The Republican YouTube debates were held on Wednesday, November 28, 2007. This highly-publicized debate featured (nearly) all of the main Republican candidates for president in the 2008 election. This debate mirrored the Democratic YouTube debates, held about 1-2 months prior. Each candidate was allowed a 30-second advertisement to be aired during the commercials. Fred Thompson made headlines by choosing to air an ad which attacked two of his rivals. Although aggressive campaign ads are certainly nothing new, Fred Thompson took the concept of media and ethics to a new level, by bringing a heightened level of interactivity to the debates. It is my opinion that regulation should be put in place for media manipulations such as this one.
Fred Thompson's 30-second spot discusses Romney's record of support for Roe vs. Wade, despite his anti-abortion stance. The commercial also dogged Huckabee for raising taxes as governor of Arkansas. When the live debate returned, Huckabee and Romney were forced to confront the issues brought up by this commercial. In the eyes of many critics, both candidates handled the razzing admirably. Romney said, "on abortion, I was wrong," and explained how he had transitioned to a pro-life stance since the Roe vs. Wade decision. Huckabee pointed out several tax cuts he had overseen as governor.
One might argue that this is not a new occurence. Political ads have aired during televised debates for many years. However, I believe that this incident is unique, due to the availability of Internet. In response, both Huckabee and Romney gave succinct quips, which may have even resulted in an improvement in their status in the eyes of viewers. Yet, when the Internet community replays the clip of Fred Thompson's ad, they won't see the responses unless they are watching the entire debate. Combined with the fact that Thompson's ad has made headlines, it can be expected that many more people will see Thompson's ad than will see Romney and Huckabee's responses. This is unique for modern times- in the past, such selective replays were entirely unavailable.
Despite the smooth handling of the situation by Huckabee and Romney, it should definitely be examined whether Fred Thompson's actions can be considered "ethical." On the one hand, an unexpectedly aggressive political commercial can certainly become an unexpected curveball to the candidates upon which it focuses. This could be considered a "low" tactic, since it is used as a surprise trick to throw off candidate. However, the purpose of these debates is to discuss controversial actions- if Thompson had aired a softer campaign commercial, then(when the live debate returned) simply stated his accusations against Huckabee and Romney, there would be no discussion of whether he violated morals, as his entire actions were within the normal frame of a debate. So, there's definitely a solid argument for both sides.
This definitely seems to indicate that technology will only make the U.S. Presidential race more "backhanded". So, should ads such as Fred Thompson's be banned from live debates? I am certain that I do not know the answer- both sides have strong and cohesive arguments. However, the potential for damage is there, so I strongly feel that a panel should be selected to review the laws governing political advertisements, with the goal of updating them for modern technology.
Source:http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Prince Sues Three Fansites for Distributing His Image
Recording artist mogul Prince moved to sue three popular websites which distribute pictures and video clips of him. Although these websites are technically distributing unlicensed images of him, they are doing so for no profit, and are "fan sites" which exist solely to praise and promote Prince. Naturally, there are two sides to this argument, and both sides are significantly extensive.
First, one issue to consider is a matter of ownership. Prince legally owns the rights to copyrighted photos and videos. Is this right? To argue on Prince's behalf, he invested a significant amount of effort into creating these photos. Not only did he pose or perform, but he also arranged for the cameraman to film, and orchestrated the entire production. In a sense, most of these images can be thought of as products, since they are available for purchase at Prince's official website. So, it is a natural argument that Prince should own the rights to his own
product.
However, to play devil's advocate, there needs to be something said for the rights of the fans to enjoy Prince. If I wish to make a website to celebrate Prince's life and his music, it would be quite barebones if I had to display only pictures I took, myself. Therefore, I would conclude that it is right for Prince to own the rights to his own works, however, it is wrong for Prince to have 100% control over the distribution of these works, especially in the case of not-for-profit transactions.
Moving on, another issue which can be brought up for debate is that of restricting public access to the media. Prince went so far as to sue fan websites for displaying pictures of Prince-oriented tattoos and Prince-oriented license plates. This brings up an interesting concept- if one can outlaw the unrestricted printing of one's logo, anywhere, then how is fair media reporting, possible? Conceivably, Prince could walk around wearing a giant sign of his logo, and then sue the paparazzi for taking and publishing his picture. Naturally, that is a ridiculous notion, so one must ponder exactly where to draw the line.
At this point in time, I can only suggest possible solutions for this conundrum. Perhaps it would be best to treat a logo in a similar manner in which the law treats recorded songs. In other words, restrict the direct sharing of the logo, but allow a drawing of that logo to be shared, not unlike how cover songs are considered legal to record and perfom. Though this might work, the best solution is undoubtedly a full aand regular review of the way copyright law is viewed in regards to the Internet. Naturally, it is easy to see how copyright law can be fully outdated, despite efforts to keep up with the constantly dynamic Internet.
If Prince's goal was to anger millions of fans, then he certainly succeeded. This may be a horrible career move from the gentleman who already purposefully alienated himself from his record company and his distributors. However, if Prince was attempting to show the world the faultiness of modern logo protection, and chose to do this by playing the "bad guy," then his experiment could be considered a success, as the courts are now paying ample attention to his case.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html
First, one issue to consider is a matter of ownership. Prince legally owns the rights to copyrighted photos and videos. Is this right? To argue on Prince's behalf, he invested a significant amount of effort into creating these photos. Not only did he pose or perform, but he also arranged for the cameraman to film, and orchestrated the entire production. In a sense, most of these images can be thought of as products, since they are available for purchase at Prince's official website. So, it is a natural argument that Prince should own the rights to his own
product.
However, to play devil's advocate, there needs to be something said for the rights of the fans to enjoy Prince. If I wish to make a website to celebrate Prince's life and his music, it would be quite barebones if I had to display only pictures I took, myself. Therefore, I would conclude that it is right for Prince to own the rights to his own works, however, it is wrong for Prince to have 100% control over the distribution of these works, especially in the case of not-for-profit transactions.
Moving on, another issue which can be brought up for debate is that of restricting public access to the media. Prince went so far as to sue fan websites for displaying pictures of Prince-oriented tattoos and Prince-oriented license plates. This brings up an interesting concept- if one can outlaw the unrestricted printing of one's logo, anywhere, then how is fair media reporting, possible? Conceivably, Prince could walk around wearing a giant sign of his logo, and then sue the paparazzi for taking and publishing his picture. Naturally, that is a ridiculous notion, so one must ponder exactly where to draw the line.
At this point in time, I can only suggest possible solutions for this conundrum. Perhaps it would be best to treat a logo in a similar manner in which the law treats recorded songs. In other words, restrict the direct sharing of the logo, but allow a drawing of that logo to be shared, not unlike how cover songs are considered legal to record and perfom. Though this might work, the best solution is undoubtedly a full aand regular review of the way copyright law is viewed in regards to the Internet. Naturally, it is easy to see how copyright law can be fully outdated, despite efforts to keep up with the constantly dynamic Internet.
If Prince's goal was to anger millions of fans, then he certainly succeeded. This may be a horrible career move from the gentleman who already purposefully alienated himself from his record company and his distributors. However, if Prince was attempting to show the world the faultiness of modern logo protection, and chose to do this by playing the "bad guy," then his experiment could be considered a success, as the courts are now paying ample attention to his case.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html
Monday, December 17, 2007
Are you my mother?: Weaning kids off technology’s breast milk.
Darren Waters writes an article on the “$100 laptop could sell to public” on the BBC website. Darren later attaches a blog apologizing for the “misspoken statement” made by the executive of OLPC organization (One Laptop Per Child) to sell the computer to the public. PR at OLPC said the executive misspoke and that it was only a possibility, not a guarantee, to sell the laptop to the public.
Who cares about a silly mishap with words…why aren’t we commenting on the quote made by chief connectivity officer Michalis Bletsas, that his hope is “that the laptop project would help children enrich their lives to the extent that one day they could become consumers of they will one day become consumers of the types of technologies on display in Las Vegas.”
So the goal of the OLPC organization is to produce young consumers who will eventually buy more stuff? What happened to the idea of “enriching their lives” and the educational impact on these children in developing countries? If this organization stands for expanding education in developing countries, they sure have a consumerist way of showing it.
Mr. Bletsas also comments that “it will stimulate their interest in looking further- not waiting for some teacher or adult.” Mr. Bletsas completely downplays the role of the parent, giving the child full reign with their new $176 dollar laptop. Bletsas wants them to look further, look further into what? How will they know what to look for without the direction of a teacher or role model to influence their decision making? I am arguing to give children all the answers to the quiz, but adults need to be there to provide the right scantron to take the quiz. Nor am I arguing that all parents are geniuses, but I think that the participation of parents, teachers and role models should not be undermined when it comes to technology.
These children who are “connected” will have a lot of information at their fingertips, their brains are vulnerable, alive, and bright, but it is up to us as the “adult” to guide children.
It’s not about whether children have the technology or not but it is about what they do with that technology; how do they truly use it as a resource. A child could have all the technology in the world, but if you use it on gaming and chatting, are you truly “enriching your life?” Parents of the internet addicted teens would disagree.
I’m sure Mr. Bletsas would have a difficult time using the same argument in relation to the kids at the South Korean internet addicted boot camp.
This is where the parents come in. any medium can be constructive and educational for kids, but it is how the parent shapes that learning that is important. Take TV, would Mr. Bletsas make the same comments about TV “stimulating their interest to look further”? Without the parent’s involvement and participation, we don’t know what that kid could be watching. It’s the same idea with internet, it’s about participating in their learning.
Martin Flacker writes about a boot camp in Korea for internet addicted teens in the New York Times article titled “In Korea, a Boot Camp Cure for Web Obsession.” He writes about the boot camp “Jump Up Internet Rescue School” where young teenage boys in South Korea go to beat their internet addiction. “One participant, Lee Chang-hoon, 15, began using the computer to pass the time while his parents were working and he was home alone. He said he quickly came to prefer the virtual world, where he seemed to enjoy more success and popularity than in the real one. He spent 17 hours a day online, mostly looking at Japanese comics and playing a combat role-playing game called Sudden Attack. He played all night, and skipped school two or three times a week to catch up on sleep.” The children get no sense of participation and involvement of the parents. This article begs the question: Where are the parents? There is a lack of parental responsibility going on. They are living in their parent’s home, and at no time did the parent say, “No, you don’t get to use the computer because you have been on it all day” or “I’m worried about your physical activity.”
The theme of these articles is very simple: the importance of parental involvement or lack thereof. Technology can advance at the speed of light, but technology alone is not going to enrich children’s lives, I think it still takes a village for that.
References:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/intels-approach-to-laptops-for-poor-children/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18rehab.html?pagewanted=2&bl&ei=5087&en=7857a1f63763a21e&ex=1195707600
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6246989.stm
Who cares about a silly mishap with words…why aren’t we commenting on the quote made by chief connectivity officer Michalis Bletsas, that his hope is “that the laptop project would help children enrich their lives to the extent that one day they could become consumers of they will one day become consumers of the types of technologies on display in Las Vegas.”
So the goal of the OLPC organization is to produce young consumers who will eventually buy more stuff? What happened to the idea of “enriching their lives” and the educational impact on these children in developing countries? If this organization stands for expanding education in developing countries, they sure have a consumerist way of showing it.
Mr. Bletsas also comments that “it will stimulate their interest in looking further- not waiting for some teacher or adult.” Mr. Bletsas completely downplays the role of the parent, giving the child full reign with their new $176 dollar laptop. Bletsas wants them to look further, look further into what? How will they know what to look for without the direction of a teacher or role model to influence their decision making? I am arguing to give children all the answers to the quiz, but adults need to be there to provide the right scantron to take the quiz. Nor am I arguing that all parents are geniuses, but I think that the participation of parents, teachers and role models should not be undermined when it comes to technology.
These children who are “connected” will have a lot of information at their fingertips, their brains are vulnerable, alive, and bright, but it is up to us as the “adult” to guide children.
It’s not about whether children have the technology or not but it is about what they do with that technology; how do they truly use it as a resource. A child could have all the technology in the world, but if you use it on gaming and chatting, are you truly “enriching your life?” Parents of the internet addicted teens would disagree.
I’m sure Mr. Bletsas would have a difficult time using the same argument in relation to the kids at the South Korean internet addicted boot camp.
This is where the parents come in. any medium can be constructive and educational for kids, but it is how the parent shapes that learning that is important. Take TV, would Mr. Bletsas make the same comments about TV “stimulating their interest to look further”? Without the parent’s involvement and participation, we don’t know what that kid could be watching. It’s the same idea with internet, it’s about participating in their learning.
Martin Flacker writes about a boot camp in Korea for internet addicted teens in the New York Times article titled “In Korea, a Boot Camp Cure for Web Obsession.” He writes about the boot camp “Jump Up Internet Rescue School” where young teenage boys in South Korea go to beat their internet addiction. “One participant, Lee Chang-hoon, 15, began using the computer to pass the time while his parents were working and he was home alone. He said he quickly came to prefer the virtual world, where he seemed to enjoy more success and popularity than in the real one. He spent 17 hours a day online, mostly looking at Japanese comics and playing a combat role-playing game called Sudden Attack. He played all night, and skipped school two or three times a week to catch up on sleep.” The children get no sense of participation and involvement of the parents. This article begs the question: Where are the parents? There is a lack of parental responsibility going on. They are living in their parent’s home, and at no time did the parent say, “No, you don’t get to use the computer because you have been on it all day” or “I’m worried about your physical activity.”
The theme of these articles is very simple: the importance of parental involvement or lack thereof. Technology can advance at the speed of light, but technology alone is not going to enrich children’s lives, I think it still takes a village for that.
References:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/intels-approach-to-laptops-for-poor-children/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18rehab.html?pagewanted=2&bl&ei=5087&en=7857a1f63763a21e&ex=1195707600
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6246989.stm
“Can I get a non fat grande novel with no whip please?!”
While some people may argue the timeline that books have, the reality is that books will not go away because of the technology we have. Books gratify a different need then a computer screen, books can be categorized as a leisure activity. While a computer screen could be argued to be a leisure activity, the elements of the computer are not the same as a book. William Powers tells “On the Media” that a book requires the reader to use their hands more, “the hands are telling the brain where you are, how much further you have to go, and so forth.” According to Powers, paper- based, or close to it, is here to stay.
People are still reading books, they are just not going through the traditional way of the library or bookstore, but they are fusing two mediums, the Internet and books, in order to be more effective and convenient.
The invention of the car comes to mind: did people stop walking when Ford came around? No, people do both, it is just another addition to the repertoire.
Sara Nelson argues her point on NPR that there are too many books. But isn't that the point of digitizing, to have a lot of information available to you? Can there be such a thing as too many books? I think so, but we have to filter out what we can to find what we need.
Jonathon band, a professor at Georgetown Univ. Law center does make a strong point that Google allows for those books that are hidden in a huge school library to make it easier to access these diamonds in the ruff for students on a search for resources and references. The sampling debate rises out of this example and makes a case where sampling can be viewed in a positive light. The sampling does not show the entire book, but just enough to either help you in your research or to go out and buy a fresh paper copy yourself. Sampling in the case of books, drives the sales of books so that the reader will want to buy it at their local Borders.
The small bookstores are few and far between, being taken over by media conglomerates. While it may seem unfair to the small bookstore owner, technology is making books more readily accessible.
