Mass media criticism - semiological analysis from ads Essay

Mass media criticism - semiological analysis from ads - Essay Example to their audience by shaping and lending significance to their â€Å"experience of reality† through the use of â€Å"non-verbal semiotic messages† (Najafian & Ketabi 64-65). The ad under discussion also uses images and text effectively to lure its audience to the product through its appeal to their sense of semiotics and aesthetics. The ad is set in pitch black background that highlights both the red font of the text message as well as the red jacket of the female in the picture. This tactic draws the viewer’s attention to the image and holds it there as he or she will feel intrigued to know what the whole story is about. On the other hand, the man’s face only is clear, which prompts the viewer to look closer and pay focused attention on the image. Once the audience gets a clear idea that the couple is attempting to kiss, leaning out of their cars going in different ways, it makes them think about the message. Obviously, what Diesel want to say is, â€Å"We even unite people from different levels through our product,† or â€Å"No matter where people head, our product makes them pause and take notice.† The image provides a sense that the man and woman, despite their different purposes and intentions, are united by the singularity of the brand’s appeal to them. The brand mostly targets youngsters and the image as well as message will immensely appeal to such an audience. The text message â€Å"Smart Listens to the Head, Stupid Listens to the Heart† challenges the popular notion that smart is better by appealing to the emotions of the audience rather than their intelligence. Besides, the image connotes to a carefree attitude and a liberal way of life, which will also have immense appeal to the younger generation as well as the older generation who think differently. Similarly, the ad also accentuates a passion for life, and Diesel’s motto of doing things â€Å"differently from others† (Saviolo & Marazza 100). Thus, while reflecting the lightheartedness of

LEGAL STUDIES Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

LEGAL STUDIES - Essay Example ..†1 Therefore, it was his duty to preserve the information received by him by fax as secret. Being a civil servant, he must have had some experience in making difference between secret information and public one. Geoffrey might be found guilty under subsection 1, Section3 of the Act (1) as being â€Å"A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of—(a)any information, document or other article relating to international relations.† Geoffrey told his wife Jean about the information in the fax without lawful authority, as required by the law. According to Section 7 of the Act For the purposes of this Act, authorized disclosure is defined as â€Å"a disclosure by a Crown servant is made with lawful authority if, and only if, it is made in accordance with his official duty.† Geoffrey did not have the necessary authorization to disclose that kind of informa tion and therefore, he should have kept it to himself. On the other hand, Geoffrey might have not known that this information was secret, as the case description speaks about a secret agreement between Government ministers and the United Nations that no exact figures would be given as to the number involved. Therefore, he might raise the defence provided by the Official Secrets Act 1989, in Section 3, subsection (4), which stipulates that: â€Å"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question was such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above or that its disclosure would be damaging within the meaning of that subsection.† If Geoffrey can prove that he was not aware that the information was confidential and its disclosure would be damaging, he might avoid being held liable for disclosing it. On the other hand, by telling his wife, whom he, of course, knew that is a journalist, it must have occurred to his mind that his wife, as any journalist, might use that information in her own interest and make it public. I believe that Geoffrey, as a Crown servant, should have acted with caution as regards the information and find out if it is secret or not before passing it to other parties. His wife, on the other hand, might be held liable for publishing this information under Section 5 of the Act, within the provisions of which she might fall. Section 5 (2) stipulates that: â€Å"Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the person into whose possession the information, document or article has come is guilty of an offence if he discloses it without lawful authority knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act and that it has come into his possession as mentioned in subsection (1) above.† So, unle ss the disclosure was not damaging, Jean can be held liable under the Act. This is the case of the information passed to Jean by her husband, as he entrusted her that information, in accordance with Subsection 1, Section 5 of the Act. Geoffrey should have warned his wife about the importance of the information and the necessity to keep it secret. This is applicable, unless Geoffrey intentionally told his wife about t