To this day, scholars have been examining the “nag factor,” which is a child’s natural propensity to repeatedly request items due to familiarity with the specific object. Although many have come to conclusions on why the nag factor can be detrimental, companies continue to take advantage of the impact nagging has on business profits. Therefore, companies find it effective to design products and advertise towards children in order to convince parents support the business by b=spending money to stop the constant nagging.

More specifically, over “17 billion dollars” (CCFC) have gone into child advertising because they are the most profitable audience. Child advertising is beneficial on a corporate scale, yet there are several arguments on whether advertising to children is ethical. The ethics behind this issue are controversial; however, the focus of this paper is to elaborate on the reasons why children are drawn into certain images over others and how businesses formulate products to obtain attention from children.  

Based on the empathic topics discussed in the course, it is intriguing to research how  the development of empathy occurs in children and how this affects what they find appealing in advertisements. The scholar, Martin Hoffman, elaborates on this topic in several of his works. Based on his theory, empathic development occurs in stages. As the child develops, he or she begins to experience feelings like distress and begins to recognize the difference of feelings  between themselves and their counterpart. It is clear that children can feel, but there isn’t a firm understanding on whether or not children are aware of their own emotions while in contact with certain images places in advertisements.

This topic is relevant because children are often categorized as innocent or oblivious, but children are very intelligent. What makes them unique, is the way the express their emotions without consciously knowing how they feel. Another inquiry that arises from this topic is how these companies know what images to utilize in order to evoke certain emotions.  

Works Cited:

Campaign for a Commercial- Free Childhood. “Marketing to Children Overview.” (2017.)

“The Development of Empathy: Hoffman’s Theory.” Unpopular Vegan Essays Archives. October 2007

Hoffman, Martin L. “Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives: Empathy, Justice, and the Law.” Oxford University Press. (2011).

John Hopkins Medical School. “The Nag Factor: How do Children Convince their Parents to Buy Unhealthy Foods” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. (2011).

`

After Reading Jonson’s chapter, “God That Was Awesome,” my group and I decided to revolve our research around whether or not public shaming should be regulated on Social Media. Throughout the chapter, we were given insight on how rapidly social media can escalate situations from an ignorant post, to the destruction of an individual’s reputation. To illustrate, Justine Sacco, a Journalist, make a twitter post commenting on AIDS. Her intentions were to be humorous; however, the response she received did not reflect her motive. As a result, she was lost her career and she was forced to live with the burden of being another victim of public shaming. Based on the examples of public shaming found in the chapter, we began to contemplate on if it is possible to prevent instances like this from occurring by implementing regulations. Because of this, we found two scholarly sources that provide solutions for this question with an argument and concrete evidence.

The first source is a journal entry by  Kristine Gallardo called “Taming the Internet Pitchfork Mob.” Within this reading, the author elaborates how social media has evolved to become this “explosive” (Gallardo) platform that has changed the nature of shaming. Since social media is so accessible, posts and comments pile up quickly, especially if there are several people who feel strongly about the same issue. Most of this time, the owner of the post is targeted instead on meaning of what he or she said. Due to this, that person is ruined by complete strangers.  This source emphasizes the fact that because Instances like this have occurred so frequently, the issue becomes a dichotomy between taking legal steps to control everyone or teaching people to be more cautious about what they put online.

Going along this idea,  second source, “Online Shaming and the Right to Privacy,” by Emily Laidlaw includes a variety of information regarding online platforms and whether people are guaranteed to have freedom while using them. Although this source has several aspects that relate to our research, one thing that stands out is how the author distinguishes between “rightfully knocking someone” (Laidlaw) and humiliation. Rightfully knocking someone basically justifies public shaming on the grounds of punishing someone due to their negative actions. Conversely, humiliation deals with wrongfully attacking someone online when he or she did not deserve it. In relation to our argument, it is important we determine what defines public shaming before focusing on regulations.

Works Cited

Kristine Gallardo. “Taming the Internet Pitchfork Mob: Online Public Shaming, the Viral Media Age, and the Communications Decency Act.” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Tech. L, vol. 19, 2017, 721-746.

Laidlaw, Emily. “Online Shaming and the Right to Privacy.” Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, 2017.

Ronson, Jon. “So, You’ve Been Publicly Shamed.” Riverhead Books, 2015.