Jonathon bland claims that Google’s library search will make books more relevant or relative, a book is only worth anything if it is on Google library or Oprah’s book club. Our society is at the point where we don’t take the time to search ourselves, we just take what’s popular from Google and Oprah; what these media conglomerates are telling us we should read. If we go to back to Sara Nelson’s argument on the overabundance of books, then these popular filters perpetuate the ideas in our culture, because this is the book critic we use when deciding what to read.
Some authors claim that Google should have to pay for the books that they use in their library. With this debate, we fall back into copyright, but being that the library falls under “fair use” doctrine, Lessig discusses this type of use of the Internet media. It is used as a promotional tool for that book, and if the person wants more information, they have to buy the entire book. People may not necessarily settle for an electronic copy if they are interested in the book. Books are a collection of who you are, and downloading it to your favorites is not the same as collecting the books you love.
We are a culture of speed and convenience, and the new digital book called Kindle creates a light and accessible way to read something that is “book-like.” Bob Garfield interviews the vice president of research for E-ink, Michael McCreary who says that this new E book will have a real pigment of ink and actual books. The product is called the Kindle and it is a digital book. The digital memory can hold numerous books, and the battery life can last as long as five hours.
New technology, like the Espresso Book Machine is advancing the print of books and the speed of printing. Out of print books is no longer an option with this machine that can print any book in seconds.
As our new technology continues to progress forward, books still find a way to hold on to the coat tails of technological advances.
People are still reading books, they are just not going through the traditional way of the library or bookstore, but they are fusing two mediums, the Internet and books, in order to be more effective and convenient.
The invention of the car comes to mind: did people stop walking when Ford came around? No, people do both, it is just another addition to the repertoire.
Sara Nelson argues her point on NPR that there are too many books. But isn't that the point of digitizing, to have a lot of information available to you? Can there be such a thing as too many books? I think so, but we have to filter out what we can to find what we need.
Jonathon band, a professor at Georgetown Univ. Law center does make a strong point that Google allows for those books that are hidden in a huge school library to make it easier to access these diamonds in the ruff for students on a search for resources and references. The sampling debate rises out of this example and makes a case where sampling can be viewed in a positive light. The sampling does not show the entire book, but just enough to either help you in your research or to go out and buy a fresh paper copy yourself. Sampling in the case of books, drives the sales of books so that the reader will want to buy it at their local Borders.
The small bookstores are few and far between, being taken over by media conglomerates. While it may seem unfair to the small bookstore owner, technology is making books more readily accessible.
Jonathon bland claims that Google’s library search will make books more relevant or relative, a book is only worth anything if it is on Google library or Oprah’s book club. Our society is at the point where we don’t take the time to search ourselves, we just take what’s popular from Google and Oprah; what these media conglomerates are telling us we should read. If we go to back to Sara Nelson’s argument on the overabundance of books, then these popular filters perpetuate the ideas in our culture, because this is the book critic we use when deciding what to read.
Some authors claim that Google should have to pay for the books that they use in their library. With this debate, we fall back into copyright, but being that the library falls under “fair use” doctrine, Lessig discusses this type of use of the Internet media. It is used as a promotional tool for that book, and if the person wants more information, they have to buy the entire book. People may not necessarily settle for an electronic copy if they are interested in the book. Books are a collection of who you are, and downloading it to your favorites is not the same as collecting the books you love.
We are a culture of speed and convenience, and the new digital book called Kindle creates a light and accessible way to read something that is “book-like.” Bob Garfield interviews the vice president of research for E-ink, Michael McCreary who says that this new E book will have a real pigment of ink and actual books. The product is called the Kindle and it is a digital book. The digital memory can hold numerous books, and the battery life can last as long as five hours.
New technology, like the Espresso Book Machine is advancing the print of books and the speed of printing. Out of print books is no longer an option with this machine that can print any book in seconds.
As our new technology continues to progress forward, books still find a way to hold on to the coat tails of technological advances.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Eating up all the Pie
Rupert Murdoch has once again flexed his muscles in the media by starting the Fox Business Network, the sunnier side of business news. Some critics debate over whether this network will flourish, while others think that this “Main street” style will not last past nine months.
Rupert Murdoch and the Fox business network (FBN), bring an everyday people kind of environment to the business market. FBN wants to be different from CNBC by sugar coating the financial news. It puts a positive light on what’s going on, and gives it that good ole “go capitalism!” feel. It underestimates the potential of people. What FBN does is close the gap to variety, shrinks the possibility for “the other.” The variety of outlets is smaller with big corporations taking more of the pie.
Alessandra Stanley writes an article on the “Perky debut for the Fox Business Network” (October, 16th, 2007). This network is perceived as a joke because the tone is “giddy” and upbeat. Stanley argues that although the show gives an upbeat, uncomplicated, positive side the financial market, it still shows a bias that Fox is known for, “with the underlying drumbeat of Fox News (global warming is natural and so are tax cuts).” It makes you wonder, if the style is pro business, what are they going to report about when corporations do the wrong thing? Is this truly a network for Main Street, or is it yet another network that businesses can benefit from propaganda?
Joe Nocera, writer from the New York Times, deems the Fox Business Network as unrealistic to what is going on in our economy. “In a week when Countrywide’s chief executive was discovered to be under S.E.C. investigation, when the market lost about 4 percent of its value, when evidence emerged that the housing slump was deepening, the tone at Fox Business was upbeat” (Nocera). How can Fox Business Network compete with other networks like CNN when they are not showing the pitfalls of our economy, they are glazing over everything that is not entertaining; news entertainment at its best. Nocera suggests that it is difficult to take this network seriously when the interviewer Liz Claman “turns positively giddy” during an interview with Warren Buffet (Nocera). If the authoritative or serious tone is removed, will the public still look at this network as “news”? Or is that how the FBN wants to differentiate themselves from other networks?
What is interesting to me is the point of view that each article takes on Rupert Murdoch starting Fox Business Network. The article from the Associated Press took more quotes from Fox associates than Nocera or Stanley’s article, and this changed the overall perception of the FBN; it put an optimistic outlook on the new Network. When we look at the articles by Nocera and Stanley, the debut of the Fox Business network is perceived as “giddy and simplistic.” The theme behind the AP article is that in time, the Fox Business Network will become more like CNBC because they will want to go after a more “profitable demographic” for advertisers. Kevin Magee, executive vice president of Fox News, said “our goal is essentially to broaden the pie that watches business news.” How ironic that he used the same pie metaphor that I used in the beginning of this paper. Magee is not broadening the pie but actually shrinking the pie that people, or the viewers, can eat.
Reference Websites
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/business/media/20nocera.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/business/media/16watch.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=login
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/15/business/main3366877_page2.shtml
Rupert Murdoch and the Fox business network (FBN), bring an everyday people kind of environment to the business market. FBN wants to be different from CNBC by sugar coating the financial news. It puts a positive light on what’s going on, and gives it that good ole “go capitalism!” feel. It underestimates the potential of people. What FBN does is close the gap to variety, shrinks the possibility for “the other.” The variety of outlets is smaller with big corporations taking more of the pie.
Alessandra Stanley writes an article on the “Perky debut for the Fox Business Network” (October, 16th, 2007). This network is perceived as a joke because the tone is “giddy” and upbeat. Stanley argues that although the show gives an upbeat, uncomplicated, positive side the financial market, it still shows a bias that Fox is known for, “with the underlying drumbeat of Fox News (global warming is natural and so are tax cuts).” It makes you wonder, if the style is pro business, what are they going to report about when corporations do the wrong thing? Is this truly a network for Main Street, or is it yet another network that businesses can benefit from propaganda?
Joe Nocera, writer from the New York Times, deems the Fox Business Network as unrealistic to what is going on in our economy. “In a week when Countrywide’s chief executive was discovered to be under S.E.C. investigation, when the market lost about 4 percent of its value, when evidence emerged that the housing slump was deepening, the tone at Fox Business was upbeat” (Nocera). How can Fox Business Network compete with other networks like CNN when they are not showing the pitfalls of our economy, they are glazing over everything that is not entertaining; news entertainment at its best. Nocera suggests that it is difficult to take this network seriously when the interviewer Liz Claman “turns positively giddy” during an interview with Warren Buffet (Nocera). If the authoritative or serious tone is removed, will the public still look at this network as “news”? Or is that how the FBN wants to differentiate themselves from other networks?
What is interesting to me is the point of view that each article takes on Rupert Murdoch starting Fox Business Network. The article from the Associated Press took more quotes from Fox associates than Nocera or Stanley’s article, and this changed the overall perception of the FBN; it put an optimistic outlook on the new Network. When we look at the articles by Nocera and Stanley, the debut of the Fox Business network is perceived as “giddy and simplistic.” The theme behind the AP article is that in time, the Fox Business Network will become more like CNBC because they will want to go after a more “profitable demographic” for advertisers. Kevin Magee, executive vice president of Fox News, said “our goal is essentially to broaden the pie that watches business news.” How ironic that he used the same pie metaphor that I used in the beginning of this paper. Magee is not broadening the pie but actually shrinking the pie that people, or the viewers, can eat.
Reference Websites
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/business/media/20nocera.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/business/media/16watch.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=login
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/15/business/main3366877_page2.shtml
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Big Brother, will you make my decisions for me?
The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a media consolidation review rule bill on their desks now. It all began in June of 2003 when the FCC passed changes granting more relaxed rules regarding media ownership. These rules were overturned a year later in 2004, but the rules are under revision currently. Senators Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott are working a bill to directly dealing with this issue (1). They would need to get this bill in before the December revision committees to halt any action by the FCC. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has pushed for a timetable regarding this issue and it is now set for December 18th (2). The proposed changes would only allow big media companies to own even more media outlets in the same communities. We all know expansive the Clear Channel and Viacom empires have become. This new ruling would allow media conglomerates to own radio, TV, newspaper and cable TV stations in one area, essentially providing a monopoly on the media in the area (3). This could be argued that the big companies would have even more power to dictate culture, public opinion and even the course of political information. Is it ethical to have a few companies dictating our media? This is a question the BECA Department attempts to answer. Power. Money. Opinion. All these go into the decision.
FreePress states the myth of deregulation, “Relaxing or eliminating media ownership rules is characterized as ‘deregulation” (3). “The implication is that the choice is between government regulation or free market regulation, based upon competition” (3). In truth, this practice leads to less competition as argued by Robert McChesney. “In some respects, the global media market more closely resembles a cartel than it does the competitive marketplace found in economic textbooks” (4). McChesney mainly concentrates on the global market being controlled by 7 huge corporations. His writing does explore the problems indicative of the United States media market. His argument is perfectly in tune with his title, rich media make for poor democracies. His argument against deregulation is strong. Can market forces control media? He states that deregulation causes less competition and more concentration within local markets. He gives the example of the consequences of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Clear Channel became a very powerful entity with no competition after this ‘deregulation.’
Compaine on the other hand believes that ‘a few big companies’ are not taking over the media. He also concludes that U.S. companies don’t dominate the global media, that corporate ownership is not killing hard-hitting journalism and that global media does not drown out local content (5). Compaine believes with the history of takeovers, mergers, and acquisitions hinder big companies from taking over a majority of the market. He gives an example of Clear Channel buying up local stations but making sure that local flavor is always aired to continue interest in local music.
So, do big companies like Clear Channel, clearly the company with the biggest advantage after the 1996 Telecomm Act, shrink playlists, recycle same material and ruin the democracy of radio? It can be argued yes, but as always there is a different side.
These new regulation rules will only further the control of the same companies that benefited from the 96 Act. Less government intervention and policing on ownership will only allow big companies to edge out the little local guys. The color or the "Americana" that is signified by the mom/pop joints from Route 66 to the local public access and radio stations that give us 'objective programming.' I use this term loosely.
FreePress.net is urging citizens to get involved by demanding that the FCC listen to citizens and hold official hearings in people’s respective states. If this happens, people need to involve themselves and make their opinion known. Whether they are for further deregulation or for making the rules stricter, make this known to the FCC. The FCC falls victim to public relations nightmares, political red tape and non-objective bias, but with more information and public opinion, the best decision can be made.
Regulators need to hear on clear message: Protect what we have and make sure we can democratically build on it. The PUBLIC media needs to remain so. Public media is part of the public sphere that should be considered everyone’s property and everyone’s decision should matter how it evolves.
(1) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6492609.html
(2) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6492368.html
(3) http://www.freepress.net/rules/page.php?n=fcc
(4) McChesney, R. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. University of Illinois Press. 1999.
(5) Compaine, B. Global Media. Foreign Policy, November/December 2002.
(6) A link to the 2003 ruling. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=56&aid=36005
(7)
FreePress states the myth of deregulation, “Relaxing or eliminating media ownership rules is characterized as ‘deregulation” (3). “The implication is that the choice is between government regulation or free market regulation, based upon competition” (3). In truth, this practice leads to less competition as argued by Robert McChesney. “In some respects, the global media market more closely resembles a cartel than it does the competitive marketplace found in economic textbooks” (4). McChesney mainly concentrates on the global market being controlled by 7 huge corporations. His writing does explore the problems indicative of the United States media market. His argument is perfectly in tune with his title, rich media make for poor democracies. His argument against deregulation is strong. Can market forces control media? He states that deregulation causes less competition and more concentration within local markets. He gives the example of the consequences of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Clear Channel became a very powerful entity with no competition after this ‘deregulation.’
Compaine on the other hand believes that ‘a few big companies’ are not taking over the media. He also concludes that U.S. companies don’t dominate the global media, that corporate ownership is not killing hard-hitting journalism and that global media does not drown out local content (5). Compaine believes with the history of takeovers, mergers, and acquisitions hinder big companies from taking over a majority of the market. He gives an example of Clear Channel buying up local stations but making sure that local flavor is always aired to continue interest in local music.
So, do big companies like Clear Channel, clearly the company with the biggest advantage after the 1996 Telecomm Act, shrink playlists, recycle same material and ruin the democracy of radio? It can be argued yes, but as always there is a different side.
These new regulation rules will only further the control of the same companies that benefited from the 96 Act. Less government intervention and policing on ownership will only allow big companies to edge out the little local guys. The color or the "Americana" that is signified by the mom/pop joints from Route 66 to the local public access and radio stations that give us 'objective programming.' I use this term loosely.
FreePress.net is urging citizens to get involved by demanding that the FCC listen to citizens and hold official hearings in people’s respective states. If this happens, people need to involve themselves and make their opinion known. Whether they are for further deregulation or for making the rules stricter, make this known to the FCC. The FCC falls victim to public relations nightmares, political red tape and non-objective bias, but with more information and public opinion, the best decision can be made.
Regulators need to hear on clear message: Protect what we have and make sure we can democratically build on it. The PUBLIC media needs to remain so. Public media is part of the public sphere that should be considered everyone’s property and everyone’s decision should matter how it evolves.
(1) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6492609.html
(2) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6492368.html
(3) http://www.freepress.net/rules/page.php?n=fcc
(4) McChesney, R. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. University of Illinois Press. 1999.
(5) Compaine, B. Global Media. Foreign Policy, November/December 2002.
