2 Broke Girls

2 Broke Girls has attempted to push the envelope, with hipster jokes, racist jokes, and raunchy sex jokes.  Recently, public documents via the FCC show that some viewers cannot handle the raunchy humor anymore due to the explicit and vulgar script. Lots of shows run on sex jokes and bodily functions but this show makes every joke so blatant. The FCC prohibits certain language and content which 2 Broke Girls go above and beyond what is needed to be said.  With the way the complaints are coming in the FCC needs to do something before something is scripted that CANNOT be said on TV.

2 Broke Girl USED.... to be a very family friendly show, which was broadcasted at 8:30pm tuesday nights.  PRIMETIME TV. The shows that are played during that time period need to be “socially friendly” for ALL ages, so if you are looking for a show to watch with children, this would NOT be the show to pick.   

After 10pm producers have fair game to make it as inappropriate as the want to a certain extent by the FCC standards. 2 Broke Girls has reached the point in time where it has become too “raunchy” for even after hours TV.  This time slot is used for adults because by 930-10 o’clock younger children are usually asleep.

My sister, who is now 14 used to be able to sit and watch this show with my family and I early on in the seasons when it first was aired. It was a night where the whole family would sit and eat dinner and watch TV together due to our busy schedules.  The shows we chose to watch tuesday nights changed rather quickly as the season progressed because of the joke innuendos on the show!

    A perfect example of how raunchy the show has gotten is when, Max (brunette) one of the main characters was talking to Caroline (blonde) and proceeded to ask; “how far you can go on a first date; the other says "anal?"... In what world is that even appropriate to say out loud, NEVER MIND on television. The FCC should have never let this be aired no matter how funny they thought it was.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQHRyzQEf8g

In E! News report blog, the producer of the show stated, "I don't find it offensive, any of this," "I find it comic to take everyone down…being a comedy writer gives you permission to be an outsider and poke fun at other people…I think our jokes are classy-dirty,"... There is nothing “classy-dirty” talking about making racist jokes, especially making fun of Han, one of the main characters in the show who is chinese and who owns the diner that both girls work in.  At least once and episode the girls have to make fun of his broken english because he cannot speak english as clearly as the two girls. What parent wants their child turning to them during the show as asking “Mom why are the girls making fun of that man for his speaking?” That is teaching children who are young that bullying is acceptable because you can laugh it off and does not hurt anyones feelings. That is probably a parent's worst nightmare… When you have a time slot of 8:30pm, nothing even remotely that vulgar or racist should be scripted.  The producer of this show see nothing wrong with taking it too far on national television. TV.

It is very sad because both of these women are excellent actresses and should be on other shows that get more viewers.  The script is what kills the viewers from watching which will eventually lead to the show being taken off air.  Every week it is the same “raunchy” innuendos.  Even as a college student I do not find it entertaining anymore because it is the same racist and sexually jokes being told every single week.  I used to be a dedicated viewer but now i have no interest, whatsoever.   

Written by: Erinn Johnson

McKay, Hollie. "'2 Broke Girls' Gets FCC Complaints for Raunchy Humor." Fox News. FOX News Network, 16 Jan. 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

"Filthy Jokes on 2 Broke Girls Result in Outraged Viewer Complaints." Jezebel. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

"The Sorry State Of '2 Broke Girls': Racism and Lame Sex Jokes." The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

"Two Broke Girls - Dating Poor." YouTube. YouTube, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

The Political Act: The Blurred Lines between Politics and Entertainment

            Throughout vast history of the American political system, politicians in this country have invariably found their ways to interact with the American people. From early travelling on a horse and coach from state to state to speak at rallies, to videos directly transmitted through ones phone. Politics are a large part of America as a whole and though they can be accessed at any point, may democracy as a whole actually be hindered due to the constant progresses in the development of new forms of mass communications? As communication technologies change, politics in this country change with them, not only in the various ways in which they work, but also the ways in which the political image as is portrayed and sold as a norm.

