This propaganda is about the president of United States, Donald Trump, and about Mueller investigations. At the meme is writed, if Donald Trump will not stop commiting crimes, Mueller can’t conclude his investigation. The video is maked for Trump supporters and for Trump opponent too. It shows how devided the society is. The video should inspire people try to find a common solution.

I like the video, it’s simply and understateble. Btw I think that memes have to be funny and not to divide the society. And 
I would ad music for effect.

Its good that they pointed out that the meme isnt based on any evidence. 

            The response is great. The video looks professional and surely is effective. It inserts the viewer into the problem by addressing directly to him and it plays on one’s emotions by showing sad pictures and then put the blame on the viewer- by buying the ticker (s)he allows and supports it. On the other hand, by focusing on the video itself, we can see few mistakes. The pictures and slides are changing too fast, so the viewer cannot read or take a closer look on the photos without pausing the video. Also, although the sad music supports the idea and deepens the atmosphere, it becomes a little bit annoying for the never-ending repetition of same 4 notes.

The video was very well made, supported by facts and illustrations. Every fact was accompanied by image. It can touch us by speaking directly to us. The music was well chosen - depressive. 

            The response is great. Even though it speaks of important topic it is able to make fun of it as well - the woman holding man in her arms or the same propaganda but with man instead of woman. The other great thing is the way how it encourages viewer to be the change and to believe in equality. 

            The response is well-made. Unlike the other videos, the text is read so the viewer doesn’t have to focus on quick-reading but on the images and message. The next good thing is that there is explained what technique was used in the propaganda and then why people are so mad about brands.

            The response shows the viewer how McDonald’s affects our life style, our health and our planet by using cartoons and photos, which is great – it well illustrates the problem. It tells the viewer few numbers too, which can be taken as a positive – numbers (and percentage) always make people think that it is true, because it is based on some research; but the problem is that we don’t know where the numbers come from.

Girls, you have chosen the topic of gender equality. You react to the add "You mean a woman can open it" that advertises a brand of ketchup with a new cap that is easy to open. You point out the sexist tone of the add. You state that these types of messages encourage stereotypes and create a gender divide. You claim that people are easily influenced by these types of messages. Then you go on and introduce the movement for equal treatment of women and men. You end your video with a call to change, merging the male and female symbol into one. 

 

Your video is visually engaging. It starts by showing a colorful add that is controversial which immediately catches the viewer's attention. The message is presented in a clear and easy-to-understand way. The images flash across the screen in just the right speed in order to allow the viewer to read each one. The video clearly explains what the problem is with the message and counters it with clear arguments that are supported with pictures. The video calls for equality using reason rather than emotion. It presents arguments supported by clear and simple visuals. I wonder, have you considered adding music? What effect could it have? What do you think? A job well done, girls! 

 

Your topic is animal cruelty in circuses. You start by presenting shocking statistics. You state that animals are mutilated, tortured and sedated. You illustrate these facts with pictures. Then you go on to ask why is all this happening. Then you turn to the viewer to take the blame. You use the second person to talk directly to the viewer, claiming that every ticket he/she buys supports animal cruelty. You encourage he viewer to help stop this cruelty today. 

 

Alex and Katka, in your response you echo what the initial message claims. You do so in a straight-forward way, talking directly to the viewer. Using the second person makes your message direct and powerful. You have added slow and dramatic music that adds seriousness to your message. With the shocking statistics, powerful images and slow, anticipating music you target the viewer's emotions. You also talk directly to the viewer, claiming they are guilty of what is happening. I wonder in creating this video, have you thought about the line between a powerful, truthful message and propaganda? Is there such a line? Or is the truth in the eye (mouth) of the beholder:-)? What do you think? Well done!

 

You react to an add that compares two products claiming that they are identical and that the only difference between them is the price. The ad shows two identical coffee cups where one is called "iCoffee" and costs $12, while the other one is called "Coffee" and costs only $4. At the bottom it reads, "Don't be an iDiot," clearly evoking the Apple brand. In your video, you explain the add. You ask why people buy expensive products. You state that it is because people "want to show off." You encourage the viewer to spend less money and not be an "iDiot."

 

Zeinab and Eva, your initial propaganda is really interesting and visually engaging in its simplicity. Even though you echo the message and call for the viewer to make smart choices, the fact that you have chosen a computer voice takes away from the one-sidedness of your message and helps give it a more neutral tone. You state that the reason for buying expensive things is to show off. I wonder, are there any other reasons? Could you perhaps name them and then counter them? Do you think it could make your message even more powerful? Let me know what you think. Good job!

 

You have chosen to react to a poster depicting McDonald's as a filthy, fat clown that has food going in and out of his body as well as dripping all over him. You claim that McDonald's causes obesity. You also claim that it affects our environment in a negative way because it produces a huge amount of plastic waste. You show statistics of how much of McDonald's waste ends up on the streets in the U.K. You illustrate that with pictures. You claim that McDonald's contributes to deforestation. Then you ask the viewer not to eat McDonald's.

 

Barča, Ester and Eva, your video is visually engaging. The messages you show are clear and easy to understand. You add visuals for each message that you show, making it absolutely clear what you are trying to say. The presentation is supported by dramatic music that adds to the seriousness of the fact that people's health is affected in a negative way and that so much waste is being produced by just one company. I wonder if you have considered inspiring the viewer to change his/her habits without having to put all the blame on the company? Who do you think this message targets? Who do you think is more likely to be affected by this message? Is it the people who eat McDonald's regularly or those who don't? In attacking a company, aren't we likely to close the communication flow for some people? Just food for thought:-) Let me know what you think. Well done, girls!

 

 

You react to the meme, "Mueller can't conclude his investigation if I keep committing new crimes." You point out that the effect of this message varies upon who is the receiver. You claim that a Trump supporter will rally to support Trump, feeling protective of his president as he feels that he does good things for the country. On the other hand, you claim that a Trump opponent is likely to view the message as positive, helping people realize whom they have elected into the White House. You claim that the message will help both sides to confirm their present beliefs. You then state that the message lacks facts. Furthermore, you state that the two groups need to understand each other.

 

In talking back to the meme, you have tried to understand how different people might perceive it. The idea that a message can be interpreted in completely opposing ways is one worth more exploration, don't you think? Perhaps in class as a topic for a debate? I wonder if simplifying the text that goes with the two men would better help convey the message… Also, do you think music could enhance the video? Lastly, instead of "peace and love," could you come up with a more concrete call for action? Perhaps leaving your viewer with a more concrete message of what she could do? What do you think?