http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksGNZ9mEzzQ
This is a tv advertisement for Drugfree.org about the relationship between a drug using teen and his parent.
What is this advertisement trying to say about the relationship between the teen and his dad? Is this an effective way to reduce teen drug use?
I'm responding to Vladimir's questions about the video. At the first watch of the video I thought that it was the dad who was on drugs. Clearly from the video, one can conclude that the relationship between the teen and his dad is very unstable and fragile. It seems as though the father used this chance of his son having drugs in his room to destroy his possessions. While running down the stairs, the father said "I've had enough", but he did not mention anything else that his son did wrong, besides having drugs in his room. The message, "Sometimes what you want to do is not what you should do" at the end of the video could aim toward either at the teen or the father. The teen should not have done drugs because it could cause consequences, and one of them was having his possessions smashed. The father, on the other hand, should not have handled the situation in such a childish way. I think drugfree.org's aim of the video is toward the parents. From the message “We can help” at the end of the video, drugfree.org tries to convince parents that there are many more efficient and effective ways to handle the situations, and they can help the parents on how to handle these situations. To respond to Vladimir's second question, I think the way the father handled this situation is not effective in any possible way. Television, video games, and other electronic devices could be excellent distractions from drugs, especially for young teenagers. However, the use of violence the destruction of ALL of their possessions could cause these teenagers into more serious addictions, and even worse: It could cause them to run away.
ReplyDeleteThis post is in response to Thinh. Similar to Thinh, I was confused as to the website's intended message. The sentence that came up at the end confused me as well because I am left unsure who the message is geared towards. The way I interpreted the sentence was that it was referring to the teenager. The kid might have wanted to experiment and try new things like drugs, but this is not necessarily what he should do. I had not considered that the message was intended to focus on parents, but Thinh's suggestions seem reasonable because this program's goal might be to assist parents in educating their child. In response to Thinh's answer about the father's reactions to finding his son's drugs, I think his reaction was a little bit of an exaggeration but it could be effective. Teenage boys tend to value video games and all of their technology. The father clearly sent a message to his son that his drug use will not be tolerated or else his belongs will be taken from him. Although a non-violent approach might work well too, sometimes the intimidation towards his son will have a better effect.
DeletePrompt 1. On the surface, this as is about a father consequently destroying his son's TV and video games after stating that he found drugs in his room on nice sunny day. The father is furious and says very little. His actions speak loud enough. Then he proceeds to smash his son's things with a baseball bat. Afterwards, he simply looks at his son in disappointment and walks away. However, on the implicit aspect, there is a scared father, a father that is so shocked to find that his son is doing drugs, that he does not know what to do except express anger. From his reaction, it is evident that the father knows what can happen to kids that do drugs. The sentence at the end, shows that the dad did not want to act out with this much anger. This ad takes a more realistic approach to the drug issue. It is not much of an anti-drug ad. They know that kids are going to do drugs and here is what not to do and it gives a place to visit if this situation occurs. As Adam stated this is aimed more towards parents rather than kids.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to the post using blog prompt 7. At first glance, a future viewer of the video can see that overall the Drugfree.org video got a "thumbs down" response from previous viewers. Then, after watching the video and looking through the comments, it is almost a clear consensus that the video is clearly ineffective for most of the people who watched it. A lot of the comments on the video are claiming that the dad, instead of the son, is the one who is on drugs. People seem to think this because of the extreme way the dad has reacted and has resorted to smashing things that someone can assume he has bought for his son, such a a large TV. one of the top comments for this video says, "so the dad uses meth, huh?". The overwhelming support for this comment goes to show that other viewers seem to be finding this video ineffective and almost comical. There are other comments attributing to the fact that there are bad actors being used in the commercial also. All of the negative responses of the previous viewers of this video has lead me to have a similiar opinion, and overall I believe the rhetoric and claims this video is trying to make is rather ineffective.
ReplyDelete