            Since the early beginnings of this country, the politics have digressed in importance of actual informative content and increased in importance of the image of the politician themselves. This may be due to the ever increasing rate in which new technologies are developed. With new technologies such as smartphones, tablets, and portable computers, politics are constantly a topic on the mind of the American people because people are so often exposed to advertisements of politicians. Since the invention of the radio, starting with Herbert Hoover as the first broadcast president, Politicians have had to become more intimate with the people of this country because of the mass quantities of people who owned a radio. Since the first televised political debate in 1960 between the not yet President Kennedy, and his Republican opponent Richard Nixon. In the Article “Winners of the first 1960 televised presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon” by Sidney Kraus, an apparent point made is that between people who listened to the debate on the radio and people who watched it on the T.V, people who watched it on the radio thought that Nixon won the debate based off of what was said, though people who watched it thought that Kennedy won based of off his composer and his tan while Nixon seemed to be nervously sweating (Kraus, 1996). Since the first televised debates it had become apparent that people voted for who fit the political image of what they wanted their president to look like opposed to what a president’s political configuration consisted of. After Kennedy was assassinated, the presidency had become much more popular in the eyes of the public. After it was broadcasted frequently over the news while the voice of Walter Cronkite guided the American people back a mental homeostasis, people started opening their eyes to politics as a cultural phenomenon. There was even an Oscar winning film about the conspiracies of the assassination in 1991 with Oliver Stone’s JFK starring Kevin Costner. 

            With the progression in technological advancements, and the politics of today constantly investigated microscopically, the preferment of political rhetoric has thickened too, though the content evasive of its true meanings. Political rhetoric as a whole has changed in importance what is being said, to how what is being said sounds. This directly correlates to the increase in availability for mass quantities of people to access political information at any time. Articles examining political discourse have explained “the semantics of political discourse is akin to poetic semantics; however, the multidimensionality of the signified referents is hidden because referential discourse is a precondition for effectiveness” (Zolyan, 2015). Because politics work harder to appeal to the people through their content, politics have naturally become infused with entertainment. With the new era of inseparability between politics and entertainment, the American people are losing interest, causing democracy to fail.

            Within the contemporary political sphere full television stations hold complete political biases. The Fox news corporation and CNN would be examples of right winged Conservatives, while networks like CBS and ABC would be considered Left wing liberal. With podcasts from a Conservative Bill O’Reilly to the very left wing Howard Stern, politics have become a soup opera in this country, while the viewers invest their in politics emotionally the same way fans do. It has been said “Emotions have historically been theorized as dangerous by those invested in rationalized print discourses, but anyone who has observed one of the American political party conventions, for example, knows that there is not much difference between that type of political theater and a purely pop culture phenomenon like a movie premier or rock concert” (Warner, 2006). America’s technological culture may be single handedly effecting it’s democracy as a whole by complicating it’s rhetoric and attempting to appeal to the people on an emotional level instead of making the people aware of the truths of the political system.

           

           

                                                        Bibliography

Kraus, Sidney. "Winners of the first 1960 televised presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon." Journal of Communication 46.4 (1996): 78-96.

WARNER, JAMIE. "Politics And Entertainment: Civic Catastrophe Or Democratic Possibility?." New Political Science 28.3 (2006): 431-436. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

Zolyan, Suren. "Language And Political Reality: George Orwell Reconsidered." Sign Systems Studies 43.1 (2015): 131-149. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

            

Preston Perry

Introduction to Mass Communications

Professor Zimdars

September 24th, 2015

                                                           

     Blog Assignment #1

            It is a known fact that successful business owners will target the youth for a conservative approach when brainstorming advertisement. Today's youth is highly concerned with technology and social media. The so-called “beef” between rappers Drake and Meek Mill is very common to what goes on between adolescents all over the world. Social media is the root of a lot of drama between teens and young adults. Social media made it possible for youth to feel like they were a part of the controversy Drake and Meek Mill.

            This summer the rapper Meek Mill decided to drop his latest album called “Dreams Worth More Than Money.” I’m a big fan of the album I thought there is a good variety of music for his fans to listen to. Meek Mill is a very popular artist, and so is Drake. Drake is more popular than Meek Mill in a sense of fan base. Drake has music for boys and girls to listen to, while Meek Mill’s music is more just for guys. Meek Mill and Drake have worked together on several songs in the past. They have a song, and music video called “Amen.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr-Lj9TnJOE) This song has almost eighteen million views on YouTube.com. This song “Amen” came out in 2012 when both rappers were both fairly new to the music industry. The artists are very similar with each other’s work and familiar with working together as well.

