Tactical Weapons is a bi monthly magazine that is published by Harris Outdoor Group, part of Harris Publications Inc. The magazine sells for $7.95 a copy.
The magazine cover has the dark colors of red, black and grey incorporated into it with the image of a military man shooting a gun. There was also barbed wire running through the title of the magazine. Headlines such as "CQB Tactics: Raiding a Felon's Fortress", "Frontline Report: Death Valley" and "Bushmaster's BA50 USAF Sniper Faceoff" could be found on the front cover. This immediately signaled that the magazine was geared towards military members, specifically men, who have an interest in weapons used in combat.
The issue had articles describing how to accurately shoot each weapon as well as the best weapons that are available on the market. Along with the how to articles, the magazine also offered a few stories on admirable military members who had served their time in the front lines.
Along with weapon based articles, the ads were almost solely about guns. Along with the guns, there were ads for tactical knives, camo paint, uniform gear and bullets. Included in the ads for weaponry there were ads for military support websites. Only one ad in the magazine offered a female in lingerie holding a gun for an ad. This shows that the audience who reads this magazine is mature and very serious in gaining information on weapons and interested in military weapons and gear.
Based off of the articles and ads found in Tactical Weapons, the magazine signaled an audience that would be predominantly males that are either active in the military, are interested in the military or are military/war veterans. The colors of the entire magazine as well as content signal a male audience.
The magazine is featured on the website tactical-life.com which offers many different military style magazines on one central website. Tactical-life.com features the magazines: Tactical Weapons, Combat Handguns, Guns & Weapons, Special Weapons, and Tactical Knives. There are also more magazines listed by distribution frequency.
As stated by the subscription page located on the website, for six issues, or a yearly subscription, the cost is $28.97. The annual circulation of the magazine is 294,000 with six issues being printed a year.
The demographic information was not located on the tactical-life website or the tactical weapons magazine website, but information was available via Echo Media. Echo Media stated that the demographic was geared towards military men with the average age of 39 who earn around $70,250 annually. 98% of the magazine's readers are men.
Based off of the website's demographic information, the initial signaling of the magazine was spot on. Everything from the colors to the articles and ads featured throughout the magazine gave the impression that Tactical Weapons was predominantly focused on the audience of military men. The higher income is understandable due to the expensive nature of weapons and the age is relevant due to the experience and skills mentioned throughout the magazine.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Haditha Killings
Before I start this post, I would like to point out that I am extremely uneducated in any type of political affair. I rarely watch news of any type and am an amateur at such things. That brings me to my current blog post. I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to convey my feelings accurately due to my lack of experience, but I will try my best.
I analyzed news coverage regarding the Haditha killings from the Al Jazeera perspective as well as the CNN perspective.
The CNN perspective stated that U.S. Marines were charged with killing 24 civilians in Baghdad. The civilians of the time are arguing that their charge was equivalent to a traffic violation. One civilian stated, "this soldier should be executed." A woman stated, "I'm wondering why the American blood is so precious while the Iraqi blood is so cheap." The Iraqi's also stated that this was only one amongst a chain of events that were caused by the U.S. troops. Iraqi's see this as a disappointment in the U.S. judicial system. Haditha played a large role in the decision that U.S. troops were not welcome on Iraq's soil. Iraqi's now see Americans as trigger happy.
The Al Jazeera version was mainly focused on the Marine that was the leader of his platoon, and the charges put upon him for ordering his troops to kill the civilians. Frank Wuterich was charged with manslaughter in which he plead guilty to. He faces a maximum of 3 months in prison and a demotion. Wuterich ordered his troops to kill civilians after the troops were affected by a roadside bomb. Charges of six of the Marines were dropped including one of a Marine who tried to erase evidence from a laptop. It was said that the case was hushed up for months. It is also stated that this case is coming to an end in the U.S. but far from it in Iraq. The civilians of Iraq are not happy due to lack of punishment for the deaths of dozens of people.
When I first listened to the news coverage, I did not notice much of an international bias. After listening to it for the second time I noticed subtle statements mentioned by Al Jazeera that gave a bitter tone to the U.S. The reported mentioned that the case was hushed up for months as well as a sarcastic comment stating that a Marine was not guilty when he was found to erase images off of a laptop. This news coverage showed the views of the whole situation from the Middle Eastern point of view. The footage was also very graphic with images of blood, bodies, and gunshot holes displayed throughout. The coverage was also very focused on the particular Marine that was charged as well as details about the whole ordeal.
The CNN perspective was very brief and focused on the issue as a whole and did not once mention the name of the Marine that was charged. It focused on interviews with the Iraqi people and their views of the situation. It made clear that the Iraqi people are disappointed in American troops. There was barely any detail in this video and there was absolutely no footage shown of any graphic content. The footage was very vague and made it seem like just another issue in the news of not that much importance.
I would have to say there is an unfair bias at play here. I think that the United States coverage of the event tried to downplay the seriousness for its own protection of the military and to save face. They showed as little detail of the event as possible as well as not mentioning any names when referring to the Marines being charged. The Al Jazeera coverage offered a much more detailed and specific view of what happened giving the whole ordeal a massacre type of feel. Between the images and the details, Al Jazeera tried to show the gravity and harshness of the situation while the U.S. tried to downplay it.
