women are portrayed in advertisements? Just look at the following and see what you think.

Here are some outdoor ads:
Calvin Klein
Skechers

Here are some other ads:
Puma
Gucci [1]
Gucci [2]
Beer
Perfume
SKYY Vodka

What do all these advertisements have in common? Does it look like advertisers are even trying to focus on and sell the actual product?

Women in Advertising


“We often find no representational connections in contemporary advertising. One of the common registers of print advertising is of the naked or sexually-posed woman selling a product. -cf. Lazier-Smith 1989. Furham and Bitar 1993” [1]

Sexualization of Women in Media


Mediawatch, a non-profit organization that works to improve the portrayal of girls and women in the media, did some research and found that 74% of women “are sometimes or often offended by advertising portrayals of women.” [2]

Jean Kilbourne, a social theorist, has created a few award-winning documentary films: “Killing Us Softly,” “Still Killing Us Softly" and the newest version, “Killing Us Softly III” that focus on the image of women created by advertisers. She says "Women's bodies continue to be dismembered in advertising. Over and over again just one part of the body is used to sell products, which is, of course, the most dehumanizing thing you can do to someone." She also says, "Women are constantly turned into things, into objects. And of course this has very serious consequences. For one thing it creates a climate in which there is widespread violence against women. Now I'm not at all saying that an ad. . . directly causes violence. It's not that simple, but it is part of a cultural climate in which women are seen as things, as objects, and certainly turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step toward justifying violence against that person." [3]

Kati Fosselius, a graduate student studying nutrition brings up another issue. She says “People are unconsciously affected by media images, but the images of models do not reflect real women.”

Jamonte Cox, a student majoring in sociology, says that “he believes women are portrayed in the media respectably, and physically attractive men are often presented in the media as well.” [4]

However, preliminary research shows that throughout all magazine genres from 2004, men were modestly dressed 83.5% of the time whereas women were modestly dressed only a third of the time. This indicates that women are portrayed as sexual objects much more often than men. [5] So this brings up another issue. Are men and women being portrayed in the media as equals? Do you think that the media might be catering to one gender more than the other?

Are portrayals of women in many advertisements sexist? How or how not? What effects might constantly seeing such portrayals of women in advertisements have on people, both females and males? Can something be changed? How could this realistically be done? Does there even need to be any change?

You can also check out:
Portrayals of Women in the Media

or take a look at my

References:
[1] YouTube. Exploitation of Women in Ads. 25 Dec. 2007. 13 Mar. 2008
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WgGiB-o84sk&feature=related.

[2] Loewen, Carla M. MediaWatch Announces Worst Media Portrayals of Women. 13 Mar.
2002. 13 Mar. 2008 http://www.themanitoban.com/2001-2002/0313/news_2.shtml>.

[3]Media Education Foundation. Video Summary. 2004. 13 Mar. 2008 http://www.mediaed.org/videos/MediaGenderAndDiversity/KillingUsSoftly3/studyguide/html#SYNOPSISOVERVIEW

[4]Yasue, Nami. Depictions of Women by the Media Criticized. 24 Mar. 2004. 13 Mar. 2008
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2004/03/24/CampusNews/Depictions.Of.Women.By.The.Media.Criticized-1498556.shtml

[5]Carpenter, Courtney., and Aimee Edison. Taking It All off Again: The Portrayal of Women in
Advertising over the Past Forty Years. 24 Feb. 2008. 13 Mar. 2008 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/4/1/6/p14163_index.html

“Hey! Hey! You! You!”

Not Again! Has another artist broken copyright law? In 2007, The Rubinoos, a rock band from the 1970's accused Avril Lavigne of ripping off their song "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" and using parts of it in her own hit song, "Girlfriend." The question is: Was it plagiarism or not?





