Scooby Doo Media Literacy Assessment

 1. What assumption or beliefs do Scooby Doo's creators have that are reflected in the content

    The stereotypes and tropes of the characters are clear assumptions that likely were not even conscious decisions to write into the characters. For example, Velma is the nerdy one, and so she wears glasses, acts shy, and is less traditionally "attractive" than Daphne. Fred is strong, tall, and able bodied and so he often takes charge as the perceived leader of the group.

  and 2. how does this make you feel, based on how similar or different you are from the people portrayed in the media product?

    Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a more diverse cast, but I'm also of the mind that it doesn't really matter whether or not they change the cast now. Often times representation is best left subtle rather than building the whole character around being different from the rest of the group. If they were to change the characters now, I feel like they'd end up making it over the top and doing more harm than good for the communities they try to represent. This isn't to say that representation shouldn't be included in children's shows, but rather to say that characters should be introduced in the future to assist. To be fair to the writers though, the more recent Scooby Doos do a bit of a better job of trying to lean away from these stereotypes more by presenting the characters a little differently. This is especially true with the new Velma series coming out, where she will be of South Asian descent. 

3. how does the commercial purpose of Scooby Doo influence the content and how it is presented?

    The commercial nature of Scooby Doo means that the crime in the show as well as some aspects of the characters need to be presented a little differently to be "suitable" for an audience of children. The crimes must not be violent and are to be referred to only as mysteries. Velma has to stay comfortably in the closet. Shaggy obviously cannot openly be labelled as a stoner, and his edibles are to be referred to as scooby snacks (this one is reasonable, to be fair.) This results in any ideas that the writers have that are deemed unsuitable to children being written in codes and undertones more often than being outright removed from the show.

4. Who and what is shown in a positive light? in a negative light? why might these people and things be shown this way?

    Any time that a character isn't white, they're a villain or a heavy stereotype. This is especially true in older Scooby Doos. This reflects the general views of the time and honestly may not have even been a conscious decision from the writers at the time.

5. Who and what is not shown at all, and what conclusions might be drawn from these ommisions?

    Simply put, every main character of Scooby Doo is white, middle class, and able bodied. This could lead to audiences, and especially children, assuming that only people who meet this description are capable of the "heroic" acts seen in the show. This may also result in children who don't identify with these characters feeling alienated as they watch.

6. How does scooby doo explain crime and gender roles to young people?

    Scooby Doo aims to make crime understandable and undesirable to young audiences. This is achieved by ensuring that the crime is always solved and the motive is understood. By doing this, they show young audiences that crime can be understood if thought is put into it. They also make crime undesirable by showing children that there are punishments for crimes. As for gender roles, they are both taught and questioned in Scooby Doo. These are mainly apparent in the characters Fred and Daphne. Fred is very protective of Daphne, often saving her and being quite controlling of her, which is very stereotypical. As for Daphne, she cares deeply about her appearance and reputation, while somewhat lacking in the intelligence department. This was especially the case in older Scooby Doo shows, and the new ones do make some effort to do a better job of questioning gender roles, such as in the episode we were shown in class wherein Daphne has a beard and mustache.

Ethics and Functions of Corporations

 Today we'll be having a look at the following questions about corporations, and more specifically the film "The Corporation": 1. Is it fair to blame a single executive for the activities of a company that has thousands of employees?

2. Can Corporations Commit Murder? If a corporation is considered as a person in law (as it is in the US) who can be held liable (responsible) if a corporation kills people?  

3. Recall 10 or more brands, their logos, their jingles, slogans, and any memory of the product (think Nike = swoosh = "just do it"). Do you know who owns the brand? What is your perception of this "brand"?

4. The documentary raises important questions about ethics and personal responsibility. One of the fundamental messages in the film is that corporations are irresponsible because in an attempt to satisfy corporate goals, everyone else is put at risk. To what extent is a person responsible for what they do even when within a company? Is a person morally culpable for their actions when satisfying the goal of profit within a corporation? Why or why not?

1. I do not think it is entirely fair to blame an executive or CEO for the actions of their employees. There will always be bad actors within any group, and a CEO with thousands of employees cannot possibly know everything that is happening within their company at any given time. However, the CEO should be held responsible for the general "direction" of their company, and its practices on a broader scale. A CEO shouldn't necessarily be responsible for the individual acts of their employees when their employees are acting in a way that they were not instructed to, but should be responsible for insuring their employees are instructed to act ethically.

2. I don't think a corporation can commit murder. While a corporation is recognized under the law as an individual, it is well understood that there is a limit on the "personhood" of a corporation. A corporation as its own entity cannot physically directly murder somebody, and as such the individuals within the corporation committing the act on behalf of the corporation should be charged with the crime. 

3. I will format my answers as follows: Brand name, Logo description with hyperlink, Notable advertising such as jingles and slogans, [first ideas that come to mind.]

    1.Tesla, Red T Logo, "To accelerate the advent of sustainable transport and electric technology" (what a terrible slogan. That's more of a mission statement than a catchy piece of advertising), [very formal and modern, wealthy and sleek.], This brand is owned by Elon Musk.

    2. Amazon, A - Z logo, "Work hard. Have fun. Make history." (A little better than tesla's I guess), [Relaxed and convenient, fast and affordable], This brand is owned by Jeff Bezos.