I analyzed news coverage regarding the Haditha killings from the Al Jazeera perspective as well as the CNN perspective.
The CNN perspective stated that U.S. Marines were charged with killing 24 civilians in Baghdad. The civilians of the time are arguing that their charge was equivalent to a traffic violation. One civilian stated, "this soldier should be executed." A woman stated, "I'm wondering why the American blood is so precious while the Iraqi blood is so cheap." The Iraqi's also stated that this was only one amongst a chain of events that were caused by the U.S. troops. Iraqi's see this as a disappointment in the U.S. judicial system. Haditha played a large role in the decision that U.S. troops were not welcome on Iraq's soil. Iraqi's now see Americans as trigger happy.
The Al Jazeera version was mainly focused on the Marine that was the leader of his platoon, and the charges put upon him for ordering his troops to kill the civilians. Frank Wuterich was charged with manslaughter in which he plead guilty to. He faces a maximum of 3 months in prison and a demotion. Wuterich ordered his troops to kill civilians after the troops were affected by a roadside bomb. Charges of six of the Marines were dropped including one of a Marine who tried to erase evidence from a laptop. It was said that the case was hushed up for months. It is also stated that this case is coming to an end in the U.S. but far from it in Iraq. The civilians of Iraq are not happy due to lack of punishment for the deaths of dozens of people.
When I first listened to the news coverage, I did not notice much of an international bias. After listening to it for the second time I noticed subtle statements mentioned by Al Jazeera that gave a bitter tone to the U.S. The reported mentioned that the case was hushed up for months as well as a sarcastic comment stating that a Marine was not guilty when he was found to erase images off of a laptop. This news coverage showed the views of the whole situation from the Middle Eastern point of view. The footage was also very graphic with images of blood, bodies, and gunshot holes displayed throughout. The coverage was also very focused on the particular Marine that was charged as well as details about the whole ordeal.
The CNN perspective was very brief and focused on the issue as a whole and did not once mention the name of the Marine that was charged. It focused on interviews with the Iraqi people and their views of the situation. It made clear that the Iraqi people are disappointed in American troops. There was barely any detail in this video and there was absolutely no footage shown of any graphic content. The footage was very vague and made it seem like just another issue in the news of not that much importance.
I would have to say there is an unfair bias at play here. I think that the United States coverage of the event tried to downplay the seriousness for its own protection of the military and to save face. They showed as little detail of the event as possible as well as not mentioning any names when referring to the Marines being charged. The Al Jazeera coverage offered a much more detailed and specific view of what happened giving the whole ordeal a massacre type of feel. Between the images and the details, Al Jazeera tried to show the gravity and harshness of the situation while the U.S. tried to downplay it.
Monday, February 6, 2012
The Hills
The one show that I could not get enough of when I was in high school was The Hills. It was the “reality” of this show that made it seem like it was possible for any girl to follow in the footsteps of Lauren Conrad. What I failed to realize as an easily influenced teenage girl was the fact that Lauren was on reality TV and she was wealthy. The Hills made it seem like everyone in Southern California was living the life of luxury. Lauren drove a BMW, had a dream internship at Teen Vogue, went to the beach on a daily basis and had a gorgeous two bedroom apartment with her best friend. When in reality, the apartment cost over $2000 a month; a price that few, if any, college freshman could afford.
Yes, there were some real aspects to the show such as fights with your best friend, getting over your first love, and the feat of juggling school and an internship. The show made Lauren relatable with these very real aspects of a college student’s life. It made a young teenage girl believe that when she went to college, she could be just like Lauren.
One thing that needs to be understood is that a very small percentage of young college girls can afford and do what Lauren Conrad was able to do. Girls need to realize they won’t intern at Teen Vogue and they probably won’t drive a BMW. On a positive side, the show makes you want to strive for your dreams and that is something that everyone is able to do.
After religiously following this show through all six of its seasons, I would say it is very easy to be swayed into thinking that the show is real life and that it is attainable. It’s especially easy when you see a young girl around your age doing it with ease. The privileged life is hard to come by and just because one teenage girl is shown living the life on TV does not mean that every girl is living this same life; actually, quite the opposite.
Yes, there were some real aspects to the show such as fights with your best friend, getting over your first love, and the feat of juggling school and an internship. The show made Lauren relatable with these very real aspects of a college student’s life. It made a young teenage girl believe that when she went to college, she could be just like Lauren.
One thing that needs to be understood is that a very small percentage of young college girls can afford and do what Lauren Conrad was able to do. Girls need to realize they won’t intern at Teen Vogue and they probably won’t drive a BMW. On a positive side, the show makes you want to strive for your dreams and that is something that everyone is able to do.
After religiously following this show through all six of its seasons, I would say it is very easy to be swayed into thinking that the show is real life and that it is attainable. It’s especially easy when you see a young girl around your age doing it with ease. The privileged life is hard to come by and just because one teenage girl is shown living the life on TV does not mean that every girl is living this same life; actually, quite the opposite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)