Narrowcasting

So, in the video "Persuaders," which is the title of the episode of the PBS show called Frontline, explored the marketing and tactics of advertisers and how they try to be effective and whatnot.

They went into discussion about several key points for selling to consumers, the one I want to focus on is the use of the term, "Narrowcasting."


Basically, the idea of narrowcasting is making a 1 on 1 advertisement to a certain demographic of customers. It's basically to customize a message to fit a certain person or persons.

Now, I use AdBlock because I honestly dislike seeing advertisements because I have no money and they take up space. But I do notice on certain applications, like a the big company called Steam who are a PC video game realtor who eliminate the middle man of going to a store and buying a CD for a game and let you buy a game online that will be permanently on your account, have this narrowcasting as well or at least a form of it.Well, Steam has this whole tab dedicated to you. Or in reality, whatever data they have about you. The little question mark there when moused over says, "These are common tags on games you've recently played on Steam." Obviously, they are using the data of whatever it is that I play to try to recommend games to me. Another point, they use "recommendation" as a euphemism for "narrowcasting." Now you may be saying, "But Kevin, they're only trying to help you find games that you might want to play." Yes, I agree that they are, and to strengthen that argument, they are also using my data to find out what it is to sell me. That's narrowcasting, to try to sell specific things to specific people based on their specific data. And that's exactly what you can see here. There are currently 3 places where they tell you that there are things recommended to you on Steam; the recommendations by curators who give reviews on games, the entire recommended for you tab where they show off two games with the caption above that says, "Similar to games you play," and the tab in the photo that says "For You."

I would really love to be able to mess with the advertisers to make them upset. To me, advertisers and the paparazzi are basically the same. They violate the people's privacy, but that's a fallacy because it's a faulty analogy. Now overall, I don't really mind that Steam does this because they give me games I actually do want to play, and I don't really see narrowcasting as that bad of a thing. I just don't really value material objects so maybe that's why advertisements don't entirely have that big of an effect on me.

So, just today on Thursday, the 20th of November 2014, the 3rd episode of the drama I mentioned earlier, Pinocchio just came out. The story revolves around journalism and how a certain media crew ended up killing a mother and many other terrible things. My favorite quote so far by the main character, Choi Dal Po, played by Lee Jong Suk, is when he is lecturing a man from a television show center:

"I don't think of broadcasting as a joke. With one word, you can kill a person. That is what broadcasting is. How would I dare to think that it is a joke? I will give you the answer because you ask. The reason I yielded the last question is because, if I answered the last question correctly, I would have to come to this cesspool-like place again. This place, is swarming with human beings who noisily make groundless speculations. It is filled with people who have mics and cameras around them. And, with only the fact that I'm breathing in the same oxygen as those nauseating human beings, is enough to make me want to die! I hated coming to the broadcasting building more than death. Does that answer your question?"

 This quote is from the second episode where Choi Dal Po goes to a broadcasting station for a game show, and throws the last question of the show. (Spoilers, sorry.) I find this quote

very powerful because speculation and rumors are a very big thing with teenagers and people in general, and I feel that it really gives people all the wrong ideas. Because someone can completely mistake one thing like a simple saying like, "You're going too slow, please speed up." to, "You're very incompetent, please never drive again." And this is what really makes me upset, because people will mistake your true message for something that had no relation to what you had in the first place. It's like looking at an orange carrot and someone saying that it's a radish because they think of radishes. I find that I notice a lot of people mistaking the meaning of one thing for another. And it's gotten to the point where it annoys me to extreme extents. Overall, I believe that this drama is very well made. I would recommend it to anyone who knows of Lee Jong Suk's earlier roles, and to anyone who wants to begin watching Korean dramas. The episodes are very long, but it's way better than what's on American television; advertisements.

Recently, Bill Cosby has been accused of sexual assault on a woman. 

I'm saying "sexual assault" instead of "rape" because most of the websites use this term as a euphemism in place of the word rape. This article in the New York Times uses many euphemisms, such as "sexual assault," "set aside projects," "dropped plans," and many more. Obviously, these are used to lighten the attitude and make things seem less accusatory and have the New York Times seem more neutral. The author also writes "The decision followed a week of revelations about..." the word that is being used for reification is "revelations" which has a very positive ring to it. A use of vagueness and ambiguity are where the author writes, "and did not say that it was directly related to the fusillade..." Where fusillade refers to the accusations placed on Mr. Cosby, and actually means "a series of shots fired or missiles thrown all at the same time or in quick succession." Of course, this also has a secondary meaning to it; with the definition, it seems like a negative term to refer to the accusers as firing weapons, and brings in connotation to bring out a negative view on the women who made accusations on Mr. Cosby. Through this, we can see that while the New York Times author tries to maintain a neutral view on the subject, he slips a bit with the use of his vocabulary and displays his thoughts in a subtle way in a word that most people would not use in everyday English or know the definition of. 

This source has a video within it where the man says "he declined our invitation..." when talking about Bill Cosby being interviewed. Obviously, "declined our invitation" is used in an ambiguous way that makes us think that they politely asked him for an interview, or demanded, that of which we do not know. Also, within the text it reads, "that the comedian sexually assaulted her in 1982." Again, there's the euphemism of "sexually assaulted" instead of what he was actually accused of; rape. 

Overall, I think this whole scandal is really dumb. Janice Dickinson, in an interview in 2006, when asked if she had sex with Mr. Cosby, completely dodged the question here: Dodged And this really makes me question her credibility. Overall, I hate celebrities and the way the media makes them seem like gods.