Subliminal messages are more effective than supraliminal stimuli because they tap into the unconscious mind and therefore control human behavior.

Subliminal messages are words, pictures, or sounds that are secretly inserted into media. The way it is done secretly is usually through quick flashes of text/pictures on a screen or audio that is too low for the conscious mind to comprehend. Instead the subliminal messages go past the absolute threshold and only the subconscious mind can understand it.

The goal of advertisers who use subliminal messaging is to appeal to the subconscious mind with the hopes of getting their consumer to buy the product. However critics of subliminal messaging argue that it is ineffective and that supraliminal messages are the best way in getting consumers. Also there has been controversy on whether or not subliminal messaging is ethical.

Supraliminal messages are more effective than subliminal because the messages are clear, direct, and outright, therefore more powerful.
There are two sides to the argument. People who don't believe that subliminal messaging is effective, jump to the conclusion that if you can't comprehend something than your subconscious mind can't either. Instead they believe that supraliminal messages are the most effective way in capturing consumers.

Supraliminal stimuli are messages that are below the absolute threshold and can be comprehended by the conscious mind. People who support using supraliminal stimuli in advertising argue that it is more effective because the messages are clear, direct, and outright therefore more powerful.

For example the Amazon logo on the left is an example of supraliminal messaging. The clear message that Amazon is trying to show is that is sells everything from a to z and the arrow is the smile on the customers face when they buy a product.

This message, although not the first thing that a person would see, is clear and once you see it you can't ignore it. It keeps a constant reminder in your head that Amazon sells a variety of products and will leave you with a smile on your face after shopping.

Also people are skeptical of subliminal messaging because the term was coined from a hoax by Dr. James Vicary. He conducted a "study"  where he claimed to flash the phrases "Drink Coca-Cola" and "Hungry? Eat Popcorn" various times throughout a movie. The result was an 18.1% increase in Coca-Cola sales and 57.8% increase in popcorn purchases.

When asked to repeat this test to prove its accuracy, Vicary eventually admitted to providing false data. Critics then expressed doubt that the experiment had even occurred and came up with the conclusion that subliminal messaging is ineffective.


Subliminal messaging is more effective but possibly unethical because it taps into the unconscious mind and therefore controls our behavior.

The alternate side of the argument is that subliminal messaging is effective and can actually control our human behavior. When a person has to make a decision their conscious mind thinks of the positives and the negatives and then comes up with the best solution.

Subliminal messaging however taps into the unconscious mind which does not have any reasoning skills. It can't determine what's right from wrong so instead it takes the information it receives as fact.

There has been a huge controversy surrounding the use of subliminal messaging because some people find it unethical. Since it does tap into the unconscious mind and we can't control the decisions our unconscious mind makes, people believe that it should be banned. They see it as some sort of mind control and they find that unethical.

Despite the fact that people find it unethical, subliminal messaging is still legal in the United States. The FCC issued a policy statement in 1974 stating that subliminal messaging is deceptive and contrary to public interest.

However, policy statements aren't enforceable by law so they wouldn't be justified in fining a company for not complying with the statement.

Since 1974 there has been only one instance where the FCC has acted on a subliminal message complaint and that was in 1987.

In 1987, a radio station in Dallas, Texas played a series of eight minute subliminal messages on why people should quit smoking. They played the messages simultaneously with regular music. After a complaint from the American Cancer Society, the FCC gave the radio station a mere slap on the wrist  by publishing a letter 5 months later saying they don't agree with what was done.

Bush administration denies that subliminally putting the word "rats"  in a political ad can influence opinions, but case study proves otherwise.

One controversial example of subliminal messaging is the controversial 2000 political ad campaign for George W. Bush.

At the end of the video (around :23) you will see the word "rats" flash on the screen before seeing the full word "bureaucrats". This caused a lot of controversy for the Bush administration. Alex Castellanos, who made the campaign, said he tried making the ad visually appealing by fading in the word "bureaucrats" and the fact that "rats" appeared was purely a coincidence.

The Bush administration also argued that the campaign was about health care not rodents and that subliminally putting in the word "rats" would be ineffective.

Psychologists experimented with a fairly similar situation and tried to see if subliminally putting words in an image would effect how others perceive a politician.

In an experiment titled, "RATS, We Should Have Used Clinton: Subliminal Priming in Political Campaigns" , psychologist Joel Weinberger determined that the subliminal word "RATS" increased negative ratings of an unknown politician.

He made the 91 participants of his study stare at an X on a computer screen which would be replaced by a picture of a fake politician. Right before the image appeared the participants were presented with one of four subliminal messages (RATS, STAR, ARAB, or XXXX).