(6) A link to the 2003 ruling. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=56&aid=36005
(7)
Friday, September 28, 2007
Billboards and TV take away civil liberties
As I was listening to NPR the other night, an interesting tidbit came on the radio; “Billboards in Bogota, Columbia will not only have advertisements, but will start posting photos and names of known sex offenders” (NPR, Wednesday September 26th, 2007). Bogota is a city of 7 million people (1) with 17,000 reported cases of sexual abuse to minors last year alone (2). The City Council in Bogota approved this measure earlier in the year hoping to protect citizens from sexual predators. Councilwoman Gilma Jimenez stated that over 200,000 kids a year are sexually abused with only a small amount being investigated (1). This is where the numbers get confusing, but think about the 17,000 reported in other article. The billboards will give the sex offender’s names, their photo, the men’s crimes and the age of their victim. 40 billboards will go up around the city located on highways and busy roadways (3). Recently, the consequence sof sexual predation have become more strict as the government raised punishment from 12 years to 25 years. This was only the start. This new law also calls for the prisoners images to be broadcast on television. Obviously, the prisoner’s lawyers are having a field day with the possibility of violation of the men’s constitutional rights.
Proponents say this will help the society, while adversaries say this is social injustice.
Should sexual offenders be ‘victimized’ or given additional punishment after their jail sentence?
In the United States two recent laws have been passed. California recently passed Jessica’s Law, which prevents sexual offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks or beaches. Furthermore, Megan’s Law was passed to allow communities to be able to access a database via the Internet that informs the public of the whereabouts of sexual offenders in their community (4). I briefly looked up my community. In my county alone, there are 1635 registrants with 1,169 known addresses of sexual offenders. In my zip code there are 75 registrants with 51 full addresses. The first law has been debated as unconstitutional due to its retroactive actions regarding previous offenders. The latter law has been accepted and widely used among families with young children.
The state of Iowa Supreme Court recently deemed the former law unconstitutional due to its retroactive nature (5). The news editorial this originates argues that sexual offenders have civil liberties also. It begs the question, ‘If they have served their jail time, do they deserve to be continually punished upon release from their incarceration?’ It recognizes the law as ‘commendable’ for its task of protecting the children, but also recognizes that it’s the government’s job to protect the citizens. The editorial continues on stating that as long as other sentences withstand constitutional scrutiny, they should or could be utilized. I agree with this editorial even with my own prejudices against these types of criminals. One must empathize with these offenders, they have served their initial jail time, should they be hounded and punished further?
In the United States, ankle bracelets and close scrutiny of parole officers have been utilized as post-jail treatments, along with registering with the local law enforcement. So far, this process seems sufficient or at the least adequate. Bogota’s newspapers and other organizations are calling for similar actions to be taken in the capital. Their stance against the billboards recognized the civil liberties of the prisoners. The latest news involves prisoners staging peaceful protests against this new law in Bogota (2).
Does this law in Columbia give due process? Does it allow the prisoner’s their constitutional rights after release from prison? One must recognize that people go to prison to ‘heal.’ Prison is not only a punishment, but a place to, theoretically, heal a prisoner so that they can function in society again.
Should media be used to ‘educate or inform’ the public about local deviants? I believe accessing the whereabouts of sexual predators via the Internet is powerful and informative. Beyond this, how does the government stay involved, but respect civil liberties. The government can’t follow these offenders everyday making sure that their walks, drives or transports don’t take them near schools, beaches, parks or the like. We must trust in the ‘reform’ system of the jails to ‘heal’ these offenders. These offenders lose so much going to prison and afterwards, we, or the Columbians should not enact retroactive laws for previous offenders. I also believe that pasting the photos of these offenders puts the power of regulation in the hands of gangs, irate citizens and anyone seeking revenge or action against the offenders. Public knowledge should be granted, but it should be accessed, not pushed onto the general public. The television spots and the billboards push these offender’s discrepancies onto the public, which could incite more violence and retribution. The media in Columbia should stay neutral and not allow the government to regulate or dictate what is aired via its outlets.
The media should be utilized to educate and inform, but the government’s blatant disregard to citizen’s well-being is being overshadowed in this instance. These pictures and information will reach the masses and when the masses are given power, that power is easily corruptible. I hope that the prisoners do not see retribution taken against them by gangs or fellow citizens.
1. http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4054924
2. http://www.iol.za.org/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=122&art_id=nw20070509221120165C420017
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7015707.stm
4. http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/homepage.aspx?lang=ENGLISH
5. http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/2004/02/16/Opinion/Editorial.Sex.Offenders.Have.Civil.Liberties.Too-1098792.shtml
NPR radio
Proponents say this will help the society, while adversaries say this is social injustice.
Should sexual offenders be ‘victimized’ or given additional punishment after their jail sentence?
In the United States two recent laws have been passed. California recently passed Jessica’s Law, which prevents sexual offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks or beaches. Furthermore, Megan’s Law was passed to allow communities to be able to access a database via the Internet that informs the public of the whereabouts of sexual offenders in their community (4). I briefly looked up my community. In my county alone, there are 1635 registrants with 1,169 known addresses of sexual offenders. In my zip code there are 75 registrants with 51 full addresses. The first law has been debated as unconstitutional due to its retroactive actions regarding previous offenders. The latter law has been accepted and widely used among families with young children.
The state of Iowa Supreme Court recently deemed the former law unconstitutional due to its retroactive nature (5). The news editorial this originates argues that sexual offenders have civil liberties also. It begs the question, ‘If they have served their jail time, do they deserve to be continually punished upon release from their incarceration?’ It recognizes the law as ‘commendable’ for its task of protecting the children, but also recognizes that it’s the government’s job to protect the citizens. The editorial continues on stating that as long as other sentences withstand constitutional scrutiny, they should or could be utilized. I agree with this editorial even with my own prejudices against these types of criminals. One must empathize with these offenders, they have served their initial jail time, should they be hounded and punished further?
In the United States, ankle bracelets and close scrutiny of parole officers have been utilized as post-jail treatments, along with registering with the local law enforcement. So far, this process seems sufficient or at the least adequate. Bogota’s newspapers and other organizations are calling for similar actions to be taken in the capital. Their stance against the billboards recognized the civil liberties of the prisoners. The latest news involves prisoners staging peaceful protests against this new law in Bogota (2).
Does this law in Columbia give due process? Does it allow the prisoner’s their constitutional rights after release from prison? One must recognize that people go to prison to ‘heal.’ Prison is not only a punishment, but a place to, theoretically, heal a prisoner so that they can function in society again.
Should media be used to ‘educate or inform’ the public about local deviants? I believe accessing the whereabouts of sexual predators via the Internet is powerful and informative. Beyond this, how does the government stay involved, but respect civil liberties. The government can’t follow these offenders everyday making sure that their walks, drives or transports don’t take them near schools, beaches, parks or the like. We must trust in the ‘reform’ system of the jails to ‘heal’ these offenders. These offenders lose so much going to prison and afterwards, we, or the Columbians should not enact retroactive laws for previous offenders. I also believe that pasting the photos of these offenders puts the power of regulation in the hands of gangs, irate citizens and anyone seeking revenge or action against the offenders. Public knowledge should be granted, but it should be accessed, not pushed onto the general public. The television spots and the billboards push these offender’s discrepancies onto the public, which could incite more violence and retribution. The media in Columbia should stay neutral and not allow the government to regulate or dictate what is aired via its outlets.
The media should be utilized to educate and inform, but the government’s blatant disregard to citizen’s well-being is being overshadowed in this instance. These pictures and information will reach the masses and when the masses are given power, that power is easily corruptible. I hope that the prisoners do not see retribution taken against them by gangs or fellow citizens.
1. http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4054924
2. http://www.iol.za.org/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=122&art_id=nw20070509221120165C420017
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7015707.stm
4. http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/homepage.aspx?lang=ENGLISH
5. http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/2004/02/16/Opinion/Editorial.Sex.Offenders.Have.Civil.Liberties.Too-1098792.shtml
NPR radio
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Free Speech or F*** Speech
Controversy? Read on and contemplate.
Socrates fought for it during his trial in Athens. The Magna Carta was signed to promote it in England. Milton published ‘Areopagitica’ to argue restriction against it. The First Amendment guarantees it.
Free Speech. Simply put this could be the greatest power we as Americans, humans and citizens of the world have in our arsenal. What happens when this power is lost? What happens when our civil liberties are taken away?
This past week, a University of Florida student attended Senator John Kerry’s forum. Kerry spoke and afterwards took questions from the audience. During the questioning period, Andrew Meyer, the UF student, got up and asked a few questions. Some of the questions Meyer asked include; “What do you think about voter suppression in the 2004 Presidential race?” “Why didn’t you appeal the 2004 Presidential vote count?” “Were you a member of the Skull and Bones fraternity with President George W. Bush?” “Why hasn’t a move been made to impeach Bush?” The microphone Meyer was using cutoff and police officers came to escort him out of the forum. After raising his voice and having several police officers grabbing him, Meyer was tased. Please see video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag
Both of these videos give two different views of the incident. Obviously some students agreed with this gentleman’s questions and rational, and others disagreed; proven by their clapping at his being escorted out of the forum. The student was subsequently arrested, jailed overnight and charged with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace.
These are great, interesting, valid, depth-seeking questions. They are also controversial, or can be seen as controversial by many people. Kerry even acknowledged the questions and began answering the questions as the student was being tasered in the back of the auditorium. This, in my opinion, only recognizes these questions as valid and not a distraction.
No matter the background of this student, which has come into questions, a bigger issue of civil liberties becomes present.
In response to this occurrence, students on university campuses across the nation have been reacting. In a column in Colorado State University’s paper, The Collegian, students reacted with differing opinions, (http://www.collegian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=69ff4709-2ad4-4309-845f-5ebc419b240f).
Then, on Friday September 21, the editorial page of the same paper had a heading with the following, ‘Taser This… F*** Bush’. It spoke about the loss of civil liberties and the right to free speech. The editor did not publish this account maliciously, but instead in an action to incite opinions and conversations about free speech. Now, the editor is embroiled in controversy with the CSU presidential office. The paper has lost $30,000 in advertising money along with putting McSwane’s job on the line.
The editor has written a response to this uproar and the CSU president’s reaction (4). He did this by writing a controversial heading. This challenges our ethos. It challenges the daily standard. This challenges the traditional sense of newspaper reportage. It has been looked at with mixed emotions also.
“The editorial was bound to raise hackles, said Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists, who advises newspapers on ethical issues. The best of editorials are evocative and provocative, but shocking readers in itself is not necessarily good journalism, nor is the use of shock-therapy editorial language the wisest expression of free speech." (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6972545?source=rss).
Free speech is the only way how reporters, and us as citizens can agree, disagree, fight and challenge the government, authorities, and anyone’s opinions. Free speech is a healthy expression for us and essential to the media, especially media considering themselves public service media.
I digress, in free speech incidents closer to this area, one can look at what was happening to the University of California-Berkeley in the 1960s. Students became embroiled in controversy there over the subject of a park – People’s Park – and how the situation was being handled amongst the University administration and the student body. Residents of San Francisco fight for free speech everyday. This past spring, citizens performed a ‘die-in’ in the streets of downtown San Francisco. This demonstration was met with mixed reviews, with several citizens being arrested because of blocking traffic and disturbing the peace.
Now, did cops take away the civil liberties of this student at John Kerry’s forum? Did the editor of The Collegian act irrationally and with malcontent when publishing his editorial page in response to the tasering incident? The latter question is easier to answer. Obviously, the editor was not out to maliciously hurt George W. Bush, I have seen transients and panhandlers with more appropriate cardboard signs for this justification. I do believe that the strong language utilized by McSwane’s editorial page was a bit off the mark. One can incite conversation and inform the public without startling them to the point of irrationality. Some strategic asterisks or cartoons can be used instead of printing a word that has become taboo in our society. (http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2007/09/22/colorado-state-university-student-newspaper-under-fire-for-taser-thisfuck-bush-editorial/).
Now, an alternative of challenging free speech with telling Bush off, would be to produce a story directly involved and in response to the tasing of Meyer the UF student. Why not print a story with the headline, “Tase this…F*** the tasing cops!” Wouldn’t that have hit home a bit more than to attack Bush? Don’t get me wrong, I am not protecting Bush, I am sure I have been known to join the choir in doing some Bush-bashing, but the larger picture here is free speech and civil liberty suppression regarding a law enforcement act against a citizen at a public forum.
Backtracking to the civil liberty in question to UF student Meyer. If after watching the videos of Meyer, you feel that cops used excessive force and were wrong in escorting Meyer out, then my guess is you feel that his civil liberties were taken away. On the other hand, if you feel that he was being disruptive in public and being a nuisance to his fellow citizens, then the cops were acting accordingly.
Personally, I think Meyer went to far when wasn’t concise and direct with his questioning. His postulating was too much. Furthermore his mentioning of Clinton’s fellatio incident was not suited and not relevant to what he was intending to get answered.
Meyer could have made a better point if he asked his specific questions quickly, directly and then held up a sign that stated his beliefs. (just an idea)
In saying that, I also think that the cops using tasers on the student were misdirected. With 4 or more police officers around him, my question is why couldn’t they cuff him and lead him out without using excessive force.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20835952/
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/kerry_taser.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297126,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI
http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Taser.Incident.Ignites.Debate-2983312.shtml
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6972545?source=rss
http://www.collegian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=69ff4709-2ad4-4309-845f-5ebc419b240f
http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Letter.From.Collegian.Editor.In.Chief.Regarding.Bush.Statement-2984663.shtml
Socrates fought for it during his trial in Athens. The Magna Carta was signed to promote it in England. Milton published ‘Areopagitica’ to argue restriction against it. The First Amendment guarantees it.
Free Speech. Simply put this could be the greatest power we as Americans, humans and citizens of the world have in our arsenal. What happens when this power is lost? What happens when our civil liberties are taken away?
This past week, a University of Florida student attended Senator John Kerry’s forum. Kerry spoke and afterwards took questions from the audience. During the questioning period, Andrew Meyer, the UF student, got up and asked a few questions. Some of the questions Meyer asked include; “What do you think about voter suppression in the 2004 Presidential race?” “Why didn’t you appeal the 2004 Presidential vote count?” “Were you a member of the Skull and Bones fraternity with President George W. Bush?” “Why hasn’t a move been made to impeach Bush?” The microphone Meyer was using cutoff and police officers came to escort him out of the forum. After raising his voice and having several police officers grabbing him, Meyer was tased. Please see video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag
Both of these videos give two different views of the incident. Obviously some students agreed with this gentleman’s questions and rational, and others disagreed; proven by their clapping at his being escorted out of the forum. The student was subsequently arrested, jailed overnight and charged with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace.
These are great, interesting, valid, depth-seeking questions. They are also controversial, or can be seen as controversial by many people. Kerry even acknowledged the questions and began answering the questions as the student was being tasered in the back of the auditorium. This, in my opinion, only recognizes these questions as valid and not a distraction.
No matter the background of this student, which has come into questions, a bigger issue of civil liberties becomes present.
In response to this occurrence, students on university campuses across the nation have been reacting. In a column in Colorado State University’s paper, The Collegian, students reacted with differing opinions, (http://www.collegian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=69ff4709-2ad4-4309-845f-5ebc419b240f).
Then, on Friday September 21, the editorial page of the same paper had a heading with the following, ‘Taser This… F*** Bush’. It spoke about the loss of civil liberties and the right to free speech. The editor did not publish this account maliciously, but instead in an action to incite opinions and conversations about free speech. Now, the editor is embroiled in controversy with the CSU presidential office. The paper has lost $30,000 in advertising money along with putting McSwane’s job on the line.
