British Essay Writers do not compromise with the quality, therefore we choose our team members after several recruitment steps including tests, assessments, and interviews. We have a team of competent researchers and qualified writers. Our writing team is known for their quality work within mentioned deadlines and providing non-plagiarized work. They are highly skilled that is why they are able to provide excellent custom essay help. We protect customer rights and follow strict compliance to UK laws. You can get hold of readily available and affordable essay help with us. Academic writing is not the easiest thing in the world, is it? You would choose to study for two hours rather than devoting that time to an in-depth research on a topic you don’t understand. Your professor expects you to combine verifiable academic and scientific resources with your own opinions and come up with unique arguments he has never heard before? If you asked your teachers to write such papers, they would probably search for a way to order them online. As the UK educational system becomes more challenging by the day, the need for a service that delivers the best academic content is greater than ever. Luckily, you already found UKBestEessays – a company that hires talented British writers with expertise in different areas of study. It doesn’t matter what kind of project you need to complete and how soon you are supposed to submit it; we can deal with any challenge. Our company guarantees every client’s satisfaction! You will never be left in the dark about your order. We will provide you with regular updates, and contact you whenever we need more information. The highly rated customer support system of EssayFactory.uk is available through web chat, email, and phone, 24 hours a day, even on holidays and weekends. The highly trained professional customer support specialists can answer any question you might have regarding your order, and are happy to help with academic assignments. Lyndsey, Crewe Aug 2015 I have been using EssayFactory.uk for two years now. I work part time, and writing essays used to stress me out. I cannot spend endless nights trying to meet the requirements and researching. I find the writers of the company very accommodating and knowledgeable. Natalie, York Sep 2015 for a 15% discount from top UK writers! We, at EssayFactory.uk will never use papers that have already been written to revamp the content. All the essays are written from scratch, to meet the specific requirements of the order placed by you. We will be happy to discuss your initial ideas and the rubric before you would order the paper to ensure that the writer will deliver the work as if it was completed by you. EssayFactory.uk offers help with college and university assignments, services related to essay writing and fast turnaround times. Our experts can support students struggling with meeting the standards and deadlines of the academic assignments. Unlike other essay writing services, we pay attention to details. We match the style of writing to the student's, while making sure that the professional academic tone is maintained. Kate, Manchester Jan 2016 I have ordered management essays from EssayFactory, and they are top quality. I saved a lot of time researching, and got the order completed well before the deadline. Recommended company. Our academic writers can work with students across every subject and at every level. We can provide the support you need with undergraduate essays, Masters essays, LLB essays and LLM essays. In fact, we have worked with many students over the course of multiple degrees, offering guidance and expertise every step of the way.
0 Comentarios
Social-information processing is predicated on the notion that people form ideas based on information drawn from their immediate environment, and the behavior of co-workers is a very salient component of an employee's environment. Therefore, observing frequent citizenship episodes with in a workgroup is likely to lead to attitudes that such OCB is normal and appropriate. Consequently, the individual is likely to replicate this ‘normal' behavior. Want access to quizzes. flashcards. highlights. and more? “Negative Effects of Reality Shows.” EHow. Demand Media, 07 Oct. 2010. Web. 08 Sept. 2014. If we try to figure out what is so entertaining about reality shows, we can reach this conclusion: it is the humiliation and mocking of the contestants that makes people amused. Indeed, if we analyze such a popular show as American Idol, we will easily notice many episodes of this program are dedicated to making fun of the contestants, whose performing abilities were lower compared to other participants (which does not necessarily mean they are deprived of talent, or are worse in any other way). This can create an audience (which mostly consists of teenagers) that rate and assess people based on their qualities, such as appearance or skills; this model forms a solid basis for discriminating behavior and a lack of tolerance (eHow). People can also become more involved with the shows than just watching. With technology such as the internet and web cams, people can watch reality shows 24 hours a day. There are also chat rooms and message boards for people to talk about their favorite reality show at any time. This allows the viewer to follow and interact with the show for more than thirty minutes. The show came become part of their everyday