Then a photograph of a man with a shirt and tie was shown for five seconds. After they were given ten evaluation questions on a seven point scale from completely agree to completely disagree.

To prove that the message was subliminal, Weinberger gave his participants seven choices on what they saw during the subliminal stimulation.  Despite that words are easier to recognize than recall, only three participants correctly guessed their word. 52 of them thought they saw XXXX and 33 guessed that nothing was shown subliminally.

The results of the experiment determined that a word that was subliminally placed in a message affected the behavior of its participants. Showing the negative word "RATS" proved to cause a negative response of an unknown politician.

After a case study, Dutch psychologist concludes that subliminal messaging works best when the message is goal-relevant. 

Dutch psychologist Johan Karremans came up with the conclusion that subliminal messaging is effective and works best when the message is goal-relevant after conducting an experiment with 105 volunteers.

First, Karremans made all of his participants thirsty by giving them salted candy. Then they had to look at a screen full of flashing images of a string of capitol "B's" and count how many times they saw a lowercase "b". In between these flashing images was a subliminal message. One group were shown "Lipton Ice" and the control group were shown the random word "Nipeic Tol".

Next, Karremans asked the participants what they would like to drink, either "Lipton Ice" or "Spa Rood", which are both popular brand names that are known to be thirst-quenching. Only 20% of the control group chose Lipton Ice while a whopping 80% of the other group( that was shown the subliminal message) chose Lipton Ice.

However, when conducting this experiment with 61 non-thirsty volunteers, 30% of the control group chose Lipton Ice and only about half of the other group(that was shown the subliminal message) chose Lipton Ice.

This made Karremans draw the conclusion that subliminal messaging may not have complete control over us but it is most effective when the message relates to a goal that you are trying to pursue. In this case that would be quenching your thirst.

Conclusion
Supraliminal messages are used by company's in today's society but subliminal messages are more effective. With the case study by Weinberger, it has been proven that subliminal messages can have an effect on human behavior. And the case study by Karremans proves that it has an even bigger effect when the message is goal-relevant.

There is a debate on whether or not subliminal messaging is ethical but at the end of the day it is still legal. If it's legal then why aren't companies using it to get consumers to buy their products?

Ultimately, the reason why many companies choose not to use subliminal messaging may be because of it's brainwashing power and that getting caught would cause negative publicity.

listen to ‘E-portfolio Summary’ on Audioboo

Subliminal messaging has an effect on the human mind and can possibly control our behavior

I. I'll explain what subliminal messaging is
         a. Explain how it is too fast for the conscious mind to notice
         b. Explain how it affects the subconscious mind
         c. Describe the controversy over subliminal messaging

*interview answer to question 1 which gauges the expert's opinion on the ethics of subliminal messaging*

II. Explain why people don't believe it affects behavior
         a. Present argument that if you can't understand it, your subconscious mind can't understand it    either
         b. Briefly discuss how the idea of subliminal messaging came about with the James Vicary hoax experiment

*explanatory picture to go along with what is discussed here*

III. Explain why people believe it does affect behavior
        a. Reiterate that it affects the subconscious mind and go into how the subconscious mind affects behavior
        b. Present and explain 2 case studies

*interview answer to question 2 which gauges the expert's opinion on a case study and whether or not they believe subliminal messaging is effective*

IV. Conclusion
       a. Talk about how it may not have complete control over us but will have an effect on you if you're already motivated to pursue a goal
      b. Briefly reiterate the expert's points

listen to ‘Audio Summary ’ on Audioboo

Audio Summary

listen to ‘Audio Summary’ on Audioboo

Surveillance law reforms are imminent after the National Security Agency was caught breaking into links that connect Yahoo and Google data centers.

NSA is a government agency that collects information from technology users. 

With the increase of technological use, privacy in the digital age has become a growing concern for users. For those who don't know, the NSA (National Security Agency) is a government agency that spies on what people are posting on social media sites, phone call records, internet traffic etc. 

Phone companies are required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to give information on telephone calls upon request and on a daily basis regardless of whether they are suspected of wrongdoing. This information includes location data, time of the call, call duration, and unique identifiers.They can also check data from internet traffic. With XKEYSCORE software the NSA can see basically everything one does on the internet. From email to social media posts, to website visited the XKEYSCORE software helps the NSA easily track what internet users are doing without reason. 