The editor has written a response to this uproar and the CSU president’s reaction (4). He did this by writing a controversial heading. This challenges our ethos. It challenges the daily standard. This challenges the traditional sense of newspaper reportage. It has been looked at with mixed emotions also.
“The editorial was bound to raise hackles, said Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists, who advises newspapers on ethical issues. The best of editorials are evocative and provocative, but shocking readers in itself is not necessarily good journalism, nor is the use of shock-therapy editorial language the wisest expression of free speech." (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6972545?source=rss).
Free speech is the only way how reporters, and us as citizens can agree, disagree, fight and challenge the government, authorities, and anyone’s opinions. Free speech is a healthy expression for us and essential to the media, especially media considering themselves public service media.
I digress, in free speech incidents closer to this area, one can look at what was happening to the University of California-Berkeley in the 1960s. Students became embroiled in controversy there over the subject of a park – People’s Park – and how the situation was being handled amongst the University administration and the student body. Residents of San Francisco fight for free speech everyday. This past spring, citizens performed a ‘die-in’ in the streets of downtown San Francisco. This demonstration was met with mixed reviews, with several citizens being arrested because of blocking traffic and disturbing the peace.
Now, did cops take away the civil liberties of this student at John Kerry’s forum? Did the editor of The Collegian act irrationally and with malcontent when publishing his editorial page in response to the tasering incident? The latter question is easier to answer. Obviously, the editor was not out to maliciously hurt George W. Bush, I have seen transients and panhandlers with more appropriate cardboard signs for this justification. I do believe that the strong language utilized by McSwane’s editorial page was a bit off the mark. One can incite conversation and inform the public without startling them to the point of irrationality. Some strategic asterisks or cartoons can be used instead of printing a word that has become taboo in our society. (http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2007/09/22/colorado-state-university-student-newspaper-under-fire-for-taser-thisfuck-bush-editorial/).
Now, an alternative of challenging free speech with telling Bush off, would be to produce a story directly involved and in response to the tasing of Meyer the UF student. Why not print a story with the headline, “Tase this…F*** the tasing cops!” Wouldn’t that have hit home a bit more than to attack Bush? Don’t get me wrong, I am not protecting Bush, I am sure I have been known to join the choir in doing some Bush-bashing, but the larger picture here is free speech and civil liberty suppression regarding a law enforcement act against a citizen at a public forum.
Backtracking to the civil liberty in question to UF student Meyer. If after watching the videos of Meyer, you feel that cops used excessive force and were wrong in escorting Meyer out, then my guess is you feel that his civil liberties were taken away. On the other hand, if you feel that he was being disruptive in public and being a nuisance to his fellow citizens, then the cops were acting accordingly.
Personally, I think Meyer went to far when wasn’t concise and direct with his questioning. His postulating was too much. Furthermore his mentioning of Clinton’s fellatio incident was not suited and not relevant to what he was intending to get answered.
Meyer could have made a better point if he asked his specific questions quickly, directly and then held up a sign that stated his beliefs. (just an idea)
In saying that, I also think that the cops using tasers on the student were misdirected. With 4 or more police officers around him, my question is why couldn’t they cuff him and lead him out without using excessive force.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20835952/
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/kerry_taser.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297126,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI
http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Taser.Incident.Ignites.Debate-2983312.shtml
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6972545?source=rss
http://www.collegian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=69ff4709-2ad4-4309-845f-5ebc419b240f
http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Letter.From.Collegian.Editor.In.Chief.Regarding.Bush.Statement-2984663.shtml
Friday, September 21, 2007
Slippery Ethics Issues - Open Ended Response
Ken Burns recently produced a $13 million, 7 part, 15 hour, and epic documentary on WWII. The series will start airing on PBS, especially our local KQED station this Sunday night. Burns’ rushed to tell this story, as 1,000 WWII veterans are dying a day. (1) This urgency was one of the leading reasons Burns felt this story needed to be told. Burns’ always intimate, personal stories are successful because they tell a big story with a lot of heart, and endearment. Even with Burns’ mentioning he did not intend to make an all-inclusive story, he is being met with resistance to his film (3). Burns’ retroactively co-produced with Hector Gallan, a prominent Latino filmmaker, 30 minutes of extra footage concentrating on the Latino contributions and achievements during WWII. Latinos initially contacted Burns sponsors, PBS, and through legislation insisting on their addition to ‘The War’ (4). Latinos are planning protests outside of 4 PBS stations in California on Sunday and further protests will happen in Washington D.C. and Boston. These issues was discussed this morning on Forum with Michael Krasny, with substitute hose Dave Iverson. The questions posed in the show are the same thoughts I had during Burns’ speeches at his premiere, and at SFSU campus on September 14th. This will be discussed after some background (5).
As pervious WWII films have concentrated on strategy, commander’s opinions and heroes, Burns’ story focusing on the stories he does best, personal stories. (1). Young viewers, whose previous knowledge of WWII undoubtedly come from sources such as Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Flags of our Fathers, and other dramatic representations of ‘the greatest war,’ will be able to find truth, heart, vital information and a true educational experience in watching the war. Burns’ The War is an aural assault but could possibly be his greatest achievement (2). The movie’s graphic scenes are intense scenes to digest, but all a part of the necessary story. “‘The War’ invigorates history – in an honest fashion” (2). Burns has always been a historical buff with a creative streak enabling him to tell epic stories such as Jazz, Baseball, Unforgivable Blackness, The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson, Mark Twain, Civil War, The West and more (6). Burns is an artist, a documentarian, and a mainstay of Public Broadcasting for over 20 years. Not many people would say that Burns is a racist, biased, individual, but one cannot deny that themes of race and discrimination permeate his productions (6, Charlie McCollum). Viewers can take a look at the story of Jack Johnson, an African American boxer that was given little chance at professional boxing because of his race. Now, historically he is revered as one of the best boxers of all time. ‘Baseball’ touched upon the discrimination issues during the 1900s, ‘Jazz’ explored racial profiling, and now ‘The War’ not only discusses how diversity was huge in California after the war, but has now been amended to include the Latino contribution to WWII.
On NPR’s Forum with guest host Dave Iverson, guests Armando Rendon, the chair of the Northern California Defend the Honor Campaign, Hector Gallan, producer and filmmaker, Charlie McCollum San Jose Mercury journalist, and Linda O Bryan, Northern California PBS management, all discussed the Burns’ issue of initially excluding Latinos from ‘The War.” Burns declined his invitation to speak with the program, and I recognize his withdrawal from this issue as he has been dealing with it for over a year now.
Prior to discussing the Forum radio show, viewers need to know a few things.
1. Burns did not intend to make an all-inclusive documentary. 2. ‘The War’ was done for over a year when Burns was contacted by PBS national and his sponsors about including Latinos in his series. Burns amended his film by adding 30 minutes of footage at the end of episodes 1, 5, and 6. I was lucky enough to see the premier of episode 1 at the Letterman Digital Arts Center in the Presidio. 3. As a documentarian, Burns does not have to be objective like a journalist, his art is important, but as a documentarian, he has to recognize that there may be a bigger story. 4. The Hispanic Caucus used leverage in legislation to get recognition for this issue. As of present, I do not have information regarding what sort of conversations between any legislators and the national PBS offices have had in the past concerning this issue. 5. Protests being held in California and other PBS affiliates, a comic strip are being utilized to express Latino influence during WWII and take a stance of education on this issue (4). 6. PBS, especially KQED have now produced a series of Latino involvement in WWII that will air after ‘The War.’ They will also be continuing to produce radio, TV and Internet documentation to archive the contributions of Latinos in WWII. This is in direct response to Defend the Honor Campaign and other protests against what has happened.
The questions posed on Forum, and ones that I have been thinking about were these:
What are the dangers of interests groups changing an artist’s vision?
Should legislation get involved when it comes to Public Broadcasting and equal rights?
The guests on forum expressed the following thoughts:
Armando Rendon, chair of the Northern California Defend the Honor Campaign (5)
He is still concerned that Burns failed to recognize Latinos in WWII contributions. He wants to question not only the integrity of Burns’ filmmaking but all filmmakers. He wants to remind people that you can’t ignore the Latino history. Rendon recognized Burns’ wanted to celebrate American’s diversity with this film, but in order to do that, he wants to include the Latino population. Rendon has states that PBS has a tremendous responsibility to be diverse and they dropped the ball with Ken Burns. Rendon believes if any precedence is being set here, it is that people are independently editorializes their artwork.
Hector Galan, an independent documentary filmmaker and co-producer of ‘The War’ and its portrayal of Latinos expounded the following: (5)
As an artist, he stated that he would not want to be part of what Ken Burns is having to go through. He feels the series is great. It is filled with Latinos images, but we do not hear their voices. He even recognized his father on a ship. He recognizes that Ken Burns did not purposely exclude Latinos, but he feels that Latinos are off the radar for people on the East Coast including PBS. He equates this with why Latinos were added initially. Galan enjoyed working with Burns on the amended pieces and feels the quality of the footage was parallel to the previous footage. Still not 100% satisfied because it is still an add-on or appendage. The show ‘ends’ or fades to black and then the addition comes on screen. Afterward credits roll. Galan feels this situation sets precedence because it defends the honor of Latino filmmakers. He did not have a true opinion on how do you, as an artist; respond to the pressure from interest groups on your sponsors. He does feel that with Ken Burns’s success, that he should be more conscious of opening up his vision. Although he didn’t intend this to be a definitive piece, the story arcs cover many grounds and added another 30 minutes was needed. (5)
Reporter Charlie McCollum had the following to say: (5)
He feels that this incident sets a precedent for interest groups and their rights. He recognizes that the voices of Hispanics are simply not heard, but he worries about the pressure put upon filmmakers. McCollum states that documentarians are not journalists, they are artists that have visions and want to tell stories. (5)
Linda O Bryan, CPB management had the following to say: (5)
This situation has created a debate that needed to be discussed, but worries about the precedent it is setting due to the political issues that may arise. How is this going to deal with Public Broadcasting legislation? She does not know what sort of ‘creative freedoms’ will be compromised with such a precedent of change. KQED’s goal and PBS’ is to stay independent, diverse and produce quality programming. KQED will continue producing material that concentrates on Latino and Asian contributions to the war while archiving all this information on the Web and on Radio. (5)
I have personally seen the first episode and seen Burns speak about his series, his goals and respond to criticism, I commend him for his integrity to make the film, which is possibly the greatest film he has produced, and I commend him for co-producing the extra footage and adding it onto his current film. I understand that he took a lot of pressure from interests groups, national PBS, and the general public to amend his work. He did it in the best way he saw possible, by adding the footage on, without destroying the integrity of the piece he has already produced.
My own personal thoughts are that no legislation or interest groups rights should hinder, manipulate, change, or amend an artist’s vision on his/her project. I do recognize from past experiences working with public broadcasting, that certain criteria need to be followed and certain goals need to be met. From personal experience I have been part of producing series that fed to the masses, and targeting the general public without being perceived as discriminatory. I have had to change piece of a show due to graphic and or critical footage, but I understood the rational behind changing the piece. That situation differed from Burns’s situation. I believe PBS folded in its integrity on this issue. Essentially making Ken Burns add footage and story to his film to diversify the message amends their own independent mindset. I agree with the stations producing their own material in addition to showing Burns’ piece. KQED is producing ‘Soldados,’ ‘Nisei Soldiers’ and ‘The War: Bay Area Stories.’ (2) All these can be perceived as supplemental material to Burns’ piece, but also in response to the Latino protests regarding their exclusion from Burns’ piece. Burns set out to make a story of four towns and their relation to the War and the families in those towns. He did not set out to make a piece about difference races’ involvement with the War. That is a completely different story.
Interests groups have a right to their opinion; they are a strong, integral part of this society’s masses. Their responses of protests and demonstrations are understandable, but I believe there are more constructive ways to getting their message across. The cartoonist expressing his feelings behind his cartoon, Galan producing Latino pieces form Texas, and the possibility of making their own Latino WWII pieces are all great ideas and financially viable productive and constructive options.
If interests groups get too involved with manipulating artists’ visions, we will be left with no independent thought, and no chance of people being able to express themselves without hindering someone else. I recommend that people produce their own docs in response to anyone else’s.
I also believe that legislation should not get involved by amending free speech rights, or manipulating PBS, which get funding from the public, to put pressure on their independent producers. Legislation that requires independent producers to follow criteria for diversification is Orwellian and dictatorial. If this happens, I believe less and less independent production will occur and we will be left with no voice. If a society is left without opposing voices and differing opinions, we will be robots achieving a goal none of us has set for ourselves.
Media’s responsibility is to inform, educate and create conversations. This piece alone will do that, but should issues overshadow the quality of the piece? That is a bigger issue.
This is a sticky issue with no resolve, but one needs to recognize that Burns has created a masterpiece and this issues of ‘excluding’ Latinos was not on purpose, it was just not his initial vision.
Any recommendation or comments are sincerely requested.
(1) http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-09-20-the-war_N.htm
(2) http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/21/DD1SSA04H.DTL
(3) Burns personal communication, SFSU University Friday, September 14th, and Movie Premiere, Letterman Digital Arts Center, Friday, September 14th.
(4) http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5145953.html
(5) Forum with Michael Krasny
(6) http://www.florentinefilms.com/ffpages/FFIntro-frameset.html
Other interesting Web sites.
On the Net: Baldo: http://baldocomics.com/
Defend the Honor: http://www.defendthehonor.org
The War: http://www.pbs.org/thewar/
As pervious WWII films have concentrated on strategy, commander’s opinions and heroes, Burns’ story focusing on the stories he does best, personal stories. (1). Young viewers, whose previous knowledge of WWII undoubtedly come from sources such as Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Flags of our Fathers, and other dramatic representations of ‘the greatest war,’ will be able to find truth, heart, vital information and a true educational experience in watching the war. Burns’ The War is an aural assault but could possibly be his greatest achievement (2). The movie’s graphic scenes are intense scenes to digest, but all a part of the necessary story. “‘The War’ invigorates history – in an honest fashion” (2). Burns has always been a historical buff with a creative streak enabling him to tell epic stories such as Jazz, Baseball, Unforgivable Blackness, The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson, Mark Twain, Civil War, The West and more (6). Burns is an artist, a documentarian, and a mainstay of Public Broadcasting for over 20 years. Not many people would say that Burns is a racist, biased, individual, but one cannot deny that themes of race and discrimination permeate his productions (6, Charlie McCollum). Viewers can take a look at the story of Jack Johnson, an African American boxer that was given little chance at professional boxing because of his race. Now, historically he is revered as one of the best boxers of all time. ‘Baseball’ touched upon the discrimination issues during the 1900s, ‘Jazz’ explored racial profiling, and now ‘The War’ not only discusses how diversity was huge in California after the war, but has now been amended to include the Latino contribution to WWII.
On NPR’s Forum with guest host Dave Iverson, guests Armando Rendon, the chair of the Northern California Defend the Honor Campaign, Hector Gallan, producer and filmmaker, Charlie McCollum San Jose Mercury journalist, and Linda O Bryan, Northern California PBS management, all discussed the Burns’ issue of initially excluding Latinos from ‘The War.” Burns declined his invitation to speak with the program, and I recognize his withdrawal from this issue as he has been dealing with it for over a year now.