            This summer, Meek Mill’s album featured Drake on a song called “Rico.” This song is very controversial and started one of the biggest rap beef’s of my generation. First of all the rapper Drake does not write all of his music. His last mix tape had songs that were not written by him as well. It just so happens that Drake did not write his verse on the song “Rico” on Meek Mill’s album. Then Drake made a statement that triggered Meek Mill’s anger. Meek Mill was mad because Drake said that his verse on the song “Rico” was the best song on Meek Mill’s latest album. The song “Rico” received over twenty six million views on YouTube.com. When Meek Mill heard Drake’s statement, he immediately resorted to twitter. People say this was the wrong decision to make, but he wanted it to be known that Drake wasn’t writing his own music. Meek Mill sent out about thirty tweets exposing Drake for having a Ghostwriter. A ghostwriter is when an artist sings songs written by other artists. Drake responded a few days later with a song called “Charged Up.” The song was retaliation to Meek Mill’s twitter rant. Drake’s response to the rant was not what people expected and it was pretty obvious. A few days after “Charged up” Drake released another response to Meek Mill called “Back To Back.” This song was number one on Boston’s number one radio station Jammin 94.5 for five weeks straight on every music countdown. The media turned a twitter rant on social media into a number record on radio stations across the country.

            Social media escalated a controversy between two popular artists within days. Hours after the first incident other social media sites like “instagram” were flooded with pictures of tension between the rappers. As I sit in class and relate the situation to mass communication I realize the power behind social media. Social media is the easiest way to target our generation. A topic on social media turned into a song on the radio that adults are listening to, while their kid is in the car reading tweets about Meek Mill and Drake. Most adults are not concerned about the two rappers, but adolescents are very intrigued. The fact that the youth is intrigued caused the radio to be stuck playing. When I use what I learned in reality, I understand that social media is an efficient way to market and pitch a product. Also in today’s world the chances are if it is popular with the youth on social media then it has potential to be popular and well known. Social media and the radio have a very strong connection. Popular artists on social media are the same artists we hear on the radio. As far as communication from a promotional standpoint, music, social media, and the radio are all intertwined.

Whitey Bulger

There are many controversies surrounding the recently released movie Black Mass due to its violent depiction of real life events that happened not to long ago in Boston Massachusetts. 

Whitey Bulger, a well known notorious criminal and leader of the Winter Hill Gang was arrested in 2011 in Santa Monica, California after being on the run for 17 years. Judges sentenced Whitey to two life terms plus five years of imprisonment for 11 murders and other charges including racketeering, extortion, money laundering, etc.   In the recently released film Black Mass, Bulger is played by actor Johnny Depp.  Being a true story, this film illustrates Bulger’s rise in the criminal ranks, which was largely due to his informant relationship with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The release of the movie, however, is leaving families, victims, and Bugler himself felling very unhappy.

Click to View Trailer 1

            Whitey’s criminal activities took place between the 1970s and the 1990s and with his recent arrest these horrific events still feel current. Many argued that the film was released to soon; as individuals who still mourn the loss of loved ones taken by the Winter Hill Gang witness reenactments of their murders in the film. Not only do the families of the victims find it hard to watch this film, but also the families of the Winter Hill Gang members. For instance, Whiteys brother Billy Bulger has 9 kids and 33 grandchildren alone, all of whom have to relive the heinous acts their family member committed.

 Many people get to enjoy this film, which glorifies gangsters and specifically Whitey himself, but those close to the men currently in jail are left unsettled and embarrassed. Whitey Bulger himself “refused to meet with Depp or director Scott Cooper and reportedly swears he will never watch the film should it be screened in his prison.” Say IGN.com.  Johnny Deep had to put in a great amount of effort to get into character.  His daily hair and make up, the accent and all the other steps he had to take to prepare himself took a significant amount of time. This process only would have been made easier if Bulger agreed to interview with him before hand.

Whitey Bugler’s statement may come as a shock to most, considering his part in the film is being played by an award winning A-list actor.  In the above image you can see going from the left photo to the right, young Whitey Bulger, Johnny Depp as Whitey Bulger and then Whitey Bulger as he is today.