lives. Sitcoms usually portray perfect families who can solve any problem in thirty minutes. Reality shows show real people and how they react to different situations. Many people are fascinated with watching how people react to different environments and different people. It is unpredictable and surprising. Every episode people are tuned in and curious as to what is going to happen next, which keeps them watching week after week. It leaves them imagining what is going to happen next, or what might have happened if someone had made a different decision. They wait in anticipation for the next week’s episode, wondering who will win the money and who will be chosen to go on to the next round. Another popular show, Temptation Island, sends unmarried couples to a tropical island to see if they will cheat on their partner with other sexy singles. People seem to be captivated by all the fighting, drama and random hook-ups. It is interesting to see who is still together and who broke up at the end of the show. Producers of reality TV shows are – in one word - manipulative. With technologies advancing faster than ever before, they use a range of tactics to exploit our opinions as viewers. Let's start with 'The X-factor' shall we? Less beautiful contestants are portrayed in a negative light and will become unpopular with viewers. They will now be voted out, leaving the more beautiful contestants to receive more votes, thus increasing money earned. Another apparatus often utilised by unsympathetic producers is editing. Please review, perhaps voice your opinion on the matter? -Moonlite Streak- In conclusion, reality TV is nothing more than a cruel hoax, convincing us of fantasies and the like. It has been carefully set up to manipulate our mindsets and convince us of certain opinions. It is warily constructed to predict the outcomes of events and is meticulously written so as not to attract attention to the predetermined script. We must spread awareness of this matter, and one day overcome it. After all, if we don't expose the trick, then who will? A/N: And there you go. If everything is premeditated before-hand, does that make reality TV real? If the contestants are picked due to an unusual personality, do they still count as real, everyday people? If everything is edited before making it onto out telvision sets, does it really count as real-life? Rated: Fiction K - English - Suspense/Humor - Words: 996 - Reviews: 10 - Published: 8/24/2011 - Status: Complete - id: 2946108 Author's Note: Hey guys, I'm back again with another one-shot - this time talking about the falsities (is that a word?) of reality TV. a bit more serious than my Mobile Phone guide, but without further ado, I present to you, the mind-boggling truths behind reality TV. But in the end, the choice to believe it is yours. Here is a standard misconception: since the noblest forms of artistic endeavor are fictional and dramatic (the novel, film, painting, plays), it can be assumed that the major, proper products of television will be its dramatic entertainments, the sitcom and the hour-long drama. I think this is wrong, and very possibly wrong for a whole number of reasons. Drama has a different meaning in a commercial medium where “programming” came into being as bacon to wrap the real morsels of steak, the 90-second advertisements. It means something different when it exists in a medium we switch on to see “what’s on TV” rather than to find a given single work; when the goal is more often to watch television than to watch a particular drama and then turn it off. Whatever can be done in the name of charity or medicine or health will allow the reinsertion of the norm into further spheres of privacy. Fox is said to be planning Who Wants to Live Forever?. a “program that predicts when participants will die and then helps them extend their lifespan through dieting, exercise, [and] breaking bad habits.” The circle is closed, and “reality” here no longer lets us observe our real life, but its modifications in the name of a statistical life to come. The private matters we can’t, or shouldn’t, see flow in to replace our public witnessing of each other. And the festival is no longer of ourselves, but of phantasms projected by industries of health, beauty, home, all industries requiring our obedience; worse than the monsters of drama, because they don’t admit their degree of fiction. Until, that is, one began to see what the capital-rich networks would make of it. For they got into the act, like dinosaurs in an inland sea, and they made the waters heave. They developed the grandiose second ideal-type of filmed reality, courtesy of bigger budgets and serial episodes: the show of the group microcosm. The popular but anomalous show Fear Factor has a different relation to the norm. Fear Factor adds an outside rule to sport. All the sports we watch on TV (football, baseball, golf, tennis) were invented and enjoyed by participants before being transposed to the small screen for the benefit of spectators. Fear Factor seems in contrast to be a show of “sports” devised on behalf of spectators rather than participants. Its goal is the pleasure of the viewer. And its standard turns out to be a kind of norm no one would dare articulate or declare respectable—that television, playing the role here of the industry, makes spectators long to see the human body in postures and activities it would pain individuals to see in