Prior to discussing the Forum radio show, viewers need to know a few things.
1. Burns did not intend to make an all-inclusive documentary. 2. ‘The War’ was done for over a year when Burns was contacted by PBS national and his sponsors about including Latinos in his series. Burns amended his film by adding 30 minutes of footage at the end of episodes 1, 5, and 6. I was lucky enough to see the premier of episode 1 at the Letterman Digital Arts Center in the Presidio. 3. As a documentarian, Burns does not have to be objective like a journalist, his art is important, but as a documentarian, he has to recognize that there may be a bigger story. 4. The Hispanic Caucus used leverage in legislation to get recognition for this issue. As of present, I do not have information regarding what sort of conversations between any legislators and the national PBS offices have had in the past concerning this issue. 5. Protests being held in California and other PBS affiliates, a comic strip are being utilized to express Latino influence during WWII and take a stance of education on this issue (4). 6. PBS, especially KQED have now produced a series of Latino involvement in WWII that will air after ‘The War.’ They will also be continuing to produce radio, TV and Internet documentation to archive the contributions of Latinos in WWII. This is in direct response to Defend the Honor Campaign and other protests against what has happened.
The questions posed on Forum, and ones that I have been thinking about were these:
What are the dangers of interests groups changing an artist’s vision?
Should legislation get involved when it comes to Public Broadcasting and equal rights?
The guests on forum expressed the following thoughts:
Armando Rendon, chair of the Northern California Defend the Honor Campaign (5)
He is still concerned that Burns failed to recognize Latinos in WWII contributions. He wants to question not only the integrity of Burns’ filmmaking but all filmmakers. He wants to remind people that you can’t ignore the Latino history. Rendon recognized Burns’ wanted to celebrate American’s diversity with this film, but in order to do that, he wants to include the Latino population. Rendon has states that PBS has a tremendous responsibility to be diverse and they dropped the ball with Ken Burns. Rendon believes if any precedence is being set here, it is that people are independently editorializes their artwork.
Hector Galan, an independent documentary filmmaker and co-producer of ‘The War’ and its portrayal of Latinos expounded the following: (5)
As an artist, he stated that he would not want to be part of what Ken Burns is having to go through. He feels the series is great. It is filled with Latinos images, but we do not hear their voices. He even recognized his father on a ship. He recognizes that Ken Burns did not purposely exclude Latinos, but he feels that Latinos are off the radar for people on the East Coast including PBS. He equates this with why Latinos were added initially. Galan enjoyed working with Burns on the amended pieces and feels the quality of the footage was parallel to the previous footage. Still not 100% satisfied because it is still an add-on or appendage. The show ‘ends’ or fades to black and then the addition comes on screen. Afterward credits roll. Galan feels this situation sets precedence because it defends the honor of Latino filmmakers. He did not have a true opinion on how do you, as an artist; respond to the pressure from interest groups on your sponsors. He does feel that with Ken Burns’s success, that he should be more conscious of opening up his vision. Although he didn’t intend this to be a definitive piece, the story arcs cover many grounds and added another 30 minutes was needed. (5)
Reporter Charlie McCollum had the following to say: (5)
He feels that this incident sets a precedent for interest groups and their rights. He recognizes that the voices of Hispanics are simply not heard, but he worries about the pressure put upon filmmakers. McCollum states that documentarians are not journalists, they are artists that have visions and want to tell stories. (5)
Linda O Bryan, CPB management had the following to say: (5)
This situation has created a debate that needed to be discussed, but worries about the precedent it is setting due to the political issues that may arise. How is this going to deal with Public Broadcasting legislation? She does not know what sort of ‘creative freedoms’ will be compromised with such a precedent of change. KQED’s goal and PBS’ is to stay independent, diverse and produce quality programming. KQED will continue producing material that concentrates on Latino and Asian contributions to the war while archiving all this information on the Web and on Radio. (5)
I have personally seen the first episode and seen Burns speak about his series, his goals and respond to criticism, I commend him for his integrity to make the film, which is possibly the greatest film he has produced, and I commend him for co-producing the extra footage and adding it onto his current film. I understand that he took a lot of pressure from interests groups, national PBS, and the general public to amend his work. He did it in the best way he saw possible, by adding the footage on, without destroying the integrity of the piece he has already produced.
My own personal thoughts are that no legislation or interest groups rights should hinder, manipulate, change, or amend an artist’s vision on his/her project. I do recognize from past experiences working with public broadcasting, that certain criteria need to be followed and certain goals need to be met. From personal experience I have been part of producing series that fed to the masses, and targeting the general public without being perceived as discriminatory. I have had to change piece of a show due to graphic and or critical footage, but I understood the rational behind changing the piece. That situation differed from Burns’s situation. I believe PBS folded in its integrity on this issue. Essentially making Ken Burns add footage and story to his film to diversify the message amends their own independent mindset. I agree with the stations producing their own material in addition to showing Burns’ piece. KQED is producing ‘Soldados,’ ‘Nisei Soldiers’ and ‘The War: Bay Area Stories.’ (2) All these can be perceived as supplemental material to Burns’ piece, but also in response to the Latino protests regarding their exclusion from Burns’ piece. Burns set out to make a story of four towns and their relation to the War and the families in those towns. He did not set out to make a piece about difference races’ involvement with the War. That is a completely different story.
Interests groups have a right to their opinion; they are a strong, integral part of this society’s masses. Their responses of protests and demonstrations are understandable, but I believe there are more constructive ways to getting their message across. The cartoonist expressing his feelings behind his cartoon, Galan producing Latino pieces form Texas, and the possibility of making their own Latino WWII pieces are all great ideas and financially viable productive and constructive options.
If interests groups get too involved with manipulating artists’ visions, we will be left with no independent thought, and no chance of people being able to express themselves without hindering someone else. I recommend that people produce their own docs in response to anyone else’s.
I also believe that legislation should not get involved by amending free speech rights, or manipulating PBS, which get funding from the public, to put pressure on their independent producers. Legislation that requires independent producers to follow criteria for diversification is Orwellian and dictatorial. If this happens, I believe less and less independent production will occur and we will be left with no voice. If a society is left without opposing voices and differing opinions, we will be robots achieving a goal none of us has set for ourselves.
Media’s responsibility is to inform, educate and create conversations. This piece alone will do that, but should issues overshadow the quality of the piece? That is a bigger issue.
This is a sticky issue with no resolve, but one needs to recognize that Burns has created a masterpiece and this issues of ‘excluding’ Latinos was not on purpose, it was just not his initial vision.
Any recommendation or comments are sincerely requested.
(1) http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-09-20-the-war_N.htm
(2) http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/21/DD1SSA04H.DTL
(3) Burns personal communication, SFSU University Friday, September 14th, and Movie Premiere, Letterman Digital Arts Center, Friday, September 14th.
(4) http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5145953.html
(5) Forum with Michael Krasny
(6) http://www.florentinefilms.com/ffpages/FFIntro-frameset.html
Other interesting Web sites.
On the Net: Baldo: http://baldocomics.com/
Defend the Honor: http://www.defendthehonor.org
The War: http://www.pbs.org/thewar/
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Washington DC is actually located in Hollywood, CA
The politicians, their aides, lobbyists and others Inside the Beltway do not want the general public to know this. Or do they?
On the Media, a weekly radio show produced by WNYC, New York Public Radio, explored the fundamental impacts that Oprah’s ‘endorsement’ of Barack Obama might have on this next presidential election. 8 and half million people view Oprah Winfrey’s television program and 2 million people buy her magazine. (1, 5) Oprah has repeatedly given Barack kind words in public, but the most powerful may have been this past week’s party held at her California home for Barack. "I haven't been actively engaged before because there hasn't been anything to be actively engaged in. But I am engaged now to make Barack Obama the next president of the United States," The party drew celebrities, politicians, and the elite raising over 3 million for Barack’s campaign.
According to Steve Ross, a USC Professor interviewed for On the Media, Barack has become ever more powerful because of the backing of Oprah. He believes that Barack has found a person that can galvanize the voting public. He also mentioned, “If Oprah can get 1 percent of the net voting population that does not vote, and thinking about the last two elections and how close they were, those votes could swing the vote.’ (1)
This has not been the first celebrity filled gala that Barack has seen. This past February, a gala thrown by Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffery Katzenberg and attended by George Clooney raised over $1 million. Barack is being courted and he is doing the courting in this political back and forth game. (3)
This celebrity and politician relationship is nothing new, but one can be sure that with TV and the multitude of magazines present, we as a public is being inundated with it more.
In 1912 Mabel Normand, a silent movie star, backed a Socialist. Louis B. Mayer, a production company owner eventually becoming part of MGM, hosted politicians frequently, setting up photo ops and meet and greets with the politicians favorite actors. One night, John F. Kennedy visited Harry Belafonte, a famous singer. JFK received Belafonte’s endorsement after JFK agreed to meet with Dr. Martin Luther King. (1)
Ronald Reagan was an actor prior to his governorship and presidential responsibilities. Our present California governor was a body builder and actor in some weird previous life. Charlton Heston endorsed Nixon. I am up for further research but if this didn’t deal with the NRA and its rights, I have no clue why Heston would say, “Nixon is a great guy.” The jury is definitely still out on that one.
In today’s world, it seems that more and more celebrities are getting involved in politics. George Clooney, Sean Penn, the Dixie Chicks, Dave Matthews, Neil Young, and now Oprah.
Politicians have always sought out the beautiful, glamorous, and publicly popular Hollywood celebrities. In today’s media world, how we are perceived in the media is a strong influence on voters, young and old alike.
Hun Yul Lee mentioned a great example of the power of the media. Sean Penn is chastised in the media, but is highly involved and participates in the democracy of the US. Who wouldn’t want Sean Penn to be chain smoking and saving you off a rooftop in N’Awlins after the hurricane? What about socialism and visiting Chavez in Venezuela? Isn’t that about relationships, communication and participation? Well, participation and knowledge are two key points of democracy and Sean Penn has them down. It is unfortunate that Penn is perceived as the bad guy. Speculation of his falling out with the media may be his reclusive nature towards the paparazzi, his attitude towards them, or even his low amount of cigarettes for the day.
In a study about voting habits for young or emerging adults, musicians and celebrities were given top billing on how influential they are concerning politics. Doesn’t everyone want to vote for whom Bono endorses? Wait – he’s Irish. What about voting for whom Diddy (Sean P. Diddy Combs) endorses. Speaking of Diddy, not only is he a musician, a producer, a media and business mogul, but also a politically active citizen who writes books. Whether he wrote this next passage for the book Crossroads: The Future of American Politics while wearing his ‘Vote or Die T-shirt’ is still up in the air, I am expecting an email soon. ‘The problems is that there’s no one to vote for. Republicans and Democrats speak a good game – when asked about what they’re doing to appeal to young people they’ll spit chapter and verse about their record on education and social services – but in reality, politicians have given up on the kids. And so, in return, kids have given up on them… (2)
This is a powerful statement from a celebrity that has been seen hob-knobbing with politicians before.
Do celebrities make politicians sexy? Appealing? Well, if the old saying, “ You are who your friends are” is true, then celebrities and politicians are of one mold.
No one can deny the allure of relationships with people of the power elite – whether they are politicians or celebrities. Elites tend to commiserate with those being socially alike. The tendency towards financially alike gets included in the social realm in a capitalist society.
A few other things, I do not think we can fault politicians for looking pretty with the celebrities. They are trying to associate themselves with people that are popular for their abilities, looks and association with the perception of the general public. However shallow it may be, they are getting involved themselves.
I also do not think we can fault the celebrities for getting involved in politics. In a democracy one has a duty to participate, to be socially and politically active. If the celebrities are doing this through glamorous parties and massive amounts of donations, then so be it. They are participating. It is up to the general public to look through the smoke and mirrors of Hollywood and DC politics to see the facts and the platforms represented.
(1)
http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2007/09/07
(2)
Eisner, Jane; Taking Back the Vote, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, pg 47.
(3)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/movies/awardsseason/06holly.html?ex=1328418000&en=bf9affa61c90fe04&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
(4)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003871130_oprah06.html
(5)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/549017,CST-NWS-sweet09.article
(6)
http://cbs2chicago.com/nationalpolitics/politicsnational_story_244114256.html
On the Media, a weekly radio show produced by WNYC, New York Public Radio, explored the fundamental impacts that Oprah’s ‘endorsement’ of Barack Obama might have on this next presidential election. 8 and half million people view Oprah Winfrey’s television program and 2 million people buy her magazine. (1, 5) Oprah has repeatedly given Barack kind words in public, but the most powerful may have been this past week’s party held at her California home for Barack. "I haven't been actively engaged before because there hasn't been anything to be actively engaged in. But I am engaged now to make Barack Obama the next president of the United States," The party drew celebrities, politicians, and the elite raising over 3 million for Barack’s campaign.
According to Steve Ross, a USC Professor interviewed for On the Media, Barack has become ever more powerful because of the backing of Oprah. He believes that Barack has found a person that can galvanize the voting public. He also mentioned, “If Oprah can get 1 percent of the net voting population that does not vote, and thinking about the last two elections and how close they were, those votes could swing the vote.’ (1)
This has not been the first celebrity filled gala that Barack has seen. This past February, a gala thrown by Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffery Katzenberg and attended by George Clooney raised over $1 million. Barack is being courted and he is doing the courting in this political back and forth game. (3)
This celebrity and politician relationship is nothing new, but one can be sure that with TV and the multitude of magazines present, we as a public is being inundated with it more.
In 1912 Mabel Normand, a silent movie star, backed a Socialist. Louis B. Mayer, a production company owner eventually becoming part of MGM, hosted politicians frequently, setting up photo ops and meet and greets with the politicians favorite actors. One night, John F. Kennedy visited Harry Belafonte, a famous singer. JFK received Belafonte’s endorsement after JFK agreed to meet with Dr. Martin Luther King. (1)
Ronald Reagan was an actor prior to his governorship and presidential responsibilities. Our present California governor was a body builder and actor in some weird previous life. Charlton Heston endorsed Nixon. I am up for further research but if this didn’t deal with the NRA and its rights, I have no clue why Heston would say, “Nixon is a great guy.” The jury is definitely still out on that one.
In today’s world, it seems that more and more celebrities are getting involved in politics. George Clooney, Sean Penn, the Dixie Chicks, Dave Matthews, Neil Young, and now Oprah.
Politicians have always sought out the beautiful, glamorous, and publicly popular Hollywood celebrities. In today’s media world, how we are perceived in the media is a strong influence on voters, young and old alike.
Hun Yul Lee mentioned a great example of the power of the media. Sean Penn is chastised in the media, but is highly involved and participates in the democracy of the US. Who wouldn’t want Sean Penn to be chain smoking and saving you off a rooftop in N’Awlins after the hurricane? What about socialism and visiting Chavez in Venezuela? Isn’t that about relationships, communication and participation? Well, participation and knowledge are two key points of democracy and Sean Penn has them down. It is unfortunate that Penn is perceived as the bad guy. Speculation of his falling out with the media may be his reclusive nature towards the paparazzi, his attitude towards them, or even his low amount of cigarettes for the day.
