TV getting too violent?

Apparently growing tired of their endless crusade of censorship of everything that’s fun about television, the FCC, headed by Chairman Kevin Martin have now decided to target television violence. The FCC is concerned about the impact television violence has on children and are proposing to regulate content.

I just might be biased here (I am!), but I don’t see a problem with violence on television. I don’t see a problem with sex and profanity on television either. It’s fine if the FCC classifies programs as unacceptable for children. I don’t mind certain kinds of shows being relegated to certain time slots – in this age of TiVo and internet TV, this is especially no longer relevant. For them to meddle with content very blatantly violates the first amendment. And besides, do you really want this guy deciding what you can and can’t watch?

People are concerned that violence on TV provokes violence in children, however studies have found that children are more likely to mimic positive behaviors than negative ones. In addition, Japan has far more violent imagery on television, yet they have a lower violence rate than the United States and even Canada. I think this is symptomatic of a bigger problem in our society. Parents are increasingly leaving their children under the watchful eye of the television, not knowing what they’re watching and how they’re being affected. Rather than spend time with their children; rather than engage them in activities that will keep them otherwise occupied; rather than limit what their children watch, parents expect the government to take care of raising their children for them.

Then, there’s the sticky issue of news. In this day and age, the news seems to be a constant orgy of explosions and violence. In theory, the news is supposed to convey information, regardless of what it is, and sometimes the truth is ugly. Is the FCC proposing to censor news content?

If this proposal goes through, who will decide what’s acceptable for consumption and what toes the “too violent” line? With profane words, at least, you can determine specific words to omit from programming. Television violence, both fictional and news varies greatly. Any decision would be completely arbitrary. For example, who’s to say a shooting is more or less violent than a fistfight?

I’m of the mind that if you don’t want to see something, you’re free to turn the television off. If you don’t want your children exposed to something, you have the power to turn it off there as well. My family did not have cable when I was growing up, not because they didn’t want me to watch any specific programs but because they just didn’t want me to spend that much time in front of the TV. Ultimately, it comes down to people taking responsibility for their own lives and for the way their kids turn out. The commissioners of the FCC aren’t a substitute for parents.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/16/tvviolence.ap/index.html

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/columns-2/1171902367287760.xml&coll=7

Higher rating does not mean much in fact - AAR case

Air America Radio launched to encounter a seemingly permanent domination of conservatives in radio, which many democrats thought resulted in Bush, Jr. as what he was. Those influential radio hosts are Rush Rimbaugh and Sean Hannity, and their shows are aired in more than six hundred stations nationwide. Their main tool of popularity is direct attacks on liberals and democrats.

To counterattack these and reclaim radio, democrats started to organize and fundraise to start AAR in 2004 right before presidential election with five radio stations in major markets. Two years later, AAR was in more than eighty markets with sometimes better rating than those conservative radio shows. It contributed the democratic victory of the mid-term election last year.

Among these stories of successes, AAR in January again attracted people’s attention with news about their bankruptcy protection filing. It is a direct result of media environment in the U.S., where even popularity does not guarantee anything.

Its bankruptcy protection means that AAR has earned enough money to get by, but why with that higher rating in major media markets?

First of all, advertisers and sponsors didn’t like what AAR did. For example, right before the mid-term election, October 2006, Hewlett Packard started to withdraw its advertisements from AAR. “In a memo dated Oct. 25, ABC Radio Networks instructed affiliated stations that broadcast syndicated programs from Air America to black out all ads from Hewlett-Packard, which had purchased advertising time on ABC but did ''not wish to air on any Air America affiliates.'' The memo listed almost 90 advertisers that it said were taking part in blackouts of Air America, including Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Visa, Exxon Mobil, Cingular, McDonald's, the United States Postal Service and the Navy.” These companies reasoned that AAR provided ''inappropriate or controversial programming environments.,” but it is not that persuading when taking into consideration that they also advertised in other conservative shows such as Hannity Shows and O’Reilly shows. In essence, these companies discriminated radio programs based on their content. However, in the world of corporate freedom, it is companies’ choices and money talks.