I say that Avril Lavigne's song "Girlfriend" is definitely not 100% her own. She may have been right when she said that she “had never heard this song in my [her] life” when talking about the Rubinoos' "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" because it came out 5 years before she was even born. However, whether it be consciously or subconsciously and whether it be from The Rubinoos' song "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend," Lush's "I Wanna Be Your Girlfriend” (a remake of The Rubinoos song) or any other song out there that's very similar to these (because people keep finding songs that are), Avril Lavigne and/or Luke (Avril's songwriting partner) had to have gotten inspiration from somewhere. Why? Well, Avril Lavigne's "Girlfriend " and The Rubinoos' "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" are way too similar; too similar to be considered a coincidence. Alright, maybe the lyrics, "Hey! Hey! You! You!" can't be considered to have been plagiarized because not only are they "common and widely used lyrics," but those words aren't more than 30 sec. of the song either (30 sec. is less than 10% of the song). The tempo is also a little different; Avril's song is faster. However, the clapping sound in the background and the instruments are quite similar. Most of all, the rhythm through more than 30 sec. of both songs is identical! Entertainment lawyer Dave Steinberg says that "copyright infringement is really about the melody and or the lyrics." That means that Avril's song breaks copyright law. Take a listen.



Despite all the negativity on Avril's side, if The Rubinoos thought that they had a strong enough case against Avril and really felt strongly about their song being copied, they would not have ended up exonerating her. At first Dunbar said that "the lyrics, the meter, the rhythm they're identical." Later, Dunbar and Gangwer stated, "We are satisfied that any similarities between the two songs resulted from Avril and Luke's use of certain common and widely used lyrics." In the 2nd statement, The Rubinoos don't even mention the fact that the rhythm is still the same! So it seems that The Rubinoos' goal wasn't to get Avril to pay for plagiarizing, but something else. Maybe they thought that this was a great way to get some publicity. However, even if The Rubinoos have exonerated Avril, the case was settled out of court, so this doesn't mean that Avril didn't really plagiarize.

Even if she is, this won't be the first time an artist has plagiarized, but denied it. In 1976, former Beatle, George Harrison, was accused of breaking copyright law on his song 'My Sweet Lord.' It was said that he plagirized 'He's So Fine' performed by the Chiffons. However, he denied it. Later, he was charged with subappropraiation (unconsciously infringing copyright law). So, just because someone says that they didn't break copyright law, but their song sounds like they did, we shouldn't automatically think that they're lying. For all we know, Avril Lavign's case could also be one of supappropriation.

If Avril was to have used the material knowingly, she would've had to ask permission and pay a certain amount to the owner's of the song in order to avoid copyright infringement.

Basically, I think that Avril Lavigne is guilty of plagiarism, but I have a feeling that The Rubinoos' intentions of accusing Avril of plagiarizing weren't so right either. In the end, I don't think that this plagiarism claim will affect Avril Lavigne's career much. However, people continue to listen to her music and she's still a big popstar. Despite that, allegations of Avril's plagiarism may affect peoples' opinion about her personally because it doesn't really matter whether she is guilty or not; since the rumour about Avril plagiarism is out, many people are going to look at her now as someone who plagiarizes.

Sympatico MSN. Songwriters Who Accused Lavigne of Ripping off Song Now Say She's
'exonerated'. 15 Jan. 2008. <http://music.sympatico.msn.ca/Bell.Sympatico.CMS/Print.aspx? type=feed&lang....>.

CTV.ca. Lavigne Lawsuit Has Limited Chances: Lawyer. 5 July 2007.

CTV.ca. Avril Lavigne Hit with Lawsuit over 'Girlfriend'. 4 July 2007.

ABC News. Avril Lavigne Denies Plagiarism Claim.

BBC News. Madonna in Plagiarism Case Defeat. 18 Nov. 2005. 8 Mar. 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4449580.stm.

Unknown artist. “Avril Lavigne's Song Girlfriend.” No date. Online image. Avril Lavigne-Girlfriend Worldwide Single. 15 June 2008.

Unknown artist. “The Rubinoos' Back to the Drawing Board.” No date. Online image. vox. 15 June 2008.