    3. FedEx, Blue and orange logo that is quite literally just the word FedEx, "The world on time." (much better, thank you FedEx.), [Hard working, Fast and Efficient, Reliable], I would have to use google to tell you that this brand is owned by Frederick W. Smith.

    4. Google, Multicoloured G Logo, "Do the right thing." (What? What does that have to do with a search engine? Good advice but what are you selling?) , [Instant, All knowing, Helpful, Intimidating, Coldhearted(?)], I had to google (ironic) to inform you that this brand is owned by Sundar Pichai.

    5. YouTube, play button logo, "Broadcast yourself." (Simple enough. That is the point of the website.), [Welcoming, Smart, Funny, Communal, Popular], This brand is owned by Susan Wojcicki.

    6. Twitch, speech bubble logo, "You're already one of us." (Sounds a bit like a cult but it is fairly welcoming.), [Welcoming, Energetic, Communal, Entertaining, Thrillseeking], This brand is owned by Emmett Shear, though Twitch itself is a property of Amazon.

    7. Steam, locomotive part logo, no slogan, [Faceless, high tech], This brand is owned by Gabe Newell.

    8. Aliexpress, shopping bag logo, "Smarter shopping, better living!" (Eh. Pretty average.), [Cheap, Slightly Untrustworthy, Slow, Entertaining, Oversaturated.], I had to google to tell you that this brand is owned by Jack Ma.

    9. Digikey, Digikey electronics logo, no slogan, [Very reliable, fairly priced, industrial, high quality, fast, effective], had to google to say Ronald Stordahl.

    10. Twitter, blue bird logo, no slogan though "It's what's happening" is a common tagline in ads. (Kind of pretentious, don't you think?), [Oversaturated, Energetic, Problematic, Loud, Social], this brand is currently owned by Parag Agrawal, though is apparently soon to be acquired by Elon Musk.

4. A lot of the time, people likely don't fully grasp their role in the destructive nature of the corporation they work for. If you're a cashier at McDonalds, you probably won't think much of your responsibility for the environmental damage caused by the overgrazing and gas emissions of the cattle farmed to make the burgers you're selling. The idea of moral culpability for actions within a corporation is a very morally grey area, and the answer to this question will vary drastically depending on who you ask. It is hard to recognize one's own actions as immoral within a corporation when the actions that each individual is performing separately are seemingly regular, and only when the effects of each individual's actions on a broader scale are observed together is a problem apparent. One cannot be fully responsible for actions they don't understand.

What Makes for a Good Burglar?

 While most people may think of smash and grab type crimes when they hear the term burglar, the truth is that there are some burglars who are highly skilled, and know how to get what they want without leaving a trace. These types of burglars are professionals. They make their livings from stealing, and know where to look for high value items that they can get their hands on. Today we'll be looking at the traits of a good burglar, how somebody develops into a good burglar, and how their "careers" compare to more traditional ones.

A good burglar needs a wide set of basic skills, and usually one specialty skill that they dedicate their time to honing. In general, a good burglar needs to be alert. A professional will be aware of their surroundings at all times so as to avoid detection. A professional must also have sufficient critical thinking and planning skills. This is what separates professionals most from amateurs. A professional will scope out targets and compare the perceived risk/reward, and make a specific plan to break in and get what they want out before doing anything. A good burglar must also have good communication skills, for a multitude of reasons. This is a trait that most people may not think of, but it is actually crucial. First of all, since these burglars make a living off of stealing, they will need somebody to buy their stolen goods either knowingly or unknowingly. Either way, they will need good communication skills to either keep good relations with their fences or convince their fences to buy off of them. Good burglars will also work in groups. This is where the specialized skills come in, as one may be great at scoping out sites and planning a route, while another may specialize in bypassing security systems, another in moving heavy objects quickly, etc. Because they work in teams, they need to have good communication skills and integrity. Finally, a good burglar needs to know how to avoid a sentence. The best burglars know how to avoid the police knowing that they're there, the response time for when the police do find out, and how to get out without leaving any links to themselves. In the event that they do get caught, they know their way around the legal system well enough to ensure the least severe sentence for themselves.

The theory that describes the process of becoming a good burglar best has got to be differential association. Because good burglars start out with no burgling skills and need to know how to work in a group, it makes perfect sense that good burglars will have learned from and worked with more experienced burglars in their early careers. This has often been observed to be the case. This is exactly what differential association describes, which is crime being learned through interaction with antisocial peers. 

Finally, let's compare the career path of a professional burglar to more acceptable professions such as lawyers and doctors. Generally professionals in standard fields will have considerably more formal education than professional burglars. While doctors and lawyers are spending their time at university, burglars are spending time in the field learning from other burglars. In general, the basic skills that professional thieves and standard professionals use are actually quite similar. Most jobs will need the same problem solving and communication / group work skills that make for successful professional burglars. Where they differ substantially is in their purpose. Most career paths are designed for helping others in some way. Engineers help by supplying structures, doctors look after health, lawyers ensure protection under the law, police ensure security, etc. Burglary is different because it only helps the burglar and their ring while actively hindering victims and law enforcement. There are more similarities between burglars and standard professionals than most people would likely expect, but they are still fundamentally different.

IN CONCLUSION: A good burglar will know how to work with others to avoid getting caught while securing the highest value items and selling them off. They will have learned from other burglars, likely family or friends, and will almost certainly have started from a young age. They are similar to more standard professionals in the set of basic skills that they use, but differ fundamentally in their intent.