Another reason of financial failure is related to overall industrial structure of radio broadcasting. There are two ways of airing programs: the first is to own a radio station and air what you want; and the second is to buy a segment of schedule and air it. It is like if you own a house or rent one. The first one is more expensive in short run, but more stable because one possesses that station. The second one is you keep pay rent without accumulating any capital in your hands. At first, AAR wanted to buy stations, but conglomerated radio market didn’t show any available station. Especially in major markets, most radio stations were all owned by media conglomerates, such as Clear Channel and Viacom. So there is no way for AAR to buy one, so it needed to keep up with rent every month. Current ownership of radio stations make virtually impossible for a new comer to set a foot in market and to make one’s voice.

Another reason for bankruptcy is failure of management, with too many high-paid celebrities and too many staff. Some media experts say that AAR can be managed with 20 people, while it had 200 staff. Streamlining of labor should not be an exception for liberal radio.

After the bankruptcy filing, AAR seemed to be sold to a New Yorker in real estate management business. Nobody knows how it will turn out, but what I see from this case is how hard it is to have a new voice in conglomerated media industry and how hard it is to have a liberal, or even dissenting, voice in current society dominated by companies and their advertisements.

References*

Some Advertisers Shun Air America, a Lonely Voice From Talk Radio's Left

Liberal Voices (Some Sharp) Get New Home On Radio Dial

Air America, Home of Liberal Talk, Files for Bankruptcy Protection

* All references are from New York Times, though links are to Lexis-Nexis, because NYT charges to see old articles and I don't have that kind of money.

Obscene Bias

Dick and Bitch. Two words that are used as gender specific derogatories for men and women respectively. Fair and equal. There's disrespect for both genders. The only problem is only problem is on broadcast TV it wouldn't be "dick" and "bitch" it'd be "*#!@" and "Bitch." That's because "dick" unless it specifically refers to the shortened form of Richard is considered an obscenity. That means it's ok for characters to demean women by referring to them as a bitch but the fragile ears of Americans must be protected from the chaos inherent in a reference to male genitalia. Obviously there's a double standard a foot. Dare we say, even a hint of blatant sexism.

According to the FCC's guidlines "material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." Theoretically that means anytime the word dick is uttered if it could be substituted with "penis" and still maintain the original intent of the sentence than it is offensive. In reality the derogatory "dick" is far more often used to denote someone who is considered a jerk, not a sexual organ. Despite this the word is often bleeped or sidestepped by traditional TV.

To be fair "bitch" has several connotations from "to complain" through to the more standard relationship to a disliked female. Yet because "bitch" doesn't refer to a specific sexual organ we are not shielded by the FCC from this content. Of course "bitch" refers to the woman as a whole, something most people would find more objectionable than a reference to a single part of a person. So it's ok to be disrespectful to a woman as a whole but if you refer to, or godforbid, expose part of her sexual anatomy, like Janet's nipple, then we're in serious obscene territory.

In this post-Super Bowl Nipplegate era the double standard of the FCC has become quite clearly delineated. A female nipple shown during 6am-10pm is clearly a threat to American morality, despite the fact that all humans have nipples and that one can argue the primary function of female nipples is as a conduit for infant nourishment not sexuality. While it could be a jump into areas relegated to conspiracy theorists, one could see this bias as a continuation of the subjugation of women by creating an atmosphere where their bodies are either objects of potential sin that must remain covered, one could ask how far the logical line is from labeling nipples obscene to the point where the entire body must be covered by a burka to protect the decency of civilization.

Ultimately the issue that I'd like to see discussed isn't whether or not there should be some sort of regulation to screen completely obscene material from the general public. If the community at large is able to agree on a definition of obscenity that still protects the free speech rights of the minority, that's fine. The objectionable part to me is that these standards are not applied in a manner which is consistent. What exactly does it say about our society where we feel we have to shield our citizens from hearing and seeing references to bodily functions yet we can use defamations which effect an entire gender? This systematic bias has become even more powerful now that the exponentially larger fines levied by the FCC often act as a de facto form of prior restraint. In closing maybe we should work to make sure our broadcasts teach a healthier view of the human body and worry more about how a cultural mindset which devalues women is enforced.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html
http://www.howstuffworks.com/fcc-obscenity.htm
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/13/eminem_fcc/?CP=YAH&DN=110
http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/03/indecency_rulin.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041118/011207_F.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-01-14-fcc-obscenity_x.htm

The media shoud be responsible... but so must we

First of all, let me abandon the semi-academic tone of this blog for but a moment. This is my first ever blog: “Hey Mom, check this out: Your degenerate son is blogging!” Now I can proceed…

What messages should and should not be carried in the media? What do such ideas say about the media and about society? How do we decide what messages are allowed and who decides? These questions have been raised both in our recent Media and Ethics discussion classes and on this blog, and there is still much to contribute to this discussion.