person. How could we have known that it’s pleasurable to watch chiseled hardbodies and women in bikinis be forced to eat cow spleen or writhe in boxes of slugs, and that these delights of sexual sadism could go along with the wash-you-clean thrills of spinning platforms, ladders hanging from helicopters, and speedboat draggings, which end with the contestants’ bodies hurled into rivers or lakes? ↩ “Voyeurism” was never the right word for what it means to watch these shows. You feel some identification with the participants, and even more sympathy with the situation. “And if I were pulled over—and if I were set up on a blind date—how would I fare?” But primarily, and this is the more important thing to say about reality TV, there is always judgment. You can’t know the deeds your countrymen will do until you see them; and once these deeds are seen, you won’t fail to judge and retell them. Reality TV is related in this respect to the demimonde of The People’s Court. Divorce Court. Judge Hatchett ,and Judge Judy. Classy critics hate these shows too, or claim to. I think that’s a mistake. The way in which all reality TV—and much of daytime TV—can be “real” across social classes is in its capacity for judgment. The “friends” on Friends were an ideological group, propagandists for a bland class of the rich in a sibling-incest sitcom. The show didn’t allow you to take their idiocy to task, nor ever to question the details of how they paid their rent or their hairdresser’s bill, or how they acted on the “outside.” If only Judge Judy could sit in judgment of them, once! If only Cops would break down their door and throw them against the wall! Monica, you ignorant Skeletor, eat a sandwich! Ross, you vainglorious paleontologist, read a book! You mortuary creep. Truly, the judge shows have a vengeful appeal: they gather every inept, chiseling, weaseling, self-focused sort of person you meet in your daily life and, counting on each one’s stupidity and vanity to get him up into the dock, they yell at him. It was latent in the grand-scale dating shows, these contests that brought in the single judge and red roses and arbitrary rules and an image of romantic love from somewhere in the minds of Hallmark: but who knows, maybe this was close enough to the values of dreamy romance to form some people’s preexisting reality. In American Idol. though, you see the strong beginning of the reality show of the third type. American Idol was the best, and the most insinuating, of the industry shows because it took one of the basic categories of common endeavor, that Rousseau loved well—a singing contest, the commonplace sibling of a beauty or dancing or athletic contest. Everyone sings, if only in the shower—and the footage of the worst contestants made clear that the contest did include all of us, that the equivalent of singing in the shower was being considered, too, on the way to the final idol. The show had “America” judge, by casting the final votes, en masse. Yet it used professional judges in the meantime, a panel of allegorical experts, Simon Cowell (rhymes with “scowl”; the Stern Judge; George III), Paula Abdul (the Universal Sexy Mommy; Betsy Ross), and Randy Jackson (the Spirit of Diversity). Allegorically, America would free itself from the tyranny of the English King, having learned his wisdom, pay due homage to its own diversity, and enjoy the independence to make its own choice—which the hands-tied Englishman’s production company would have to live with, and distribute to record stores. Poor George III! What one really learned was that, unlike a singing contest in the high school gym, the concern of the recording industry was not just, or no longer, whether someone could sing. It was whether a contestant was fitted to the industry, malleable enough to meet the norms of music marketing. The curtain was pulled away from the Great Oz, and the public invited to examine his cockpit and vote which lever or switch to pull next. As it turns out, it is really no less pleasant to choose a winner to suit the norms of music marketing, than to choose on individual talent. One was still choosing, and the idol would still be ours. An idol of the marketplace, to be sure, but still our representative American idol. This is one way to come to terms with your fellow citizens. Much reality TV, by contrast, communicates a relative openness of judgment, though judgment is its one constant—and does so also by its wider identity of situation between the viewer and those before the cameras. (Nearly everybody has dated, and, from rich to poor, nearly everybody fears the police when driving and will call on them when threatened.) Reality TV’s judgment falls on “another oneself,” however much one retains the right to disown and ridicule this nitwitted fellow-citizen. Nowadays, at every level of our society, there is a hunger for judgment. Often this becomes summary judgment—not so much the wish to know the truth, but the brutal decisionism that would rather be wrong than stay in suspension. This is the will not to deliberate but to sentence. In the political realm, it has influenced the shape of the current disaster. Its soft manifestations own the therapeutic talk shows, in the sniffling and nose wiping of a Dr. Phil. where the expert is never at a loss. He will not say: “No, your situation is too messed up for me to advise you; I have a similar problem; think for yourself.” Whereas the cheapest