Winter Hill gang member and right hand man to Whitey Bulger, Kevin Weeks criticizes the film saying,  “The only resemblance to Whitey’s character was the hairline.” Weeks presented the daily beast with many other discrepancies towards the real life events, the inaccurate portrayal of the death of Bulger’s son being just one instance.  Bulger’s sons death occurred in 1973, when in the movie it occurred on a much later date, thus placing the death around the time of some of his major crimes, creating a theatrical sense for his motive.  Week’s also mentions the character of Stevie, another member of the Winter Hill Gang, who in the movie was depicted as sympathetic, but those who truly knew him would describe him as a psychopath.  Last but not least Weeks made multiple comments in his interview about the way in which Bulger’s demeanor was represented.  He says, “he never swore at us. In all the years I was with that man, he never swore at me once. We never yelled at each other.” And in the movie this was not the case, there were several instances where Johnny Depp was cursing.

Although this movie was tough to bare for all of those adversely affected, it also hits close to home for all of the Boston natives that may be hitting up the movie theater this month.  The character in the film make mention of certain areas well know to Bostonians, including “Southie”, “The North End” and local bar “The Bell and Hand”.  This historical event has never felt so real to those whose back yards it was taking place in. Those who watch this story around the world will never understand its magnitude but more so will see it as a thrilling glorification of gangster activity.

Citations

Bio.com. A&E Networks Television. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

"Black Mass: Whitey Bulger's Former Henchman, Lawyer Slam Movie as 'Fiction' - IGN." IGN. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

"How the FBI Caught "Whitey" Bulger." YouTube. YouTube. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

Stern, Marlow. The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

JT Lynch Blog Post

JT Lynch

Blog Post

How is marijuana is related in today’s music culture, when listening to music and in songs?

Marijuana has been a drug that has gone through the media for the past 30-40 years and has been scrutinized in the media.  Weed has been “connected” to everything from addiction to melting one’s mind, especially in the 60s and 70s. 

However marijuana has made many medical breakthroughs for certain people and has also been legalized in four states recreationally.  From a medical standpoint it has been linked to helping cancer patients and is also legal for medical use in 23 states.  This is so important because the legalization of marijuana has led to an increase in referencing the drug in many songs in today’s music culture.  There is a huge increase in references to marijuana because of the leniency in today’s culture.  It almost seems like every other rap song is about smoking weed.  On the other side of the spectrum there is reggae music, which literally every song is about smoking weed.  Both types of music are very different, yet both have weed references in most songs.  One main reason why weed songs are so popular is because a lot of people like to smoke weed and then listen to songs about weed.  The effects of marijuana can make songs song differently than they would normally sound sober.  Certain songs that have references to marijuana continue to be made because there is a market to the “stoner” population.  Bands like Rebultion, Stick figure, Bob Marley, and Aer are just a few to mention that most songs are fully about weed.  Weed references in songs are also more common than any other drug.  Marijuana also affects the type of song one listens to.  For example, when someone is high off of marijuana, his or her tendency is to listen to something relaxing.  In addition, the individual who is high also wants to connect to the drug that they are doing and what better way to do that than listening to music.  How weed in songs affects how one listens to certain songs.  For example, if someone is stoned, they are not going to want to listen to an intense crazy techno song.  Instead, they are more likely to want to listen to a chill slowed down relaxing song.  The reason for this is because the individual is so relaxed that they want to keep that relaxed state.  The best way to keep that state of relaxation is through music.  One thing that caught my attention while doing this blog was thinking of younger kids listening to marijuana related music.  In my opinion, listening to marijuana related music under the age of 18, can make a kid want to try using marijuana and that is concerning.  Even worse are the references to weed in mainstream pop music that are played through the radio and Internet radios.  A lot of songs that reference marijuana are talking about it in a positive light, rather than in a negative light.  This gives the impression that weed is a good thing and for kids under the age of 18 that is sending the wrong message.  However, weed being portrayed in a positive light is not all bad.  Pot songs translating a positive “feel good” message is a lot better than weed songs delivering a negative message. 