Whereas once, media was only for the relatively high literate members of society, now even the most uneducated and inexperienced may fully partake in some channel of mass communication. More than ever, the media’s output is closer to the general population’s understanding than ever; programs such as American Idol might not teach us anything new per se, but they reflect elements of our own realities back at us and this successfully resonates with millions of people worldwide.

The tradeoff for mass accessibility is that the media reflects more than ever the inconsistent, warts-and-all values shared by huge numbers of people. The lyrics of Prince’s “Darling Nikki”, describing a woman masturbating with magazines, may have outraged Tipper Gore enough to successfully lobby for the creation of the Parental Advisory sticker on album covers, but listeners adored “Darling Nikki” and the album Purple Rain on which it was featured sold in excess of 16 million copies. The public may have soaked up any publication invading the private life of Princess Diana but her death prompted an outpouring of emotion across the world of unprecedented proportions. And the grief suffered in the wake of the devastating 9/11 attacks vastly overshadowed the concern about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens killed due to the US invasion of that country. Stepping back and viewing these issues with a fresh viewpoint, many public norms seem nonsensical and inconsistent.

Most of the time, however, the media, not the public, gets the brunt of the attacks about morality. Mass media has been vilified by countless commentators for perverting the morals of the public and wasting its potential for the enrichment of the populace. With programs such as Robin Leach’s “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” acting as poster boys, the mass media has been accused of creating the cult of the celebrity, romanticizing the lives of the glamorous and encouraging ordinary people to emulate them to cure feelings of inferiority. Stoking the unconscious desire to find self-belief in the approval of others, reality television shows have flourished, removing the last justification for celebrity – that it puts on a pedestal those with commendable talent or achievements. And with the media as an obvious method of selling products, electronic and print communication has become infiltrated by consumerism; news programs cannot carry stories that harm the interests of advertisers, product placement abounds in movies, and newspapers are paid to report on matters that financially benefit private interests.

This is surely not what nineteenth century philosopher John Stuart Mill envisaged in On Liberty (1859) when he advocated the importance of the media in the free circulation of opinion in the search for truth. Instead, the connection between the media and the owners of capital seems to have stopped much of the media dead in its tracks towards this role.

Or has it? If the media can be seen as a public sphere in the vein described by Habermas (The Public Sphere, An Encyclopedia Article, 1964) as a space of discourse where opinions are voiced and assessed, then perhaps the media is performing as it should: as a place where ideas are introduced, modified, and either allowed to seep back into the public consciousness or discarded. If the media is indirectly produced by, or made to appeal to, the broader population then, as a human-created entity, the media cannot possibly produced perfectly polished and finished messages. Like any group of people, the media absorbs all kinds of imperfections, and to expect otherwise is unfair.

Once competing ideas carried by the media are visible to all, then the work begins. Such ideas become clearer, their context is more apparent, and they are easier to critique. Issues in our everyday lives are often too close to see clearly and get submerged beneath the complications of our daily realities. However, in the media, such issues are expertly articulated and allow a better opportunity to assess them. If People Magazine, for example, disgusts us with its intrusions into the lives of others then we might come to understand the follies of gossip and apply this back to our own lives. If this happens enough times, then the message is passed back into the media and its output is revised.

Although there are many voices of wisdom in the media, there are many voices anything but wise. Whilst messages that truly benefit the public should be an ideal for mass communication, this ideal will only ever be partially realized; such is the way of the world. Perhaps instead, we the audience need to fulfill our side of the bargain: to be able to view the messages from the media with a critical eye and be ready to separate what truly benefits out lives (whatever that may be) from what does not.

References:
Possessed: The Rise and Fall of Prince, p.70 - Alex Hahn, 2002
The Public Sphere, An Encyclopedia Article - Habermas 1964
On Liberty - John Stuart Mill (1859)

Bad News

A recent report on a ten-year study of newspapers has found shocking evidence that cutting budgets in newsrooms equals an overall lose of profits. In a statement detailing the findings Esther Thorsun stated "If you invest in the newsroom, do you make more money? The answer is yes," conversly "If you lower the amount of money spent in the newsroom, then pretty soon the news product becomes so bad that you begin to lose money."