There has always been controversy over whether this is an invasion of privacy and that they do more potential harm than good. However, since so many people are using technology in today's world the debate on whether there should be restraints on the NSA's power is bigger than ever. I believe new standards need to be set in order to protect the privacy of media users because including the upcoming example, time and time again the NSA has been caught exploiting their power. 

NSA breaks into communication links that connect Yahoo and Google data centers.
This past week the NSA was caught in a huge scandal when former employee Edward Snowden revealed that they have secretly broken into links that connect Yahoo and Google data. This means that they have access to information from hundreds of millions of user accounts from all over the globe. They can see who sent and received emails as well as the text, audio, or video that are in those emails. The fact that this was done secretly and to the whole world is shady. If this was done solely to a specific criminal in pursuit then it would be justifiable but it wasn't.

What's even more interesting and shady is that there is already a system in place for the situation I've presented above. There is a program called PRISM which gives the government front-door access to information on sites such as Google and Yahoo upon request. Facebook for example has given private data of between 18,000 and 19,000 users to law enforcement. So if the government was trying to catch a criminal they could've just proved in court why it was necessary and then be given access to these sites. Therefore, why did the NSA break into communication links when they could've just asked for information? I believe the NSA is simply exploiting their power and therefore invading the privacy of everyone across the globe.

Tech Leaders want restraints on NSA's power and White House agrees
After this huge news that the NSA is secretly infiltrating into Yahoo and Google, the six leading technology companies have demanded for restraints on the NSA's power. Facebook, Google, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, and AOL have sent a letter to Congress conveying their disapproval of NSA's growing power. They want to take action in preventing the NSA from exploiting their powers. Some ideas brought up by these technology companies are to stop the NSA from collecting phone records of millions of Americans. They also want privacy protection programs to be enhanced and a special court to oversee the NSA, ensuring that they are not exploiting their power. 

The White House indicated in a report Tuesday that it would support congressional efforts to limit some  surveillance practices by the NSA. They believe that it is necessary in order for Americans to be comfortable doing whatever they want when using technology.

Conclusion

For all the reasons stated above it is clear that there should be standards set to restrain the NSA's power. The NSA should be allowed to spy and wiretap criminals but have no justifiable reason for spying on innocent people across the globe. It is an invasion of privacy and unconstitutional. In fact the NSA has been caught at least once violating the Constitution on unlawful search and seizure. So what can be done to stop it? I believe that the major technology leaders going to Congress directly and demanding a change is the best way to do it so I'm happy it's being done. They've recently taken a step to increasing privacy for media users and we'll see if it can lead to a big change in how our government surveils us. 

TMZ photo makes fans believe there are bitter feelings between Kris and Bruce Jenner but ABC News shows that they're happy as friends

Photographs have a huge impact on how we view and perceive a story. Things like focus and clarity, framing, lighting, camera angles, size, subjects, and even associate meanings can all make a reader interpret a story in different ways. One recent event that occurred this week was the splitting of celebrities Bruce and Kris Jenner. Hundreds of news sites and blogs covered the story and gave the latest information on how Bruce and Kris are feeling post break-up. Two in particular were TMZ and ABC News.

Through an image TMZ shows that Kris and Bruce have bitter feelings towards each other

TMZ is a notorious celebrity news sites which has a team of paparazzi photographers who go out and look for the latest news in entertainment. The team takes any picture, no matter how candid or up-close and personal to use for their stories to ultimately draw in readers. Unsurprisingly TMZ was one of the first to broadcast the news that Bruce and Kris had split. They composed two images to form the picture below.

The picture of Kris has darker lighting and that coupled with her expression gives off an impression to the reader that she is mad or angry about the split. Photography-wise Bruce's picture is quite the opposite. His picture is clear, focused and has harsh bright lighting, but this is done to give the viewer a clear picture of his expression. The fact that the lighting is bright and harsh kind of shows that the spotlight is on him. The public eye is on him to see how he handles the split. The shot is zoomed-in on his face and the look in his eyes along with the fact that he is biting on his nails shows worry, stress, and even annoyance. 

 The information TMZ has provided in follow-up articles correlates with the impression that the reader gets from the picture. However is this information correct? No one truly knows but one could say it's not strictly off the fact that the picture is before the split. 

Through an image ABC News shows that Kris and Bruce are still happy as friends post split

ABC News, who most would consider a more credible source for information also had a news story about the event. They said that even though Kris and Bruce have split, there is no animosity between the two and that they are actually friends. They even posted a photo (left) from Kris's instagram of her, Bruce, and his sons with the caption, "Another amazing night @brodyjenner @sprandoni and Bruceeeeeee!!! Too fun I love you guys!!! Best hearts #sorryTMZgotitwrongAGAINLOL". 

