Team 1: Anti-Mass Media

During Wednesday's group activity I was part of group 1 which came up with the arguments against mass media. Group 2 was of course pro-mass media and in their defense they suggested that although an audience can and will be socialized by mass media it is normally in a positive way, such as keeping people up to date on certain trends and news going on around the world. However,  more often than not, the socialization that occurs is a negative one. The media constantly pounds into the audiences (group or individual) that in order to be part of the "in" crowd, or to be like your favorite celebrity, drink this liquor, smoke this brand of cigarettes, buy these clothes, or buy this new car to be fulfilled in life. It makes for a materialistic, self centered society. The other question was how does mass media impact social change and/or social change. Group 1 argued that in the recent news, mass media has helped people become involved in volunteer efforts and donating to national disasters like the earthquake in Haiti or the tsunami in Indonesia. However, one could argue what about the millions of people who live in third world countries where technology is either not as advanced as it is in say the United States, or there is no access to technology (Internet, television, cell phones) at all. Citizens of these countries are not affected by the media, so there is no way to start any sort of social movement or social change.

Human Rights Violations:Child Labor

The topic I chose for this assignment is the issue of child labor laws, or the lack of them in different areas of the world, especially third world countries. For Americans, I'm sure not to much thought is given when you wear a pair of Nike sneakers, or slip on clothing purchased from Wal Mart or manufactured by Hanes. All three of these companies though are on the long list of companies that violate child labor laws. Although these are all American companies and brand names, they all outsource to international countries where I assume it is less expensive to pay these worker's salaries, and unfortunately certain laws and regulations concerning human rights are not enforced. According to the International Labor Organization in a report from 2009, an estimated 200 million children in over 80 countries were forced to work in unsafe working conditions. Young children being forced to work is clearly a human rights organization just in the simple fact that they are being forced. In many situations these vulnerable children are working in tiny, cramped factories with little sunlight, working 8 to 10 hours shifts if not longer, which leaves no time for school and getting an education. Now, I'm sure in a lot of cases the children come from poor, disadvantaged families living in poverty that need the extra income that their children bring in, however even if it is absolutely necessary for these children to work, their environment still needs to be a safe and humane one, with room still to attend school. The American companies that take their business overseas need to make it clear that they will not stand for human rights violations as long as their name is involved, and insist that labor laws are properly regulated within their companies and with their employees. Im sure that critics, mainly those in these third world countries, may use cultural relativism as an excuse for this inhumane practice. Arguing that it is normal for children to share the burden of bringing in income, that they are given breaks and proper pay are still no excuse for children to miss out their childhood all in the name of a few dollars.