It seems like a pretty simple idea. Consumer A purchases Paper X because the quality of journalism meets their consumption needs. But if Paper X lowers the quality of the product they're selling by reducing the newsroom staff by 30-50% than Consumer A is probably 30-50% less likely to consume the product. Yet the newspaper industry as a whole has continued to slash newsroom payrolls while desperatly boosting circulation. Attempting to increase your consumer base while decreasing your product quality can only happen if you're willing to decrease your cost of consumption (both the literal cost of the product and the effort needed to consume).

Since newspapers are understandably reluctant to slash their prices while hemoraging money they instead look to internal payrool cuts as a way to increase profitability, except this action sends them into a negative feedback loop by constantly decreasing the quality of content which decreases consumption.

Before we can worry about the demise of the newspaper we should ask ourselves why this matters at all. In an era when news is available 24/7 both in audiovisual and written forms via cable and the internet, what benefits do newspapers have to offer us over other outlets. While there is a tactile pleasure from the physical act of reading a newspaper this alone isn't enough to create the valuation need for newspaper survival.
While others may have different opinions about the merits of continuing newspaper service, personally I believe the best aspect of newspapers is the ability for them to offer sober reflection on breaking news. While online and televised news operators are pressured to immedietly report on events to get the scoop, newspapers by their very nature are a delayed mechanism of reporting. The fact that they go to print once a day creates a window of opportunity, however brief, for reporters and editors to gain a bit of perspective on an event. They are less likely to be swept up in the hysteria of live coverage.

Of course this window of time between the emergence of a story and the coverage of said story doesn't always lead to better, multiangled reporting, but it at least gives the opportunity for such an approach. An approach that can only occur in a newsroom fully staffed by a trained, talented and diverse staff. But with the current trend of cutting newsroom staff down to an editor, a janitor, and a chimp pounding away on a keyboard, the quality of reporting will continue to fail to meet the critical mass necessary for good journalism.

Even more troubling are newspapers efforts to become live media through their internet portals. Leading papers, rather than embraceing their unique statures, are attempting to compete toe to toe with the CNNs and Drudge Reports of the world by offering breaking news reporting. The pressure to get this reporting posted on the sight as soon as possible opens the newspaper up to the potential calamities faced by the traditional constant-newscycle media.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070215/media_nm/newspapers_newsrooms_dc
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1125017
http://www.iwantmedia.com/layoffs.html
http://publicityhound.net/index.php/how-newspaper-layoffs-affect-you/

Combining Cultures thru Music

Art has long been a place for diverse cultures and races to safely begin to connect and find points of compatibility. Arthur Mitchell broke one of dance’s color barriers, being the first African-American dancer to perform with a major ballet company and later went on to form the first black classical ballet company. Cinema often tackles multi-cultural issues in films such as Crash, Jungle Fever, and One Potato, Two Potato. In 1935, jazz pianist, Teddy Wilson joined the Benny Goodman Trio becoming the first African-American to play with a formerly all white jazz group. Today, music continues to be a place where cultures and races come together in a variety of ways.


Henry Kapono is an artist who is making his mark combining the traditional music of his native Hawaii with music from other traditions. After a several decade long career successfully writing and performing folk and pop songs, Kapono began recording Hawaiian language songs about 10 years ago. Last year he released “The Wild Hawaiian”, a collection of songs that are traditional Hawaiian language music mixed with rock and roll guitars and percussion, for which he was nominated for a Grammy in the Best Hawaiian Music category. What makes Kapono’s story interesting is the fact that whether he wins his Grammy or not will be more a statement on how the Grammy voters feel about what Hawaiian music should be than on the music of “The Wild Hawaiian” itself. If they like the idea of Hawaiian music progressing by combining it’s traditional roots with music from other cultures Kapono is a sure thing for the award. However, if they decided that Hawaiian music should remain traditional “The Wild Hawaiian” chances are not great.