and rawest reality TV offers you a chance to judge people like you, people who do lots of the same things you do. It is cheap, it is amoral, it has no veneer of virtue, it is widely censured and a guilty pleasure, and it can be more educational and truthful and American than most anything else, very suitable for our great republic. The point of these shows was not just how people would be altered, but that they could be altered. As the Six Million Dollar Man introduction used to say, “We have the technology. ” but what was needed was the rationale. When this transdermal insertion of the norm into average people came to seem suspect, the networks increasingly devoted episodes to already hideously ugly and disfigured people, so that the norm could be disguised as charity or medical necessity. But the greater success proved to be the subtle turn, with charitable aspect intact, to demolishing and rebuilding people’s homes rather than their faces, in the adjunct called Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. which supersized existing home-decorating reality shows like Trading Spaces (on which two neighbors agree to redecorate one room in each other’s home). Extreme Makeover would get at privacy in one way or another; if not through the body then through the private space that shelters it. A team of experts came in to wreck your shabby domicile and rebuild it. The dwellings that resulted were no longer homes, but theme houses; instead of luxuries, the designers filled rooms with stage sets keyed to their ten-minute assessments of the residents’ personalities: “Little Timmy wants to be a fireman, so we made his room look like it’s on fire!” As long as the homeowners were poor or handicapped enough, anything was a step up. The show has been an enormous hit. We were sure the abundance of channels would bring on stations of pure environmental happiness, carrying into our homes the comforts everyone craves: the 24-hour Puppy Channel, the Sky Channel, the Ocean Channel, the Baby Channel—showing nothing but frolicsome puppies, placid sky, tumultuous ocean, and big-headed babies. It never happened. And yet cable TV did indeed get cut up for small pleasures, in the advertisement of more utilitarian interests, on the Food Network, the InStyle Network, and Home and Garden Television (HGTV).(Natural beauty took hold on cable only in the pious slideshows of the Christian channels, where Yosemite is subtitled by 1st Corinthians.) In this underlying dream, we were neither exactly wrong nor right. The promise of the 500 channels went to waste. The techno-utopians’ fantasies shifted to the internet. Nothing like the paradise we hoped for came to fruition on TV, that’s for sure. Instead we got reality TV. The microcosms were large-scale endeavors, financed by FOX, MTV, NBC, ABC, CBS, and the WB. (The other shows had been cheaply made and served up to UHF and low-budget cable stations by syndication, or, like Cops. run in the early barebones years of FOX and retained.) MTV’s The Real World. which put teens in a group house with cameras, was the earliest and most incomplete example. The pun in its “real world” title meant both that you would see how non-actors interacted (initially fascinating) and that this was, for many of the children on the show, their first foray away from home (pretty boring, after the umpteenth homesick phone call). MTV’s goal was to make up a “generation,” not a society, as MTV is the most aggressive promoter of one version of youth as a wholesale replacement of adult life. From environmental pollution to spiritual pollution, we can no longer ignore our failing systems and institutions. From an Enron economy with ballooning budget deficits (which is really a reflection of a deficit in integrity) and a vanishing social security system (which creates social insecurity) to politicians doing what's politically correct instead of what's in the best interest of the community, to a failing education system as reflected in poor test scores which lag behind those of other nations, to the break-down of the family system (where kids find themselves home alone growing up with their peers, gangs or TV without nurturing parents to instill in them solid wholesome values system), we are planning to fail by default. America could use a reality check if only to reexamine our value system, which is out of balance and has led to social ills and failing systems and institutions. In a conflicted state of uncertainty, doubt and fear, it's only natural for people to feel overwhelmed, wishing to escape from reality. However, reality TV proves only an artificial relief. It's obvious that we are looking for love (real joy, fulfillment, meaning and purpose) in all the wrong places. In a culture that demands instant gratification, and relief from everyday anxieties, a quick fix (for coping), seems to be the chosen drug of choice. The popularity of reality TV shouldn't come as a surprise These days there is a growing trend towards reality TV shows that are based on external shallow values. With the appeal of junk food, it has a powerful hypnotic effect even on the strongest minds. But while reality TV may seem like a harmless form of entertainment, the damage (which is done so subtly) is very powerful and therefore it deserves a closer look. So the question is 'Do we really need another reality TV show or perhaps it's time for a reality check?' |
ArchivosCategorías |