Even without reading the caption, based off the picture the viewer get the impression that the two are happy with each other. The photo is again zoomed in on their faces to show their expressions but unlike the professional photo from TMZ, everyone looks happy in this picture. The lighting is very warm which creates a feeling of relaxation and friendliness as opposed to the stress and anger that TMZ's picture conveys. 

Conclusion

The actual truth to this story probably lies somewhere in the middle. Through various photography techniques, TMZ's professional picture makes it seems like they have bitter feelings and hate each other while ABC's amateur picture makes it seem like they're best friends. They did split for a reason so I'm sure they aren't the best of friends but they don't hate each other either. 

People can make the case that ABC News's photo is completely staged by Kris to make fans believe that they are still happy with each other. While she did have control of things such as the lighting, I don't think she'd lie about the situation. If the two actually did hate each other it'd boost ratings for their hit show Keeping Up with the Kardashians. 

TMZ used their image to attract readers while ABC used Kris's picture to shed light on the "truth". This is one clear example of how different pictures can affect a reader's perception on the same event.

It is not possible to be addicted to the internet because people have control over their actions.

An addiction is when a person is not able to control what what they are doing without help due to mental/psychological conditions. After the first internet rehab program opened recently, a debate has sparked on whether or not it is actually possible to be addicted to the internet. Using the definition of addiction I don't think it's possible to be addicted to the internet however I do think it's possible for people to use the internet habitually and become very dependent on it. I for one can attest to that. When I went on a Caribbean cruise this summer for two weeks I dreaded not having my phone and other digital media. I couldn't last without it so I bought a international data plan and paid to use the cruise's wifi as well. Other people who were on the cruise who didn't pay for data plans and wifi couldn't wait to go home just so they can have their laptops, phones, and other digital technology. This shows a dependency not an addiction with the internet. Everyone survived without digital media but it was difficult due to everyone being habituated to using it. People like digital media and don't find it harmful which is why they don't choose to stop using it.

At home I don't find it necessary to govern the use of technology because I feel like people should be able to choose how much and how often they use it. However I feel like it would be helpful if the use of technology was governed in school. Certain social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram should be blocked by the wi-fi in classroom settings to prevent students from being tempted to go on them during class. I do believe that the use of technology is more helpful than distracting in class though. Those who want to learn would use technology to their advantage in class and those who don't would go on social media sites. That would happen regardless of having technology governed in class or not. The people who want to learn should be able to control themselves from getting distracted by technology. Therefore technology is helpful in speedy and efficient note-taking as well as getting up to date information and should be used in the classroom.

Passive mediums like television have greater effects on media users than video games

From television to video games it seems like violence is being featured more and more, but at what cost? A hot topic brought up a lot in today's "media friendly" society is how media is actually harming society and making us induce in more violent acts. Studies have already proven this to be true. In a study described in Converging Media, Albert Bandura shows through the "Bobo doll" lab that children who are exposed to violence are likely to repeat the behavior they have witnessed.  The real question is what has a greater effect, passive mediums like television, or highly interactive mediums like video games?

Video games are a form of highly interactive media violence but just because its more interactive doesn't mean it results in more violence compared to television. Kids know that video games are fake. In video games such as Call of Duty you can kill someone and then they come back to life with literally a click of a button. This may desensitize society to violence but it doesn't necessarily result in aggression.

Television is a completely different story. Humans become entrapped with storylines and sometimes don't even realize that the show they're watching is fake. There is a positive correlation between television-violence viewing and aggressive behavior. One reason for that, brought up in a Canadian opinion letter, is Emmy-award winning shows like The Sopranos and Dexter glorify violence and say that it's justifiable when trying to defeat the "bad guys". This attempt to justify violence of any kind is just not okay. It leads to misconceptions by real-life killers of who truly are the "bad guys" which ultimately leads to the deaths of many innocent people.

Television shows and movies aren't the only problem. An interesting article on nj.com brings up the point that news television stations also lead to violent acts. News stations constantly talk about crimes and violence because it attracts viewers. But that's the problem. Mass murderers are trying to outdo each other in hopes of becoming the next big "star". If less publicity were given to such events maybe that'd lower the likelihood of people doing it.

As stated before, an experiment conducted by Albert Bandura concluded that children are likely to imitate behaviors they witness. Another statistic in Converging Media states that by age twelve, the average American child will see 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on television. Those two facts alone show the great effects passive mediums like television have over highly interactive mediums like video games.

Sources:
http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2012/08/opinion_media_saturation_glori.html