A musical style that was famously created by one race and brought to popular society by another is rock n’ roll. Early in its history, rock was equally popular among whites and blacks. However, as time went on and different genres emerged, a color line began to form in popular music, especially in terms of the type of music artists of the two races were creating. In her January 28 New York Times article “Truly Indie Fans”, Jessica Pressler writes about the growing number of black fans of indie rock, a genre that is traditionally dominated by white artists and fans. The community of “blipsters” (black hipsters) has been growing so fast that a skateboard and clothing shop catering to the indie rock demographic was opened in East Harlem last fall. There are also new online communities, documentaries, and all black music showcases dedicated to helping black fans of rock music find each other and create community. Sadly, many blacks in the community say that the majority of criticism and judgment about their being involved with indie rock comes more from fellow African-Americans than whites who are already involved with the scene.

Adam Bradley’s review of Jason Tanz’s new book A Shadow History of Hip-Hop in White America gives us a peek into the minds of people on the opposite side of the coin: whites who find themselves in the hip-hop world. Tanz writes in great detail about what it is like being a white man in the often African American dominated world of hip-hop and the feelings that accompany that. Bradley also writes about white America’s fascination with hip-hop and the possible implications of this fascination for hip-hop at a time when the genre is in the midst of an identity crisis. He openly wonders if hip-hop will be able to help bridge the gap between the two races for future generations. For an answer to this question I would like to invite Bradley, Tanz, or anyone else reading this to come to the Madrone Lounge in San Francisco any Tuesday night. It is a home to the future of hip-hop music and spirit, and frequently features performers of three and four different races sharing the stage. If this weekly gathering is any indication of how music is going to be able to bring together folks of different races and cultures we are in for good things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/arts/music/07kapo.html?pagewanted=1&ref=music
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/fashion/28Blipsters.html?ex=1171342800&en=ac50c7aba0356815&ei=5070
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012502313.html

I too had some "new to blogger" issues regarding italics and such, please forgive me.

Democracy and Newspapers?

"It's not just the journalist's job at risk here. It's American democracy. It is freedom." (Associated Press). So said Walter Cronkite in an address to journalism students and professionals at Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism. He went on to say that consolidations and closures have left many American towns with only one newspaper and that journalists can no longer count on their employers to provide the resources necessary for them to perform good investigative journalism.

Perhaps he is referring to his own contribution to journalism over the years when he talks about depending on the media owners contribution to his efforts, but is he being a little pessimistic? There are some who share Cronkite's concerns but with a lot more proactive criticism. It could be argued, of course, that Cronkite's scaremongering is done out of service to democracy and a desire to bring the issue to the attention of the democratic masses.

Philip Meyer (who has studied the newspaper industry for three decades) says that the last daily newspaper reader will "check out" in 2044 (Farhi, 2005) and that the newspaper business has been in a downward trajectory for the past two decades. Frank Ahrens brings attention to the fact that "the industry is struggling to remake itself" (Ahrens, 2005). Cronkite's request that the media owners recognize that they have special civil responsibilities could have been made 50 years ago just as easily as February, 2007.

Farhi (2005) says that assessing any single medium in isolation gives a distorted view. Newspapers, according to Farhi, have been performing no worse than other media outlets. He goes on to say that bloggers, who some people would say are "random lunatics riffing in their underwear" (Kinsley, 2006), would be out of business without the traditional media who serve up the raw data from which bloggers draw each day. He asks the question why a billionaire (Phillip Anschutz and Lee Enterprizes) would be investing in newspapers and seeing them as a growth industry. He reminds us that new communications media rarely eliminate the old ones (the novel was not eliminated by the movies).

"At their best, newspapers hold governments and companies to account" (Economist, 2006), "The usefulness of the press is in holding governments to account - trying them in the court of public opinion." The Economist doesn't see the absolute demise of the newspaper. The few titles that invest in the kind of investigative stories which benefit society, the Economist says, will be in a good position to survive as long as the owners adjust to changing circumstances. Kinsley (2006) says that newspaper companies (unlike newspapers) can survive if they find the answers to the ways of the future. A survey by the American Advertising Federation (Reuters) shows that there is a shift in advertising spending away from traditional media to new media. The federation said that, "traditionally staid media categories are in need of innovation if they are to remain competitive" (Reuters). The study found that 73 percent of advertising executives plan on spending up to one fifth of their budgets on new media while 12 percent said they would spend up to forty percent of their budget on new media. Realism kicks in when we realize that Internet advertising accounts for only 3 percent of total ad spending each year (Ahrens). This indicates that the move to Internet advertising is not as big or as urgent as one might think and that the newspapers (and paper publications) will be around a little longer even if profits are down.