In a study about voting habits for young or emerging adults, musicians and celebrities were given top billing on how influential they are concerning politics. Doesn’t everyone want to vote for whom Bono endorses? Wait – he’s Irish. What about voting for whom Diddy (Sean P. Diddy Combs) endorses. Speaking of Diddy, not only is he a musician, a producer, a media and business mogul, but also a politically active citizen who writes books. Whether he wrote this next passage for the book Crossroads: The Future of American Politics while wearing his ‘Vote or Die T-shirt’ is still up in the air, I am expecting an email soon. ‘The problems is that there’s no one to vote for. Republicans and Democrats speak a good game – when asked about what they’re doing to appeal to young people they’ll spit chapter and verse about their record on education and social services – but in reality, politicians have given up on the kids. And so, in return, kids have given up on them… (2)
This is a powerful statement from a celebrity that has been seen hob-knobbing with politicians before.
Do celebrities make politicians sexy? Appealing? Well, if the old saying, “ You are who your friends are” is true, then celebrities and politicians are of one mold.
No one can deny the allure of relationships with people of the power elite – whether they are politicians or celebrities. Elites tend to commiserate with those being socially alike. The tendency towards financially alike gets included in the social realm in a capitalist society.
A few other things, I do not think we can fault politicians for looking pretty with the celebrities. They are trying to associate themselves with people that are popular for their abilities, looks and association with the perception of the general public. However shallow it may be, they are getting involved themselves.
I also do not think we can fault the celebrities for getting involved in politics. In a democracy one has a duty to participate, to be socially and politically active. If the celebrities are doing this through glamorous parties and massive amounts of donations, then so be it. They are participating. It is up to the general public to look through the smoke and mirrors of Hollywood and DC politics to see the facts and the platforms represented.
(1)
http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2007/09/07
(2)
Eisner, Jane; Taking Back the Vote, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, pg 47.
(3)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/movies/awardsseason/06holly.html?ex=1328418000&en=bf9affa61c90fe04&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
(4)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003871130_oprah06.html
(5)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/549017,CST-NWS-sweet09.article
(6)
http://cbs2chicago.com/nationalpolitics/politicsnational_story_244114256.html
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
Gangsta rap is the most commercially lucrative subgenre of hip-hop.
If you listen to it, you’ll know it is populated with expletives, drug dealers turned emcees, the size of fly bling, rims, and booty in the strip club. The music seems to perpetuate a lifestyle denigrating women, homosexuals, whilst all the while advocating violence and self-destruction in pursuit of the almighty dollar bill.
Although, Snoop Dogg (and others) made a living from it since the 1980’s, it’s popularity really became commercially evident in the 1990’s, with the release of Dr. Dre's album, 'The Chronic' in 1992.
Criticism has come from both right wing and left wing commentators, religious leaders and black activists alike. In August 2006, civil rights activist -- the Rev. Al Sharpton warned of the dangers of doing nothing about the glorification of the gangster lifestyle.
Many people strongly believe, that Gangsta rap fosters criminal behavior amongst our ‘impressionable’ youth. Many have tried to quantify this tangible effect and though there have been varying results -- the majority lean with the argument that music (more so than television) has an effect on social behavior. (David Gordon, 2006)
There are many ethical issues at stake here. For instance, many Gangsta rappers often defend themselves by claiming they are only describing their reality of inner-city life, which leads me to question how they can justify making such vast amounts of personal profit from this exploitation. To what measure is it ethical and acceptable to profit from the plight of poor black conditions? The quandary deepens should it be proven that this behavior also inspires new and more illicit activity as well.
The rivalries between East and West Coast rap artists have led to countless deaths already. Two high profile rappers 2Pac Shakur and Biggie Smalls have already succumbed to their end in high profile drive by shootings. Record companies capitalized on the glorification of gang violence in rap music. These are people who can’t even defend themselves with the argument they are ‘describing the reality of their lives’.
The other day, we watched a snippet from “Born into Brothels’. We agreed it’s film-makers probably profited in some way or another, but at the end of the day there was not one person who accused it of encouraging inner-city depravation as we suspect Gangsta rap does.
Put that next to 'Get Rich or Die Tryin'; another film depicting inner city life loosely based on rapper 50 Cent’s gangland reality and violent experiences and you hear outrage.
To begin with, its movie poster shows 50 Cent (real name Curtis Jackson) with his arms outstretched, a microphone in one hand and a gun in the other. The poster was later ammended to calm criticism:
Later on, the DVD box looked like this:
If you listen to it, you’ll know it is populated with expletives, drug dealers turned emcees, the size of fly bling, rims, and booty in the strip club. The music seems to perpetuate a lifestyle denigrating women, homosexuals, whilst all the while advocating violence and self-destruction in pursuit of the almighty dollar bill. Although, Snoop Dogg (and others) made a living from it since the 1980’s, it’s popularity really became commercially evident in the 1990’s, with the release of Dr. Dre's album, 'The Chronic' in 1992.
Criticism has come from both right wing and left wing commentators, religious leaders and black activists alike. In August 2006, civil rights activist -- the Rev. Al Sharpton warned of the dangers of doing nothing about the glorification of the gangster lifestyle.
Many people strongly believe, that Gangsta rap fosters criminal behavior amongst our ‘impressionable’ youth. Many have tried to quantify this tangible effect and though there have been varying results -- the majority lean with the argument that music (more so than television) has an effect on social behavior. (David Gordon, 2006)
There are many ethical issues at stake here. For instance, many Gangsta rappers often defend themselves by claiming they are only describing their reality of inner-city life, which leads me to question how they can justify making such vast amounts of personal profit from this exploitation. To what measure is it ethical and acceptable to profit from the plight of poor black conditions? The quandary deepens should it be proven that this behavior also inspires new and more illicit activity as well.
The rivalries between East and West Coast rap artists have led to countless deaths already. Two high profile rappers 2Pac Shakur and Biggie Smalls have already succumbed to their end in high profile drive by shootings. Record companies capitalized on the glorification of gang violence in rap music. These are people who can’t even defend themselves with the argument they are ‘describing the reality of their lives’.
The other day, we watched a snippet from “Born into Brothels’. We agreed it’s film-makers probably profited in some way or another, but at the end of the day there was not one person who accused it of encouraging inner-city depravation as we suspect Gangsta rap does.Put that next to 'Get Rich or Die Tryin'; another film depicting inner city life loosely based on rapper 50 Cent’s gangland reality and violent experiences and you hear outrage.
To begin with, its movie poster shows 50 Cent (real name Curtis Jackson) with his arms outstretched, a microphone in one hand and a gun in the other. The poster was later ammended to calm criticism:
Later on, the DVD box looked like this:
Nevertheless, Jim Sheridan, who directed the film is an aclaimed director of ‘My Left Foot’ fame. Surely, he felt the project was worthwile. 
In the movie, Jackson plays Marcus, a low level drug dealer turned rapper on the mean streets of New York. Tough is a big understatement when your father isn't around and your mom's busy pushing drugs. His rap dreams aren't solely based on fleeing his past.
It is a new perspective on Gangsta rap. In the movie, Marcus is given the opportunity and could use violence against those who want to mortally harm him, but instead opts for a more dangerous road; one that inolves using lyrics as verbal bullets to humiliate his foes. He famously walks on stage with a bullet proof vest. He's saying that if you live in the same conditions as he did, then you have braver more nobel means than violence at your disposal. It is the gangland's alternative to 'Kids with Camera's' solution.
In one scene, 50 Cent is shot nine times. He was shot nine times in real life too. Some say his album by the same name, ‘Get Rich or Die Tryin’, reveals the emotion that makes 50 Cent a powerful musical artist. The album was a huge commercial success, making him one our richest rappers!
However, When you choose to entertain with violent and sexist images, you run the risk of numbing kids (and adults too) to its effects. People consume this material very differently. An individual’s psyche may respond negatively to this type of stimulation. We can’t prevent kids from seeing this stuff and ‘misunderstanding’ its meaning and growing up to think it’s just ok to behave the same way. In the movie, Marcus himself comments that “Parents think you see nothing, but the truth is you see everything."
___________________________________________________
www.wl.k12.in.us/hs/clubs/scarlette/ jan27-06%5Cpage3Scarlette012706.pdf
Gordon, D. W. (2006, Nov) The Effect of Gangsta-Rap Radio on Urban Homicide Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology (ASC), Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles, CA
Film: Get Rich or Die Tryin’ (2005)
Proof, BBQs, & Contacts, oh my!
As further proof that little eight-pound six-ounce baby jesus loves my final paper, the 400th episode of The Simpsons was based around the ramifications of an FCC over-reaction to an indecency complaint. Unlike the last eight years or so of The Simpsons, the 400th episode was actually kind of funny.
If any of you are so inclined to make it down to Menlo Park this next Saturday, Maggie and I are having a BBQ. Here's the info
If any of you are so inclined to make it down to Menlo Park this next Saturday, Maggie and I are having a BBQ. Here's the info
| Location: | 445 Encinal Ave, Apt. N, Menlo Park, CA View Map |
| When: | Saturday, May 26, 6:30pm |
| Phone: | 650-324-2953 |
| | |
| Mat's Graduating! Join us for a celebratory BBQ before Mat heads to LA! 6:30-whenever! We'll have the hamburgers, hot dogs and some side dishes. It would be rad if you can bring beer (or other beverage of your choice), a side dish, or dessert. If you're intrested in dropping by just let me know so we can make sure we have enough grub for everyone. Lastly, if you guys are in L.A. in the future drop me a line. My permanent phone number is 917-940-2348 and matthewpatrick@gmail.com is the best way to get a hold of me. It's been swell, y'all. Matthew | |
Reason meets Desire
A lot of people question the ethics of selling consumers things they don't need. But what of our ethics in selling products known to be harmful too?
In 1996, the alcohol beverage industries self-imposed ban on broadcast advertisements by the major hard liquor distillers came to an end. Some federally licensed broadcast outlets chose to accept and air the ensuing advertisements for distilled liquor products but others refused preferring to only accept fermented alcohol products such as beer and wine.
The fact we even make a distinction between fermented beverage and distilled beverage is irrational. Beer is the drink of choice in most cases of heavy drinking, binge drinking, drunk driving and underage drinking. (Rogers and Greenfield, 1999). Nearly two out of every five Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic crash in their lifetime. (Loyola University Chicago Health System: http://www.luhs.org/depts/injprev/Transprt/tran1-06.htm). So, if The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) don’t make this distinction, why are advertisers thinking it fit to do so?
Given the knowledge of alcohol consumption and its negative relationship upon overall health, shouldn’t alcohol (along with tobacco) advertising be barred from our airwaves? The fact remains that the scope and wide spectrum of alcohol use and abuse are so far ranging and complicated to categorize that the majority of reported alcohol-related DUI’s aren’t even perpetrated by alcohol abusers. (http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1789,00.html) The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) would not see the difference.
Yet to achieve their sales agenda, alcohol marketers push positive messages about drinking and downplay and/or ignore negative consequences.
It is no doubt, a highly complicated ethical matter. A ban on the promotion of alcohol would be portrayed as forerunner to wider civil restrictions. Any state intervention in the communications between individuals and organizations will harm and raise questions over our civil liberties.
A spokesperson for the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States claimed that friends and family have more effect on a young person's decision to drink than advertisement.
Yet, what hope does a non-drinker have when all those around him are being seduced to buy and consume alcohol? It is clear the promotion of drinking to individuals will have an effect on others, so we cannot ignore the fact that the promotion through direct marketing will affect non-drinkers too.
As it stands, alcohol advertising should not be designed to appeal to people under the age of 21, for example, using cartoon characters as spokespeople is discouraged. Advertising cannot promote brands based on alcohol content or its effects. Advertising must not encourage irresponsible drinking.
The industry will use a reductio ad absurdum argument:
Father- Why were you drinking?
Son – Because all my friends were doing it.
Father- You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too?
The alcohol industry has traditionally argued that drinking is a private pastime, in which people knowingly assume risks in return for pleasure. They say, that the purpose of advertising is to "encourage existing consumers to switch brands" and to "drink in moderation," From their point of view, even, this would not make good business sense. The alcohol industry needs replacement drinkers. It is obvious marketing seeks to retain drinkers and consolidate the market by promoting the pleasure to new drinkers coming of age.
Young people view nearly 2,000 are for beer and wine. For each anti-alcohol public service announcement teenagers are seeing twenty-five more advertisements enticing them to drink.
Whether or not the advertisements have any direct impact, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism there are:
• 1,400 deaths per year
• 500,000 injuries
• 600,000 assaults
• 70,000 sexual assaults
• Over 2 million drove a car in 2001 while under the influence
Conservatives such as Margret Thatcher have famously argued "there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families". But individuals and families constitute society. Every drinker has an impact on those around him.
Fortunately, alcohol advertising is one of the most highly regulated forms of marketing. So for instance, there are hundreds of beer commercials on air, but not one of them shows somebody actually drinking the beer.
In the United States, this sort of ‘restraint’ comes in the form self-regulatory bodies that make these "ethical" choices themselves, presumably to avoid federal government intrusion and regulation into their affairs that may lead to permanent legislation governing their advertising.
As if to add insult to injury; All but one complaint from the fourteen lodged by a panel of experts, were dismissed by advertising regulators nevertheless. Seven of those complaints never made it because this self-regulating body doesn’t count one-off promotions. (www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1656790.htm). Which leads us to question whether ethical responsibility are being met.
In 1996, the alcohol beverage industries self-imposed ban on broadcast advertisements by the major hard liquor distillers came to an end. Some federally licensed broadcast outlets chose to accept and air the ensuing advertisements for distilled liquor products but others refused preferring to only accept fermented alcohol products such as beer and wine.
The fact we even make a distinction between fermented beverage and distilled beverage is irrational. Beer is the drink of choice in most cases of heavy drinking, binge drinking, drunk driving and underage drinking. (Rogers and Greenfield, 1999). Nearly two out of every five Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic crash in their lifetime. (Loyola University Chicago Health System: http://www.luhs.org/depts/injprev/Transprt/tran1-06.htm). So, if The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) don’t make this distinction, why are advertisers thinking it fit to do so?
Given the knowledge of alcohol consumption and its negative relationship upon overall health, shouldn’t alcohol (along with tobacco) advertising be barred from our airwaves? The fact remains that the scope and wide spectrum of alcohol use and abuse are so far ranging and complicated to categorize that the majority of reported alcohol-related DUI’s aren’t even perpetrated by alcohol abusers. (http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1789,00.html) The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) would not see the difference.
Yet to achieve their sales agenda, alcohol marketers push positive messages about drinking and downplay and/or ignore negative consequences.
It is no doubt, a highly complicated ethical matter. A ban on the promotion of alcohol would be portrayed as forerunner to wider civil restrictions. Any state intervention in the communications between individuals and organizations will harm and raise questions over our civil liberties.
A spokesperson for the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States claimed that friends and family have more effect on a young person's decision to drink than advertisement.
Yet, what hope does a non-drinker have when all those around him are being seduced to buy and consume alcohol? It is clear the promotion of drinking to individuals will have an effect on others, so we cannot ignore the fact that the promotion through direct marketing will affect non-drinkers too.
As it stands, alcohol advertising should not be designed to appeal to people under the age of 21, for example, using cartoon characters as spokespeople is discouraged. Advertising cannot promote brands based on alcohol content or its effects. Advertising must not encourage irresponsible drinking.
The industry will use a reductio ad absurdum argument:
Father- Why were you drinking?
Son – Because all my friends were doing it.
Father- You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too?