For example, the popular song “Because I got High” by Afroman, is all about how he ended up ruining his life because he was high.  Granted this song is also hilarious, but it also describes weed in a lazy negative light.  On the other hand there are songs like “Floats My Boat” by Aer, which describes getting high as chilling with your friends and just doing what makes you happy.  Each song plays a part in the weed culture in music through what the message is trying to say.  In today’s society of how weed is perceived, especially in my generation, is really not a big deal.  I think that the music industry has had a hand in that because of how many songs there are about weed and how casual weed is in our culture now.  All in all, I think that weed is related in today’s music culture, through lyrics of songs and the individual listen to the songs prospective of weed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=weed+pics&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=637&tbm=isch&imgil=TBVuUBHLlWGn7M%253A%253BbD8ApZsTko1kBM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Ftwitter.com%25252Fbuddank&source=iu&pf=m&fir=TBVuUBHLlWGn7M%253A%252CbD8ApZsTko1kBM%252C_&usg=__wyI2WTWBmlCQyMJguzksdsc-VjA%3D&ved=0CDkQyjdqFQoTCIHs3dnHnMgCFQxoPgodgJwARQ&ei=X64KVsHAGYzQ-QGAuYKoBA#imgrc=TBVuUBHLlWGn7M%3A&usg=__wyI2WTWBmlCQyMJguzksdsc-VjA%3D

https://www.google.com/search?q=anti+weed+pictures+60s&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=637&tbm=isch&imgil=geJ0CJqlbQUDSM%253A%253BMSfQDo9uVg45SM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.vdare.com%25252Farticles%25252Fmarijuana-legalization-could-it-help-stop-the-mexodus&source=iu&pf=m&fir=geJ0CJqlbQUDSM%253A%252CMSfQDo9uVg45SM%252C_&usg=__TX5gLMidUnC5ZZLTSL4WudeD9mA%3D&ved=0CCwQyjdqFQoTCIHjvIjJnMgCFUhYPgodfNwCKg&ei=za8KVsHINciw-QH8uIvQAg#imgrc=geJ0CJqlbQUDSM%3A&usg=__TX5gLMidUnC5ZZLTSL4WudeD9mA%3D

https://www.google.com/search?q=afroman+because+i+got+high&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=637&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMIpPPNl8mcyAIVgnc-Ch0CEQ9Z#imgrc=-iVGZtoXQDwnaM%3A

https://www.google.com/search?q=music+notes&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=637&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIuZDWxcmcyAIVhhk-Ch3HbQax#imgrc=Sx87DZIofPGfyM%3A

Cell Phones

Dana Pappalardo
Mass Communication
9/25/15

Throughout the years cell phones have developed into something completely different than what they used to be. Cell phones now have a huge social effect on people compared to what they used to be like. The technology for the first cell phone was developed in the 1940s but it wasn’t until the 1980s that they were available to the public. The very first cell phone that was available to the public was widely known as the ‘car phone’.   

                                                         

These “cell phones” were only available in cars which is how it got its name, car phone. The first phones that were made to be carried around also known as a flip phone, were only shown in TV shows, movies, and in the sales and business world. When these flip phones became popular to the public, they were solely for talking on the phone and nothing else. These phones were produced in the 90s and the early 00s. These flip phones became a huge success because it was a way for people to get in touch with each other no matter where they were.

A couple years later the first smartphone was produced. This type of cell phone was the biggest and newest incoming technology. You could no longer just talk on the phone but you could also check your email, use it as a fax machine, pager, and also an address book. The smartphone completely changed cell phones as a verbal communication tool to a multimedia tool. Cell phones are known more as a mobile device rather than a cell phone. The newest smartphones are essentially a handheld computer you can carry around in your pocket. You can do much more than just check your email and carry numbers but you can surf the internet, use as a credit card, text message, and so much more. While this is a great invention the social affect it has caused people is not great.

Back when cell phones were not around people were forced write letters, actually go to someone’s house to ask if they wanted to hang out instead of shooting a text, and people were not always occupied by something especially in a school aspect. Now when you go out to dinner with you and all your friends, usually people are always occupied by being on our smartphones because we are on Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat etc. When there were no smartphones people would go out to dinner to hang out and talk with your friends, but now people go out to dinner and sit on their phones, eat a leave. A lot of the time when I go out with my friends we like to put all of our phones in a pile at the end of a table so that way we are all forced to talk to each other.  The problem with this is that this generation actually has to make rules that we should not be using our phones during dinner time or with our friends. 