The top reason given by respondents for not buying a newspaper is that it is too bulky (Ahrens). Surely this can be overcome!
Newspapers have started evolving. Publishers are pushing for more online presence with more blogs and video (Reuter). Farhi argues that the daily newspaper is the most firmly anchored business to take advantage of the new media world. The infrastructure is already in place - all they need to do is adjust. The New York Times and The Washington Post break news on a 24-hour cycle to compliment what print journalists produce, and Gannett Co. Inc. has announced plans to overhaul its newsroom to report around the clock, using audio and video (Reuter). In 2003, the New York Times website became profitable and in 2004, the Washington Post's website became profitable (Ahrens). The San Francisco Chronicle has lost sales of the newspaper but it has more than 5 million visitors to its website per month (Ahrens). Some newspaper companies are using their websites to provide Internet-only content that may give in-dept information on everything. Potentially (similar to ESPN's website), this indept reporting will be available by subscription only for "moving content behind the wall" (Ahrens).

Microsoft and America Online have tried to create a local news site that out draws the newspaper online and have failed. This may be attributed to brand-name-recognition. Farhi argues that this "brand-name-recognition is another reason why newspapers are well positioned to weather the media storm.

With the existence of brand-name-recognition, media outlets in harmony (or disharmony) with individual websites, youtube, bloggers etc., I think the future of democracy in the media is amazingly healthy! Potentially, there will be ongoing aggressive criticism of every post on every site whether it is from someone's garage or The New York Times website. While the pessimist might say that it will lead to mayhem one must ask, "what is the alternative?"

Farhi says that bloggers will be, at best, a part of the news media's future, not the future itself. But bloggers can have an impact as in the case of bringing attention to the flames erupting out of Dell laptops (Economist). Kinsley (2006) asks "And where do these wannabes get their information? From newspapers, of course." He goes on to say that newspapers were born free and yet they are in chains. Perhaps this interactive media of the future will make the newspapers free again - for the people - for democracy.

The cost in producing newspapers is the paper itself (Kinsley). Therefore, in theory, giving away the news on the web for free seems like a good idea - if they can keep the advertising (Kinsley). The challenge is to adapt to the changing times and to stay afloat until they can figure out a way to be profitable and admired as a source of information. Remember there is only 3 percent of ad spending going to the web today. One must assume that a greater percentage of this ad spending will be taken by the media publications on the web in the future. Already some publications are showing profit as noted earlier (Ahrens). Frank Ahrens asks us to imagine a world where there are no printed newspapers - Perhaps a scroll from the side of your mobile phone so that you can have a large display. These ideas have been demonstrated.
Not to mention the possibility of saving the trees! The Wall Street Journal has shrunk in size to save $18 million dollars (Ahrens, October). That must convert into saved trees and helping the environment. Perhaps the savings will be allotted to good investigative journalism.

While Walter Cronkite is entitled to say his piece and have his opinion, I would suggest that he might consider that the media is on its way to establishing a democratic media as it should be - a voice for the people, by the people, a discussion, a two-way forum unlike his presentations where his "talking head" was a one way communication. And that there will always be a place for good investigative journalism to be posted on the web - whether the powers that be finance the investigation or not!
I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his scaremongering is appealing to the new practitioners to be aware of the changes and to aspire to the greater ideals of the new democratic media (even if he did not!). I presume he will enjoy, for the rest of his life, the feel of a paper newspaper while he drinks his morning coffee in Urban America or in some secluded get away in the woods or by the ocean.

Whether or not I can enjoy my coffee and bagel while reading the news on a screen or a scroll from the side of my cell phone remains to be seen. I believe that there will be paper newspapers for a long time yet. Perhaps they will become more text heavy without so much advertising and perhaps they will cost a lot more than a dollar or fifty cents. Perhaps newspapers will be a media outlet for in-dept reports only. Would that be so bad? Would that be undemocratic? Would it be (un)free?