In 1997, social media was invented to enable people to connect with others on a large, virtual platform. As social media grew overtime; however, it has become a platform to popularize trends, to share opinions on issues, and to publically humiliate its consumers. The evolution of social media shows that societal values have not become more accommodating to all people, instead all the ignorance that has existed in this country for centuries is just easier to express by the click of a button. As easy as it is to express negativity on social media, it is even easier to respond to it because media is frequently used by millions and has become an aspect of everyday life. It becomes worse when several individuals that share similar opinions converge and direct their comments to a specific person. The more people persist to correct the ignorance, they lose sight of the actual problem. Yet, the question still remains: why is so much effort put into destroying people rather than fixing the issue?

Throughout the chapter, “God That Was Awesome,” in Jon Ronson’s book, the reader is given a breakdown of how rapidly one’s life can be ruined by public shaming on social media platforms. In detail, Justice Sacco, a journalist attempted to gain attention by purposely posting an offensive tweet that reads as, “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” (Ronson, 68). Although her intent was to be humorous, many did not see it that way. Many found it t to be extremely racist and argued that it was an example of white privilege. The response she received eventually escalated—leading to her being fired from her job. Even after she was fired, she still carried the weight of someone who was ruined on the internet. In other words, her life was denounced down to a negative hashtag. Despite the fact that Justine was ruined, her incident is one of the many examples of the effects public shaming has on an individual.

Reading this chapter evokes the question of why many feel as though public shaming is beneficial. It seems as though having the ability to destroy a total stranger anonymously is powerful due to its broad audience.  Also, it produces this satisfactory feeling one is correcting a contributing factor of the wrongness in society. But will attempting to correct one person change the underlying attitudes and beliefs behind the issue? One side of this argument is that since people care about what others think, they’ll become more apprehensive of what they post. This does not exactly change the underlying attitude, but it alters how people with contradicting beliefs interact with one another. Conversely, one may argue, that public shaming forces someone to carry their guilt forever which gradually causes them to re-evaluate their beliefs, words, and actions. Living with permanent embarrassment ultimately changes the way people perceive certain situations and changes their attitude overall.

Works cited

Ronson, Jon. So you’ve been publicly shamed. Riverhead Books, 2016. 6 October 2017

In A Time to Kill, the director, Joel Schumacher, adequately invokes empathy in the viewer in order to tackle the conflicts of racism and the rape culture in America. He thoroughly does this developing the plot of the brutal rape of ten-year-old Tonya Hailey which causes the viewer to empathize based on their concern for the helplessness of rape victims and children.

To elaborate, the empathy invoked in the viewer is real because people generally have a special concern for children and rape victims. Schumacher depicts this horrific scene in a clever way. Firstly, the usage of first person perspective during the rape scene allows the viewer to be in experience what Tonya experienced first-hand. One good explanation of this technique is described by Martin Hoffman. He explains is as, “imaging oneself in another’s place converts the other’s situation into mental images that evoke the same feelings in oneself” (Hoffman, 233). The viewer sees the rape from Tonya’s eyes as if it is happening to them.  In addition to this, the camera switches perspectives so that the viewer is enabled to see the effects of the beating. The images of the swollen eye, blood, and broken bones cause the viewer to feel her distress it is conveyed in the film. This change of perspective is also significant because the camera shift acts as a shift of emotion for the viewer. First, the viewer empathizes by being the victim, then the viewer empathizes as a bystander—witnessing the victim in distress.

Another aspect of the film that invoke empathy the violation of children’s innocence. The rape scene occurred in broad daylight. Usually children are not as cautious and do not expect tragic events to happen during the day; instead they are more apprehensive at night. Also, the director uses the typical scenario of the unsupervised child in an ominous environment. These details are essential because the viewer reacts based on preexisting attitudes towards vulnerable children. In real life situations, children are often preyed on. Because of this, the director incorporates this idea in the film so the viewer can empathize with the character as if she is a real person.  Thus, the film invokes empathy on the viewer

Works Cited

A Time to Kill. Dir. Joel Schumacher. Regency Enterprises, Warner Bros, 1996. DigitalCampus. Web. 20 September 2017

Hoffman, Martin L. “Empathy, Justice, and the Law.” Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological  Perspectives, Amy Coplan and Peter Goldie. University Press, 2011. (230- 254).  4 Sep 2017.