The alcohol industry has traditionally argued that drinking is a private pastime, in which people knowingly assume risks in return for pleasure. They say, that the purpose of advertising is to "encourage existing consumers to switch brands" and to "drink in moderation," From their point of view, even, this would not make good business sense. The alcohol industry needs replacement drinkers. It is obvious marketing seeks to retain drinkers and consolidate the market by promoting the pleasure to new drinkers coming of age.
Young people view nearly 2,000 are for beer and wine. For each anti-alcohol public service announcement teenagers are seeing twenty-five more advertisements enticing them to drink.
Whether or not the advertisements have any direct impact, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism there are:
• 1,400 deaths per year
• 500,000 injuries
• 600,000 assaults
• 70,000 sexual assaults
• Over 2 million drove a car in 2001 while under the influence
Conservatives such as Margret Thatcher have famously argued "there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families". But individuals and families constitute society. Every drinker has an impact on those around him.
Fortunately, alcohol advertising is one of the most highly regulated forms of marketing. So for instance, there are hundreds of beer commercials on air, but not one of them shows somebody actually drinking the beer.
In the United States, this sort of ‘restraint’ comes in the form self-regulatory bodies that make these "ethical" choices themselves, presumably to avoid federal government intrusion and regulation into their affairs that may lead to permanent legislation governing their advertising.
As if to add insult to injury; All but one complaint from the fourteen lodged by a panel of experts, were dismissed by advertising regulators nevertheless. Seven of those complaints never made it because this self-regulating body doesn’t count one-off promotions. (www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1656790.htm). Which leads us to question whether ethical responsibility are being met.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Get to Them By Making Them Come to You
Sneaky sounding title right? Well being sneaky is what this article is all about. I am referring to the trends that marketing agencies are starting in an attempt to get to consumers in today’s atmosphere of the internet, DVR, satellite radio and the many other facilities consumers have that allow them to avoid tried and true advertising techniques. The New York Times and The Washington Post have both run similar articles in the past few months regarding ad campaigns run by several large corporations that have focused on consumer created ads. Possibly the most famous of these was the Doritos’s ad campaign put together by Frito Lay during the run up to the Super Bowl. They held a contest for regular people to create 30 second commercials and posted the best 5 on their web site. They then directed people to their website through a number of means (I interestingly enough first found out about this campaign through an article in The New York Times Business section, nice job getting some free advertising Frito Lay) and let them view all five ads and vote for their favorite. The winner was to be aired during the Super Bowl, but I think I remember seeing more than one of the ads during the game.
This was an effective campaign for several reasons. First of all, I am still thinking about it and letting you folks know about it several months after the campaign began and they spent the $2.6 million per 30 second ad during the Super Bowl. (This seems like a good time to offer a link to their web site: http://www.doritos.com/). I also should let you know that I just went to their site to get that html address and was made aware of their new campaign to name a new flavor. Something that I am thinking I should go back and check out when I am done with this blog. Another reason this is a successful campaign is because they practically cut out their production costs. If regular people are making commercials for them and submitting them for air time for free Doritos only continues to save money. Finally, there is an argument to be made for the idea that the people who are creating these ads may better understand the Doritos demographic as they are probably a part of it themselves.
Another interesting attempt at dealing with commercial free competition comes to us from a Clear Channel radio station in Dallas, TX. They are starting a commercial free station that will have companies sponsor hours of broadcasting during which the DJ will incorporate their product into his regular on air talk. This will make up only two minutes of air time an hour, as opposed to the usual 12-16 minutes of air time that are normally devoted to commercials on regular commercial radio.
As an independent artist, this talk of marketing makes me once again ponder the notion of self marketing. While I agree that the internet and many other new technologies make it possible for independent artists to get themselves out into “the market”, whatever their market might be. However, it always seems to me that someone, or some large company is benefiting from your work and I have a hard time coming to terms with that. A perfect example of that is the My Space phenomena. I am often asked for “my my space” when I am out DJing and have gotten some really strong reactions from people when I tell them that I don’t have a My Space account. Just last week a woman huffed and walked away muttering something about “free marketing”. I can’t help but think that it is not totally free because from my understanding of My Space (limited no doubt) any time art work is posted on a my space page, the artist gives up some rights to My Space. Additionally, any time you are sending someone to a myspace, you are only directing eyeballs to their advertisers and at times I have trouble with that. Even though I know I do that every time I recommend a television show or any other medium that makes its money from advertising it seems different. Why? I’m not really sure. I think it has something to do with an overplayed sense of ownership and freedom that comes with things like my space. While I enjoy the opportunity that things like satellite radio offer the modern consumer in terms of personal choices and the ability to avoid commercialism I get nervous when I feel like people think they are getting more for free than they really are.
Hope I didn’t come off too angsty, still got a little 16 in me I guess.
Putting the I in Advertising - washingtonpost.com… http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050700035_pf.html
In Dallas, Commercial Radio Without Commercials - New York Times… http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/business/media/23radio.html?ex=1334980800&en=670c621f965488ef&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
Multiplying the Payoffs From a Super Bowl Spot - New York Times…
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70B15FF3C5B0C758EDDA80894DF404482&n=Top%2fNews%2fBusiness%2fSmall%20Business%2fMarketing%20and%20Advertising
This was an effective campaign for several reasons. First of all, I am still thinking about it and letting you folks know about it several months after the campaign began and they spent the $2.6 million per 30 second ad during the Super Bowl. (This seems like a good time to offer a link to their web site: http://www.doritos.com/). I also should let you know that I just went to their site to get that html address and was made aware of their new campaign to name a new flavor. Something that I am thinking I should go back and check out when I am done with this blog. Another reason this is a successful campaign is because they practically cut out their production costs. If regular people are making commercials for them and submitting them for air time for free Doritos only continues to save money. Finally, there is an argument to be made for the idea that the people who are creating these ads may better understand the Doritos demographic as they are probably a part of it themselves.
Another interesting attempt at dealing with commercial free competition comes to us from a Clear Channel radio station in Dallas, TX. They are starting a commercial free station that will have companies sponsor hours of broadcasting during which the DJ will incorporate their product into his regular on air talk. This will make up only two minutes of air time an hour, as opposed to the usual 12-16 minutes of air time that are normally devoted to commercials on regular commercial radio.
As an independent artist, this talk of marketing makes me once again ponder the notion of self marketing. While I agree that the internet and many other new technologies make it possible for independent artists to get themselves out into “the market”, whatever their market might be. However, it always seems to me that someone, or some large company is benefiting from your work and I have a hard time coming to terms with that. A perfect example of that is the My Space phenomena. I am often asked for “my my space” when I am out DJing and have gotten some really strong reactions from people when I tell them that I don’t have a My Space account. Just last week a woman huffed and walked away muttering something about “free marketing”. I can’t help but think that it is not totally free because from my understanding of My Space (limited no doubt) any time art work is posted on a my space page, the artist gives up some rights to My Space. Additionally, any time you are sending someone to a myspace, you are only directing eyeballs to their advertisers and at times I have trouble with that. Even though I know I do that every time I recommend a television show or any other medium that makes its money from advertising it seems different. Why? I’m not really sure. I think it has something to do with an overplayed sense of ownership and freedom that comes with things like my space. While I enjoy the opportunity that things like satellite radio offer the modern consumer in terms of personal choices and the ability to avoid commercialism I get nervous when I feel like people think they are getting more for free than they really are.
Hope I didn’t come off too angsty, still got a little 16 in me I guess.
Putting the I in Advertising - washingtonpost.com… http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050700035_pf.html
In Dallas, Commercial Radio Without Commercials - New York Times… http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/business/media/23radio.html?ex=1334980800&en=670c621f965488ef&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
Multiplying the Payoffs From a Super Bowl Spot - New York Times…
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70B15FF3C5B0C758EDDA80894DF404482&n=Top%2fNews%2fBusiness%2fSmall%20Business%2fMarketing%20and%20Advertising
General Discontent
For years now I have been watching as a seemingly endless parade of retired military officers appear on the cable news channels to explain why our military is so great, how we are doing such an excellent job in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how when our weapons work, you know the lines, surgical bombing, collateral damage, extraordinary rendition, all the usual military euphemisms. So it was refreshing to see General John Batiste appear in a TV commercial recently sponsored by a group called VoteVets.org, in which he scolds President Bush for his poor management of the War in Iraq. “Mr. President, you did not listen,” remarks the General.
“There was never enough. There was never a reserve,” he said. “Again and again, we had to move troops by as many as 200 miles out of our area of operations to support another sector. We would pull troops out of contact with the enemy and move them into contact with the enemy somewhere else. The minute we’d leave, the insurgents would pick up on that, and kill everybody who had been friendly.”
Wow!
Ouch!!
Now I am no fan of this war and occupation, but I do understand the need for a military, and I believe if you are going to do anything, do it right. It was bad enough to watch this nation led into war on bogus terms, and to discover that there were no weapons of mass destruction, but to have Generals who served in Iraq resigning from the military in protest for the way the “Commander in Chief” has been conducting the war, which is what General batiste has done, makes me wonder what is it going to take for some people to admit that President George W. Bush is an utter and complete failure.
Close your eyes, clinch your fists, and repeat, “stay the course, stay the course,
stay the course…”
Not to worry, there is a new plan, the “surge” will solve our problems.
This story gets better, because after the commercial with General Batiste aired, he was asked by CBS news, who employed him as a consultant, to step down from his position at CBS news. Linda Mason, a vice president at CBS news made a statement in which she said that when military officials are hired by CBS, they are expected to share their expertise with the CBS viewers, and that by appearing in an anti-Bush ad, viewers would get the feeling that everything he says would be anti-Bush. The General agreed to step down.
I don’t watch CBS news, but I do wonder if CBS news would ask a General that appeared in a commercial praising the ability of “Commander in Chief” George W. Bush to step down.
Oh well, this may be difficult for me to understand, but it is probably more difficult for the Republican Party, because General Batiste and VoteVets.org are campaigning in the districts of Republican Congressmen in hopes of getting them defeated.
Times must be tough for Republicans when even the military is opposed to their policies.
CBS Asks Batiste to step down
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/11/publiceye/entry2791091.shtml
General Batiste speaks out
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/us/13generals.html?th&emc=th
Batiste fired
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/cbs.php
“There was never enough. There was never a reserve,” he said. “Again and again, we had to move troops by as many as 200 miles out of our area of operations to support another sector. We would pull troops out of contact with the enemy and move them into contact with the enemy somewhere else. The minute we’d leave, the insurgents would pick up on that, and kill everybody who had been friendly.”
Wow!
Ouch!!
Now I am no fan of this war and occupation, but I do understand the need for a military, and I believe if you are going to do anything, do it right. It was bad enough to watch this nation led into war on bogus terms, and to discover that there were no weapons of mass destruction, but to have Generals who served in Iraq resigning from the military in protest for the way the “Commander in Chief” has been conducting the war, which is what General batiste has done, makes me wonder what is it going to take for some people to admit that President George W. Bush is an utter and complete failure.
Close your eyes, clinch your fists, and repeat, “stay the course, stay the course,
stay the course…”
Not to worry, there is a new plan, the “surge” will solve our problems.
This story gets better, because after the commercial with General Batiste aired, he was asked by CBS news, who employed him as a consultant, to step down from his position at CBS news. Linda Mason, a vice president at CBS news made a statement in which she said that when military officials are hired by CBS, they are expected to share their expertise with the CBS viewers, and that by appearing in an anti-Bush ad, viewers would get the feeling that everything he says would be anti-Bush. The General agreed to step down.
I don’t watch CBS news, but I do wonder if CBS news would ask a General that appeared in a commercial praising the ability of “Commander in Chief” George W. Bush to step down.
Oh well, this may be difficult for me to understand, but it is probably more difficult for the Republican Party, because General Batiste and VoteVets.org are campaigning in the districts of Republican Congressmen in hopes of getting them defeated.
Times must be tough for Republicans when even the military is opposed to their policies.
CBS Asks Batiste to step down
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/11/publiceye/entry2791091.shtml
General Batiste speaks out
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/us/13generals.html?th&emc=th
Batiste fired
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/cbs.php
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Public trauma and the media
Columbine, 1999; September 11, 2001; Madrid, 2004; London (“7/7”), 2005; Virginia Tech, 2007. These five events, amongst many others, were tragedies, not only for survivors directly involved but for whole societies fearful for the implications such events might have on their own lives. In such instances, the media not only informs the public about what happens on the day but is also central in shaping the trajectory of the dealing of the event afterwards.
This is a moment in time in which the shocking events of April 16 – the shooting of 32 people, and the wounding of many more, at the Virginia Tech campus by student Seung-Hui Cho, who then committed suicide – are still being processed by the public. This, the deadliest shooting of its kind in modern US history, was followed by an outpouring of grief and sympathy nationwide. If public trauma can be defined as “a collective stress that occurs when members of a social system fail to receive the expected conditions of life from their social system due to external or internal sources” (Barton, 1970), then Virginia Tech was certainly that.
In “What Makes a Tragedy Public?”, Doka analyses further the factors that influence how important particular events come to be to the public. Scope, the number of victims, relief workers, and loved ones involved, is important. Equally influential is how closely the public identifies with the event and victims. Mass cult suicides are shocking partly because those involved are often ordinary people psychologically ensnared in sinister organizations; anybody could have been in their place. The social value of the victims also influences public attention. Students are likely to rank above elderly because of the social value attached to youth. Wider consequences are key. September 11 was so traumatic, not only because of the numbers of victims but also because of the potential implications for the security of people's own lives. The duration of the event is a complex factor; an ongoing affair can enable resource mobilization and allow the public to feel a sense of control or it can lead to a sense of powerlessness and eventually apathy. Whether or not the event was intended, or was an accident, can invoke public wrath and prejudice against a group to which the causer(s) belonged, if intention was involved, or produce sympathy towards victims in the tragedy was unforeseen. Linked to intention is preventability. High expectedness, for instance, can cause public anger. Lastly, the nature of the victims' suffering may influence public grief. Comfort may be taken knowing that victims died instantly and painlessly, horror may arise out of a long and painful episode ending in death.
Through this prism, the reaction to the Virginia Tech shooting can be more clearly understood. For a crime of this nature, the number of victims was wide in scope; most who were shot were students whose youth carries a high social value; the public was shocked by the wider implications of the event and the idea that their children in education, or even themselves, might be at risk; the shooting was intended (between shootings, Seung-Hui Cho even mailed footage and photos of the killings to NBC) in a way chilling to mass audiences; and the unimaginable suffering on the day was also horrific to contemplate.
These factors were ones produced on the day of the massacre and were influences that any media outlet reporting the basic facts had little influence over. More control by the media over public perception, however, is possible in the period immediately afterwards. The media is key in relaying the significance of an event. The extent of coverage, the type of footage used, the witnesses and spokespeople and who they represent, and the issues raised are all important in how the public perceives and processes tragedy.
In the aftermath of Virginia Tech, the nature of the media's coverage this time has sparked debate about what is ethically acceptable to report in the aftermath of such an event. Proportional to the perceived importance of the event, the media has covered many elements that might otherwise have been left unreported. The family of Seung-Hui Cho was interviewed, his sister saying “Our family is so very sorry for my brother's unspeakable actions. It is a terrible tragedy for all of us”. The mourning in Virginia was extensively covered. On April 20, the state of Virginia's observation of a day of mourning was reported. A moment of silence at noon was observed by students, staff, and visitors on campus, dressed in orange and maroon. Police investigations were detailed, specifically in relation to the disturbing behavior of the killer before the shootings and the attempts of the university faculty to encourage him to attend therapy. The names and stories of the victims were also detailed, providing an emotional connection to the human scale of the tragedy.