References

Ahrens, F. (2005, Feb. 20). Hard News: Daily papers face unprecedented competition.
Washingtonpost.com. http://www.washingtonpost.com

Ahrens, F. (2005, October 12,). Wall Street Journal to Narrow Its Pages. Washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com

Ahrens, F. (2005, Oct. 12, 2 p.m.). Newspapers: The Future. Washingtonpost.com transcript.
http://www.washingtonpost.com

Associated Press. (2007, Feb. 8). Cronkite: Pressure on Media Companies to Generate Profit
Threatens Freedom. Editor and Publisher. http://www.mediainfo.com

Economist. (2006, Aug. 26). Who Killed the Newspaper? Cover Story. Economist, p.9-10.

Farhi, P. (2005, June/July). A Bright Future for Newspapers. American Journalism Review
http://www.ajr.org

Kinsley, M. (2006, Sept. 25). Do Newspapers Have a Future? TIME. http://www.time.com

Reuters, (2007, Feb. 8). Most U.S. Advertisers Now Spending on New Media - Survey. Reuters
http://in.today.reuters.com

Minorty Report

By: N. Long

Producers of television programs on the Fox network, as well as its affiliates, were recently summoned to a meeting hosted by the network's parent company. During this meeting, it is reported that the producers were instructed to make a bigger effort in representing minorities and promoting diversity within their respective programs, or risk not being renewed for another season. The issue of diversity on television is not new. The debate regarding representation has been waged for years and continues on today. Not too long ago, the NAACP threatened to lead a boycott of a major network if African-Americans were not represented in greater numbers. Diversity, most would agree, is a good thing. As an Asian-American, it is difficult to find people who look like me on television. As an Asian-American male, it is nearly impossible. However, there are two sides to every argument, and networks pressuring producers may not be the best solution to an ongoing problem.

Statistics show that the percentage of minority characters on television programs is far less than the percentage of minorities living in the United States and watching American television. What is the reason for the discrepancy? When producers are asked this question, the answer is generally the same. Television is a business. A business in which one program employs hundreds of people at any given time. It is a producer's job to create a program that will be watched by enough people to justify the cost of making the next episode. Given the failure rate of not only new, but seasoned programs, this is a fine balancing act that must be performed by television producers. And unfortunately, the fact remains, that the majority of programs that have chosen to focus on minority characters fail. There are, of course, notable exceptions. "The Cosby Show," and more recently, "The George Lopez Show" and "Everybody Hates Chris." However, for every one of these successful minority based programs, there have been five failures. Does anybody remember "Luis" or "Greetings from Tucson?" Probably not, since they were cancelled after only three or four episodes. Why then, if the number of minorities living in the United States continues to grow, are there not more minority based programs on television?

A recent study conducted by the non-profit organization Children Now, reports that while Census 2000 data shows that 12.5% of the population in the United States is Hispanic, only 6.5% of characters appearing in primetime television are Latinos. Perhaps it is due to the fact that research from the Nielsen Media Company, a corporation dedicated to tracking television ratings, reports that most English-Speaking Latinos who watch television prefer "The Simpsons" and "Friends" to "The George Lopez Show." This may be due to the fact that one Latino based program cannot appeal to all Latinos, and many Latino's, even those who speak English, may prefer to watch Spanish language programming on Univision or Telemundo. Combined, the two largest Spanish language networks garner 4 million viewers a night. However, despite the failure of shows featuring minority-only casts, programs such as "Without a Trace," that feature two or three minority characters in a cast of six or seven, has been very popular among minority viewers.

"Without a Trace," a popular primetime crime drama, features one African-American and two Latino characters in its regular cast of six. This program has tremendous crossover appeal, and is able to entertain viewers of all races. The idea of placing one or two minority characters alongside three or four white characters seems to have worked in the recent past. Doing so as quieted, at least somewhat, the complaints from the NAACP, and has helped networks find new audiences. But what does this mean? Should networks forego producing programs with minority-only casts? Should producers of television programs be forced to integrate at least one minority into a shows cast? The answer to both questions, I would hope, is no. While programs featuring minority-only casts are rarely successful, over the years, there have been many popular and profitable exceptions. Furthermore, producers have a fine line to walk when creating a show they hope is artistic, yet remains popular amongst audiences. Many successful producers have found that the addition of one or two minority characters not only enriches the show artistically, but makes it more popular as well. "Without a Trace," "CSI: Miami," "American Idol," and "Survivor," have all featured minority cast members, are incredibly popular among minority viewers, and are four of the most watched and most profitable programs on television.

