Friday, 20 June 2025

Crim Final Question - bye mr. young

 

True crime intrigues the audience to see the dirty realities of life. Seeing the true horrors of what could happen to you or your loved ones. The unknown is a huge draw for people and diving head first into it with infinite content hooks you and keeps the money rolling in. It is manipulating to the audience and people love it. The story in it’s entirety is never given to the viewers of true crime media. People never get the entire picture intentionally. The creators of the content close in on a small frame to create outrage, a powerful force if you can capture and control it.  

Crime media(and media in general) can impact your opinion of what you think, feel, and do towards certain situations. It can lead you to take action on situations and impact your perspective. It can manipulate your ideation of the crime and separate what you feel is true to your opinion from the reality of what’s going on.  

People love being able to engage with such situations without actually being apart of it. Similar to how one plays a video game in which they can do whatever they want without being punished. The safety of the screen protects them and keeps them relating and comparing themselves to the people and horrors within the crime. 

Casey Anthony has been impacted so drastically by the media that at least within her lifetime she will always be labelled as “tot mom” or something along those lines by someone. Within the United States, Casey will always be seen as her label. People will forget about her as time goes on but it’s always going to impact her to some degree, as it has impacted so many individuals opinions over the years. Nancy grace played her out to be such a terrible person and really drove and controlled the outrage from the public, she would emphasize the smallest of actions and create a huge deal out of it. Working on that level of manipulation(even within small details like visual text on the news) burns into peoples skull a lasting impression. First impressions do matter and when you’re publicly seen as such a disgrace to society, you are outcast to ridiculous measures. 

When viewers compare themselves to people they see in media, they feel bad about their own lives and choices. When they see a beautiful or successful individual being taken down to below their level, it makes the self-critical audience feel good about themselves. It’s a classic example of schadenfreude, people gaining pleasure as a result of another’s misfortune. This effect gets heightened when you take someone who has a “higher” status on some accounts. This could be wealth, looks, personality, or anything that people look up to. In the context of Casey Anthony, much of the audience is moms comparing their actions to what she did. They see it as “I must be a good mother because at least I’m not her. 

When it comes to crime media covering within modern day media, it can have many good and bad results. While it does spread the news with free word of individuals that anyone can do, you can also just post any claim. Many people won’t care enough to fact check situations prior to taking action and it can create chaotic results. It’s not whether it’s a good or bad it really depends on the situation. To some aspects of crime it can apply particularly well, especially in the case of helping the “criminal” have support instead of being shied away from the public like an object needed to be outcast. It can really help to get both sides of the story. An example of this was Monica Lewinsky pointing out that she would have preferred if her case had taken place with modern day media in place. She had said she would have had much more support within a community. She would have had people that empathized with her. In cases like these without the support from internet users you can feel isolated like you have to deal with your problem all alone. 

Scooby Doo Media Analysis

 What assumptions or beliefs do Scooby-Doo’s creators have that are reflected in the content? 

The show leans on stereotypes regarding indigenous culture in south america, especially in this episode where the setting and the creature (a mythical Jaguaro) reflect mystery as a key part of scooby doo. This shows an assumption that unfamiliar places to americans are “wild reinforcing racist views of other countries. They display them as spooky or dangerous. 

 

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

If you relate to characters like Fred, Daphne, or Velma, you might feel represented. However, if you're from a culture or region that is “wildas portrayed in the episode (such as South America), the portrayal might feel quite racist. The locals are often shown as background characters or are overly simplified(chanting and such). This can feel harsh especially if your culture is shown as a mysterious or dangerous group of people instead of real human beings. 

 

How does the commercial purpose of Scooby-Doo influence the content and how it's communicated? 

Yes, Scooby-Doo is made for profit, and that shapes the content. It uses a repetitive, structure (mystery, chase, unmasking) because it’s easy to produce and keeps kids coming back. Characters don’t change much, they’re recognizable and sell well. The Jaguaro episode continues this trend, using a mysterious jungle monster to hook viewers, even though the formula is predictable. 

Also, because it's meant to entertain and not challenge too much, more serious topics like racism, cultural appropriation, misrepresentation is avoided. They just show the series without addressing these aspects. The show is built to be safe and sellable, not controversial as it’s made for children. 

 

Who and what is shown in a positive light? In a negative light? Why might these people and things be shown this way? 

Positive: The scooby doo gang is shown positively, especially Velma and Fred as smart leaders. Scooby and Shaggy are scared but lovable by the watchers. 

Negative: The “monster” (Jaguaro) is feared, but ultimately, it's a person trying to commit a crime. The criminal (usually an adult, often greedy or sneaky) is shown negatively, reinforcing that greed and dishonesty are wrong. Unfortunately the episode ties some negative light to local cultures or settings. They are shown as appearing primitive or scary, not necessarily due to intentional harm, but rather to lazy or stereotypical writing. 

 

Who and what is not shown at all? What conclusions might audiences draw based on these facts? 

Locals in foreign settings are usually one-dimensional or in the background. Because of this, young audiences might conclude that only certain types of people (white, middle-class, American teens) get to be heroes or solve problems. 

Also, female characters like Daphne are often sidelined or given traditional roles (e.g., in distress), which reinforces gender stereotypes within the show. 

How does Scooby-Doo explain crime and gender roles to young people? 

Crime: Scooby-Doo teaches that crime is usually the result of selfish or greedy individuals, and that heroes comes from hard teamwork. It encourages kids to question the obvious, think more critically rather than just judge based on what you first see. 

Gender roles: It’s mixed. Velma breaks stereotypes by being smart and brave, but Daphne often falls into more passive roles (getting captured or lost). Fred is the traditional male leader. While not overtly sexist, the show displays well that it was created in the 60s-70s due to the gender stereotypes. Boys are shown as leaders and action-takers more often than girls. 

 

Crim Final Question - bye mr. young

  True crime intrigues the audience to see the dirty realities of life. Seeing the true horrors of what could happen to you or your loved on...