This detailed coverage was uncontroversial. Knowing the victims offered catharsis, the events of mourning enabled the public to share in the grief, police investigations enabled some closure and a sense of safety, and the killer's family's statements diffused potential animosity. All such stories were beneficial and a positive part of the media's role. More controversial, however, was the airing on April 18 of the “multimedia manifesto” sent to NBC by Seung-Hui Cho. Steve Capus, NBC news president, justified the release on the basis that the killer's motivation and mental condition were important facts for the public to know. But victims' families, police, and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) disagreed, the latter saying that such a release “seriously jeopardizes the public’s safety by potentially inciting 'copycat' suicides, homicides, and other incidents”.
The media regularly faces questions about whether to carry sensitive material, even if few instances are as dramatic as the Seung-Hui Cho multimedia manifesto example. Certainly, whether or not it is ethical to show the corpses of war victims has been an ongoing site of contention over the course of the Iraq war, with Al Jazeera television attracting significant criticism for showing such images. In few instances is it clear to discern motives on the part of outlets that carry difficult material. Such coverage can alarm and challenge viewers, awakening them to the reality and horror of a story and encouraging them to take it seriously and to ask important questions. Most commentators would agree that it is the role of the media to challenge and provoke. Agencies that seek to mute the shock of an event often do so for personal interests that conflict with the public's right to know.
But such worthy motives can be difficult to separate from the desire to make financial profit from attracting alarm, even if the public gains little from being shocked. Despite the many courtroom dramas following from Anna Nicole Smith's death, it is unclear how the grief of involved parties benefited viewers. And, as the APA noted above, sensitive material can be a safety risk to the public. Copycat killers, inspired by the dramatic movie-like material in the multimedia manifesto, are threats in the Virginia Tech case. In Iraq, authorities often express concern that insurgents will be inspired by successful terrorist acts depicted on the news and seek to repeat them.
Whilst such dangers are theoretically possible in every news story involving harm committed by one or more persons to another, one needs, to an extent, to accept that this is part of the territory of covering such stories. It is to be decided on the facts of every case whether the risk of copycat reprisals outweighs the need for the public to understand the true seriousness of an event. Also necessary for consideration is the potential slippery slope to widespread censorship that might result from stopping shocking images reaching the headlines. In Iraq, for example, to censor the depiction of any war corpses would set a dangerous precedent. If such censorship were acceptable in one case, would it not be acceptable in all?
References
Barton, P. (1970). Communities in disaster: A sociological analysis of collective stress situations. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Doka, J. (2003). What Makes a Tragedy Public? Retrieved May 17, 2007, from
http://www.hospicefoundation.org/teleconference/2003/doka4.asp.
'Campus killer's family 'so sorry''. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6578319.stm
'Virginia mourns massacre victims'. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6577095.stm
'Virginia shootings: The victims'. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6564075.stm
APA Urges Media to Stop Airing Graphic Cho Materials. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/07-25OpenLetteronChoMaterials.pdf
This is a moment in time in which the shocking events of April 16 – the shooting of 32 people, and the wounding of many more, at the Virginia Tech campus by student Seung-Hui Cho, who then committed suicide – are still being processed by the public. This, the deadliest shooting of its kind in modern US history, was followed by an outpouring of grief and sympathy nationwide. If public trauma can be defined as “a collective stress that occurs when members of a social system fail to receive the expected conditions of life from their social system due to external or internal sources” (Barton, 1970), then Virginia Tech was certainly that.In “What Makes a Tragedy Public?”, Doka analyses further the factors that influence how important particular events come to be to the public. Scope, the number of victims, relief workers, and loved ones involved, is important. Equally influential is how closely the public identifies with the event and victims. Mass cult suicides are shocking partly because those involved are often ordinary people psychologically ensnared in sinister organizations; anybody could have been in their place. The social value of the victims also influences public attention. Students are likely to rank above elderly because of the social value attached to youth. Wider consequences are key. September 11 was so traumatic, not only because of the numbers of victims but also because of the potential implications for the security of people's own lives. The duration of the event is a complex factor; an ongoing affair can enable resource mobilization and allow the public to feel a sense of control or it can lead to a sense of powerlessness and eventually apathy. Whether or not the event was intended, or was an accident, can invoke public wrath and prejudice against a group to which the causer(s) belonged, if intention was involved, or produce sympathy towards victims in the tragedy was unforeseen. Linked to intention is preventability. High expectedness, for instance, can cause public anger. Lastly, the nature of the victims' suffering may influence public grief. Comfort may be taken knowing that victims died instantly and painlessly, horror may arise out of a long and painful episode ending in death.
Through this prism, the reaction to the Virginia Tech shooting can be more clearly understood. For a crime of this nature, the number of victims was wide in scope; most who were shot were students whose youth carries a high social value; the public was shocked by the wider implications of the event and the idea that their children in education, or even themselves, might be at risk; the shooting was intended (between shootings, Seung-Hui Cho even mailed footage and photos of the killings to NBC) in a way chilling to mass audiences; and the unimaginable suffering on the day was also horrific to contemplate.These factors were ones produced on the day of the massacre and were influences that any media outlet reporting the basic facts had little influence over. More control by the media over public perception, however, is possible in the period immediately afterwards. The media is key in relaying the significance of an event. The extent of coverage, the type of footage used, the witnesses and spokespeople and who they represent, and the issues raised are all important in how the public perceives and processes tragedy.
In the aftermath of Virginia Tech, the nature of the media's coverage this time has sparked debate about what is ethically acceptable to report in the aftermath of such an event. Proportional to the perceived importance of the event, the media has covered many elements that might otherwise have been left unreported. The family of Seung-Hui Cho was interviewed, his sister saying “Our family is so very sorry for my brother's unspeakable actions. It is a terrible tragedy for all of us”. The mourning in Virginia was extensively covered. On April 20, the state of Virginia's observation of a day of mourning was reported. A moment of silence at noon was observed by students, staff, and visitors on campus, dressed in orange and maroon. Police investigations were detailed, specifically in relation to the disturbing behavior of the killer before the shootings and the attempts of the university faculty to encourage him to attend therapy. The names and stories of the victims were also detailed, providing an emotional connection to the human scale of the tragedy.
This detailed coverage was uncontroversial. Knowing the victims offered catharsis, the events of mourning enabled the public to share in the grief, police investigations enabled some closure and a sense of safety, and the killer's family's statements diffused potential animosity. All such stories were beneficial and a positive part of the media's role. More controversial, however, was the airing on April 18 of the “multimedia manifesto” sent to NBC by Seung-Hui Cho. Steve Capus, NBC news president, justified the release on the basis that the killer's motivation and mental condition were important facts for the public to know. But victims' families, police, and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) disagreed, the latter saying that such a release “seriously jeopardizes the public’s safety by potentially inciting 'copycat' suicides, homicides, and other incidents”.
The media regularly faces questions about whether to carry sensitive material, even if few instances are as dramatic as the Seung-Hui Cho multimedia manifesto example. Certainly, whether or not it is ethical to show the corpses of war victims has been an ongoing site of contention over the course of the Iraq war, with Al Jazeera television attracting significant criticism for showing such images. In few instances is it clear to discern motives on the part of outlets that carry difficult material. Such coverage can alarm and challenge viewers, awakening them to the reality and horror of a story and encouraging them to take it seriously and to ask important questions. Most commentators would agree that it is the role of the media to challenge and provoke. Agencies that seek to mute the shock of an event often do so for personal interests that conflict with the public's right to know.
But such worthy motives can be difficult to separate from the desire to make financial profit from attracting alarm, even if the public gains little from being shocked. Despite the many courtroom dramas following from Anna Nicole Smith's death, it is unclear how the grief of involved parties benefited viewers. And, as the APA noted above, sensitive material can be a safety risk to the public. Copycat killers, inspired by the dramatic movie-like material in the multimedia manifesto, are threats in the Virginia Tech case. In Iraq, authorities often express concern that insurgents will be inspired by successful terrorist acts depicted on the news and seek to repeat them.
Whilst such dangers are theoretically possible in every news story involving harm committed by one or more persons to another, one needs, to an extent, to accept that this is part of the territory of covering such stories. It is to be decided on the facts of every case whether the risk of copycat reprisals outweighs the need for the public to understand the true seriousness of an event. Also necessary for consideration is the potential slippery slope to widespread censorship that might result from stopping shocking images reaching the headlines. In Iraq, for example, to censor the depiction of any war corpses would set a dangerous precedent. If such censorship were acceptable in one case, would it not be acceptable in all?
References
Barton, P. (1970). Communities in disaster: A sociological analysis of collective stress situations. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Doka, J. (2003). What Makes a Tragedy Public? Retrieved May 17, 2007, from
http://www.hospicefoundation.org/teleconference/2003/doka4.asp.
'Campus killer's family 'so sorry''. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6578319.stm
'Virginia mourns massacre victims'. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6577095.stm
'Virginia shootings: The victims'. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6564075.stm
APA Urges Media to Stop Airing Graphic Cho Materials. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/07-25OpenLetteronChoMaterials.pdf
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
FLOWERS, BUNNIES, AND SUNSHINE!
Since September of 2001, there have been disturbing events occurring around the world. The most disturbing events in my opinion are the events that are happening to the rights of individuals in this country.
I am personally not paying enough attention to understand all the legal labyrinths that are being navigated In regards to the prisoners that have been being held at the Guantanamo Bay military detention center in Cuba, with terms like “enemy combatants,” and “extraordinary rendition,” but I do understand what it means when the US government announces that evidence will be allowed at tribunals that was obtained by torture.
The President of the United States has repeated a number of times that “we do not torture,” and in his new book, former CIA director George Tenet insists that “ we don’t torture,” while at the same time he has confirmed that in the period following September 11th, 2001, that he oversaw the use of morally questionable techniques of interrogation on terrorism suspects.
And as “Our Great Leader” George W. Bush is spreading freedom around the world, he seems to be spreading something else, and I don’t mean bushwa, (that is not a typo, look it up). As the US military was freeing the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, they were also rescuing them from the threat of torture at the hands of his regime, Shortly, and I mean very shortly, after we freed the Iraqi people and save them from torture at the hands of Saddam’s regime, the American people were shown the picture of American troops “abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib, and the world is told that this was just the work of a few out of hand soldiers.
In a recent survey of US troops that served in the war zone of Iraq, 40% believed that torture is okay if it will same the life of a comrade. Shortly after these numbers were made public, General Petraeus wrote an open letter to his soldiers warning against the use of torture. I’m sure this made some people sleep easier at night, but probably not Iraqis.
At the time that the photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib became public, I was attending college an innocently taking a course in Latin American history, while at the same time I was enrolled in a film history class. The Latin American history class was taught by a nice Argentinean man who regularly told jokes in Spanish, as a way of sort of bonding with the predominantly Spanish-speaking students. Toward the end of the semester we were studying Latin American history when the US was a major player in the politics of that region. Part of that history involves US backed military coups in Guatemala, Chile, and El Salvador, and one thing all these US backed military governments all had in common was the use of torture against their own populations. In the class we were reading about torture in Guatemala, disappeared citizens in Chile, and “death squads” in El Salvador. At the same time, our professor in the film history class had us watch “The Battle of Algiers,” which is a recreation of the fight in Algiers between the French Army, and Algerians who wanted to end the French occupation. This film has some really disturbing reenactments of the way that the French tortured the Algerians, to destroy their “terrorist network.” By the way, the French were eventually forced to leave.
So where am I going with all this?
I suppose I can say in summation that since September of 2001 I have watched as torture, which was before relegated to those regimes that the US has supported, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Iraq, has made its way into mainstream American culture. My reaction to this is the same as my reaction was a couple of years ago when I was reading seemingly endless accounts of torture in Latin America, and the final for my film class was to watch and the write about a torture scene from “The Battle of Algiers,” I am in shock.
I want to end on a happy note, so…
FLOWERS, BUNNIES, AND SUNSHINE!
Evidence obtained using torture is admissible
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/mariner/20070515.html
General Petraeus warns against torture
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_health_study_070504w/
Soldiers OK torture
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_health_study_070504w/
Tenet says, “We do not use torture”
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00277&stoplayout=true&print=true
I am personally not paying enough attention to understand all the legal labyrinths that are being navigated In regards to the prisoners that have been being held at the Guantanamo Bay military detention center in Cuba, with terms like “enemy combatants,” and “extraordinary rendition,” but I do understand what it means when the US government announces that evidence will be allowed at tribunals that was obtained by torture.
The President of the United States has repeated a number of times that “we do not torture,” and in his new book, former CIA director George Tenet insists that “ we don’t torture,” while at the same time he has confirmed that in the period following September 11th, 2001, that he oversaw the use of morally questionable techniques of interrogation on terrorism suspects.
And as “Our Great Leader” George W. Bush is spreading freedom around the world, he seems to be spreading something else, and I don’t mean bushwa, (that is not a typo, look it up). As the US military was freeing the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, they were also rescuing them from the threat of torture at the hands of his regime, Shortly, and I mean very shortly, after we freed the Iraqi people and save them from torture at the hands of Saddam’s regime, the American people were shown the picture of American troops “abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib, and the world is told that this was just the work of a few out of hand soldiers.
In a recent survey of US troops that served in the war zone of Iraq, 40% believed that torture is okay if it will same the life of a comrade. Shortly after these numbers were made public, General Petraeus wrote an open letter to his soldiers warning against the use of torture. I’m sure this made some people sleep easier at night, but probably not Iraqis.
At the time that the photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib became public, I was attending college an innocently taking a course in Latin American history, while at the same time I was enrolled in a film history class. The Latin American history class was taught by a nice Argentinean man who regularly told jokes in Spanish, as a way of sort of bonding with the predominantly Spanish-speaking students. Toward the end of the semester we were studying Latin American history when the US was a major player in the politics of that region. Part of that history involves US backed military coups in Guatemala, Chile, and El Salvador, and one thing all these US backed military governments all had in common was the use of torture against their own populations. In the class we were reading about torture in Guatemala, disappeared citizens in Chile, and “death squads” in El Salvador. At the same time, our professor in the film history class had us watch “The Battle of Algiers,” which is a recreation of the fight in Algiers between the French Army, and Algerians who wanted to end the French occupation. This film has some really disturbing reenactments of the way that the French tortured the Algerians, to destroy their “terrorist network.” By the way, the French were eventually forced to leave.
So where am I going with all this?
I suppose I can say in summation that since September of 2001 I have watched as torture, which was before relegated to those regimes that the US has supported, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Iraq, has made its way into mainstream American culture. My reaction to this is the same as my reaction was a couple of years ago when I was reading seemingly endless accounts of torture in Latin America, and the final for my film class was to watch and the write about a torture scene from “The Battle of Algiers,” I am in shock.
I want to end on a happy note, so…
FLOWERS, BUNNIES, AND SUNSHINE!
Evidence obtained using torture is admissible
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/mariner/20070515.html
General Petraeus warns against torture
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_health_study_070504w/
Soldiers OK torture
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_health_study_070504w/
Tenet says, “We do not use torture”
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00277&stoplayout=true&print=true
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
