OTM: Playboy Covers Up

This week OTM discussed that starting March 2016 Playboy will no longer have nude spreads.

Physical: Since the beginning of the publication there has been fully nude spreads. 

Psychological: The thought has always been that sex sells, and so far this has been proven true. However recently there has been an increase in sales for publications that aren't as a revealing.

Temporal: Playboy has been leaning toward "No-Nude" for a while now. In 2013 they went "No-Nude" on their website. This transition was only a matter of time. 

Cultural: There has been the argument of whether Playboy is misoginistic or empowering toward women. 

Social: We as a society can find sex as a taboo and capital commodity at the same time. 

When Playboy's website stopped showing their nude spreads their online business quadrupled. Seeing as their sales have gone from 5.6 million dollars in 1975 to 800,000 in 2014.

European countries don't really have to sell sex but to just embrace it. Playboy has done a decent job of embracing sex and celebrating the human body. With Playboy removing all nude spreads is not as shocking as it may seem. It isn't so much censorship but an evolution of sex. This evolution is one that is way behind culturally than in Europe. So in short this transition is for the best.

Climate Change 1.0

    Climate change is nothing new. The plant has been heating up since the beginning of time. However, the more we use our natural resources the faster the planet heats up.  

    There is also a hidden market that comes with climate changes and natural disasters. By this I mean there are multiple movies, tv stations, specials, and foundations that are supposed to bring awareness but only capitalize the issue. 

    I'm not saying the helping is hopeless but the same Reuse-Reduce-Recycle campaign has been used since the 80s. Nothing positive has happened in fact the planet has gotten worse. There has to be a better more effective solution than just making a movie about saving the planet. 

Religion 3.0

    Religion is, according to Merriam-Webster, the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. In 2015 religious belief has become more about mine is better than yours and iconic figures.

   Within these past two months there have been different types of religious conviction shown. The first was Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk, denying marriage licenses to all couples. Davis did this because she felt so strongly that gay couples shouldn't marry and until there is a change no one should marry. The second was when the Pope visited United States. Most people were tuned in  and supportive on what he said. That was until both the Pope and Davis met.

   These two meeting caused some conversation but at the end of the day it shouldn't have. There are bigger problems in the world than the Pope telling Davis not to lose hope and not to give up. Religion shouldn't be about public figures and which one is better. Your belief should be just that your belief.

    Religion used to be about belief that there is a higher power and faith that someone is listening. Now it's either about keeping up with the joneses or who is better than the other. Part of the problem is that there underlying stereotypes for each religion. Religion should never be pointing out the others flaw and using it to your advantage. It should be about acceptance.

OTM: Understanding Abortion Polling

This week On the Media discussed abortion polling and what should be analyzed.

Physical: There have been videos released on how Planned Parenthood does abortion and what they do with the bodies. This has fueled debates between politicians and the public.

Temporal: Planned Parenthood has been in the media not only for the videos but because their funding might be cut off for a year. The timing of abortion polling couldn't have come at a better time with all the political debates.

Psychological: According to past studies, 49% of people are for abortion and 48% are against it. Their reasoning is not formed off of anything but their own personal beliefs.

Social: When the study was looked at again they asked about cost, circumstances, and support. That changed the view an opinion of the 48%.

Cultural: When Roe v. Wade was decided it was never fully understood by some. If there isn't a full understanding than you can't make a concise decision.

John Bayner announced that at the end of October he will be quitting congress. He claims it is to keep leads hip equal, but with the voting of funding for Planned Parenthood coming up you makes you think other wise. People have made their decision about abortion based on personal opinions and belierfs. Which insane because there are multiple aspect to abortion. If you don't know the full argument you make a concise decision. 

Democracy 2.0

    When the founding fathers were creating the structure of the country they feared it becoming a monarchy. So with infulences from philosophers such as John Locke, they decided on a democratic republic. Fast forward to 2015, would the founding fathers recognize the government they created?

    Democracy is a form of government for the people by the people. However, voter turnout is at an all time low. How is this possible when there are so many social media outlets covering the election?

    The founding fathers would be able to see that what they intended has been chopped into bits and pieces. Some don't want to get involved because they feel that is useless. Then there are those use their voice and power for all the wrong reasons. 

    Take for example those who fear electoral college votes. They feel that the government is making their decision for them. Another example would be someone like Kim Davis who will make opinions and actions no matter the law or consequence.

    When the government was first being formed there was the intent for there to be a middle ground of voice, action, and opinion. Now there is constant arguing within the branches and with the people. A lot of this is due to social media outlets.  The news is too bias and the other outlets such as Facebook mainly use meme and satire and is never taken seriously. 

    To fix this has to start with the people caring about what is going. There has to be an investigation on both sides of any argument. This will then help form a well thought out opinion. Creating less fear and more care to vote. Also more voices can be heard. 

    The government will never be exactly like it was over 200 years ago. It will adapt to the public and it participation. With a more informed public there will be a middle ground. This will than be a start to better government.

     

OTM: Debunking Migration Memes

This week On The Media discussed the growing issue of migrant refugees and how they are now becoming memes to either be taken as a joke or to strike fear.

Physical:With more and more refugees coming to European countries the question of their sincerity come up in a lot of  concerned right politicians. They use these memes as a propaganda to get the public to be afraid of refugees and the "true" threat they have.

Psychological: Refugees who migrate to another country do hold a threat that this is just a way to get inside and create a terrorist attack. The other fear is that refugees use up most of the countries free resources creating more economic issues.

Cultural: When European countries opened up to help refugees was for just that to help. Thanks to social media memes there has been a non-stop, underlying joke. This "joking" creates another form of discrimination.

Social: When someone needs and wants help it is not to mooch but to better themselves. The European refugees who have now sought help are being ridiculed because of where they are originated by both the public and the right politicians.

Temporal: Within the past two years there has been an impressive increase in amount of refugees in Europe. The increase has scared some to want to scare others by taking what they think is a satirical approach.

When you ask for help you don't expect to be judged, but in the case of many refugees they are being judged by scared citizens and politicians. The facts are that those who use the system more are citizens themselves, and right politicians who just want things to be "safe" their way seem to forget they can still be attacked with out inside help. 

Well Informed 2.0: Learning 2.0: A Flawed System

To anyone who takes a quick glance at the current school system it would look like there is something wrong. You are prepped and groomed to take and pass standardized test for grades K-12. If you test well then you "qualify" for higher education. The problem is that your "qualifications" mean squat because there are no standardized test past 12th grade. I would know I just graduate high school a little over a year ago from one of the worst school districts in the country.

Most school districts use the system of standardized test such as CRTs and Proficiencies. You can be an honor student with the best credentials but if you score low or fail a standardized test you are not proficient and are held back.

High school graduates are becoming a very small percentage of people. Many students find it hard to focus on something they are never going to use again. It is easier to focus on smart phone distractions. 

Where you live and go to school has an impact on what make important to students. A good example of this is the Clark County School District. Ranking number 50 on the education list. However a high percentage of high school dropouts are to get high paying jobs such as hotel vallets. As well as UNLV has one of the highest hotel management and hospitality programs in the country. Why because this is what is in demand to sustain the states economy.

Learning should not just be about passing a test or obtaining a specific job. It should to better yourself and to challenge your mind. Until that is understood education is doomed to continue to decline.