In this generation there are not many kids 10 and up that do not have smartphones. Children at a younger age are starting to get IPhone’s which is making the social effect much worse. While working at a school, I noticed that most kids in the 2^nd grade all had IPhone’s or IPad’s. I would constantly get asked if they could take out their phones and play games on it instead of playing and talking with their peers. The problem with this is that younger kids from the age of 6 and up already have smartphones and do not want to talk to other people, but just play on their phones. This becomes a problem later on in life because children now are not developing the social skills they should have as a result from being on their phones all the time. When I was growing up I never had a phone until I was about 13 and even then the only reason I could use it was for phone calls to my parents. This forced me to talk at the dinner table with friends, and even not be on my phone all the time while with family. This is where everything has changed. Now children of young ages are not even talking to family members and get very upset when you take phones away from them, even throwing temper tantrums because they got their phones taken away. This is a huge problem because even when they are forced to talk to other people they won’t because they are too angry.  

In conclusion the effect of smartphones on children is huge. Children have lost a lot of social skills because they are not forced to talk to others but allowed to be on their phone playing games. Smartphones have turned into not just something you use for communication but a handheld portable computer. As someone who didn’t have a phone until 8^th grade, I was always able to talk to people but now children no longer have that skill because they are too invested in the new IPhone or IPad.

 

Catfishing: The Dangers of Meeting a Stranger Online

Catfishing:  “The phenomenon of internet predators that fabricate online identities and entire social circles to trick people into emotional/romantic relationships” (urbandictionary.com).
Ever since Nev Schulman got “Catfished” and made his own documentary, it has been his goal to help people out that were in the same situation that he was.  So, he made the TV show Catfish.  As an avid viewer of this show, I would guess that 9 out of every 10 episodes, the online person was not exactly who they said they were.  The episodes that have happy endings are very scarce, however there have been a couple over the years (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/millennial-media/201212/catfish-and-the-perils-online-dating).  If most of these online relationships end poorly, why do people even bother?  Why not just go out and find someone in person to have a relationship with?  It is a much better option and much safer to date someone that you meet in person than someone who you met online.  If you don’t believe me, some of these statistics might persuade your thoughts.

According to scientificamerican.com, “Research has found that nine out of ten online daters will fib about their height, weight, or age. Men are more likely to alter their height, perhaps because it is a reflection of status, while women are more likely to provide lower estimates on weight, likely because we place a high premium of desirability on the notion of "skinniness."”  These are just the white lies that won’t really hurt anybody’s impression too much, but still, 90% of people lying in some sort of way is a cause for concern.  And then there are also people out there that will create entirely fake profiles for the purpose of fooling people into falling in love with them and doing things for them.  Why do people do this?  That’s another topic for another post, but a big reason is because of how easy it is.  It only takes a couple minutes to make an e-mail, make a Facebook account, and post fake information and pictures.  

On top of those statistics; "54% of online daters believe that someone else has presented false information in their profile, and 28% have been contacted in a way that left them feeling harassed or uncomfortable. (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/catfishing-the-truth-about-deception-online)"  If nearly one out of three people feel harassed by somebody online, how good of an idea is it to meet someone online?  Those are not great odds.

As easy as it is to make a fake account with fake pictures, it’s also very easy to foil a fake account.  So if you are in a situation like this and you think the images are fake, all it takes is a google image search. The image below is an example of someone who is NOT a Catfish.  The image returns no exact results other than the one post through Facebook.  It returns similar results, but none of these are the same person as the original image.  I used my Facebook friend that I know in real life as an example for someone who is not fake.

 The image above is an example of a "Catfish."  For a while, one of my other Facebook friends had a picture of Tracy McGrady in a Knicks uniform as his profile picture.  After saving this image and dragging it into google, you see that this image returns many results, as images on fake profiles will.  Nev often uses this tactic in his show, and more times than not, this is where some dirt is uncovered. 

Based off earlier information, if 9/10 people lie in some sort of manner, how do you know that they won't lie again?  And how can you tell if people are lying to you online?  There are some precautions you can take to make sure that the person you are supposedly talking to online is not dangerous or lying.  The simplest way to find out if somebody is lying, especially about their appearance, is to video chat with them through Skype or another app.  If they are unable to do that in this day and age, that seems sketchy.  

The safest bet obviously is to find someone in person somewhere and skip the whole online dating fiasco in general.  That way you know exactly who you are dating and there are no questions about appearance or anything like that.  

PS: Don't be oblivious.  Someone on Catfish one season thought they were actually dating Bow Wow.  Really?  Use a little common sense.


Sources:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/catfishing-the-truth-about-deception-online/ 
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/millennial-media/201212/catfish-and-the-perils-online-dating