I like Fox's sentiments. Get more minority characters on primetime programs. However, I disagree with their methods. A producer's job is difficult. They must meet the demands of millions of viewers. Let's not force something else down their throats. Casting minorities in major roles has proven successful, and eventually, most producers will jump on the bandwagon. Many already have. If things continue as they are, the rest will follow. In the meantime, let's watch the programs we enjoy. If I'm right, most will already feature at least one major minority character.

http://www.xispas.com/archives/tv/tv.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/02/DDGKUNSFUN1.DTL

http://diversity.monster.com/article/tv/

Can an Arab be an American film hero?

This weekend I was at a friend's where I happened to watch a new episode of the popular TV-show 24. This is the first and only episode that I ever saw about this show, although it's already the 6th season and it has been hot since it first came out in 2001. The show tells about the story of a member of the L.A. Counter Terrorist Unit, Jack Bauer, who must stop bombs, viruses, assassination attempts, and usually save someone he cares about at the same time[1]. I myself have been a fan of American TV series, Friends, Desperate Housewives, Lost, Studio 60, just to name a few. However, I was not that interested in 24, and after seeing an episode of it, I don’t think I’ve missed anything.

The main reason why I am not into this show is because it appears too violent to me. Also I don't know if it's just so "natural" in most American audiences' minds that: Arab equals terrorist. (I still cannot believe in the show, this college student named "Ahamed",who happens to be Arabic, happens to be a terrorist too!)

Of course 24 is not the first Hollywood production (including movies and TV shows) that portraits Arab people in a "special" way, and I don't think it will call an end to this trend either. We can say that aftermath the 9/11 terrorists attacks and the war with Iraq, the anti-Arab emotion among Americans seemed to increase. But the biased views towards Arabs and Arabic countries and their cultures have long been planted into Americans, and even the foreign audience like me, by the Hollywood films and TV shows dated back to 1930s. If you close your eyes and think about the Arabs you’ve seen on the screen, what will come to you first? Over-sexed Bedouin bandits? Submissive maidens? Buffoons and barbarians? Neither of these will surprise me because I have the similar images too in my head and I am not even American!

So I am curious, how does an Arab-American feel when s/he watches 24? Will s/he enjoy as much as audiences from other ethnic backgrounds? I doubt it. And I have even less confidence that Arabs living in the Arabic countries would stand to watch the show without feeling offended and hurt.Some Arab people have certainly started "fighting back" on Hollywood. Based on Dr. Jack Shaheen's best-selling book, a documentary film directed by Dr. SUT JHALLY named Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People examines the slanderous Arab stereotypes produced by America’s dream factory for the past 100 years. But fortunately this film is not another Scary Movie which mocks and makes fun of other movies, Reel Bad Arabs aims at promoting "critical reflection" on the varied global impact of American media and building cultural bridges[2].

On the other end, efforts are given by some American organization in rebuilding positive images of the United States and American people in the Middle East world. On the Road, a TV series made by an American nonprofit group Layalina, features a caravan of young, good-looking Arabs crisscrossing America on a mission to educate themselves and the people they encounter along the way. This show is licensed to Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC), an Arab satellite TV network and now aired in many Arab countries. The production, financed mostly through foundations and without government help, seeks to counter the image of America often conveyed to the Arab world via Hollywood: that of an arrogant, self-absorbed, bellicose nation[3].

So, can an Arab be an American film hero? Or, can an American be the "good guy" in an Arabic film? I don't have the answer now, but I'd like to keep my hope and see.

[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285331/

[2] http://dubaifilmfest.com/en/2006/11/07/reel-bad-arabs-how-hollywood-vilifies-a-people.html
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/arts/television/31road.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://www.indiewire.com/biz/biz_041118world.html

The Aqua Teen Hunger Force Fiasco.

No doubt by now, everybody has heard about the panic in Boston that was caused by a promotional stunt gone wrong. Turner Broadcasting hired marketing firm Interference, Inc. to promote an upcoming movie adaptation of one of their late night animated programs, Aqua Teen Hunger Force. The marketing firm chose to do this with a guerilla campaign; by placing blinking signs of one of the characters from the show flipping the bird all over major U.S. cities.




In Boston, some concerned citizens called the police, afraid the signs were actually bombs. This prompted a city-wide bomb scare which resulted in mass panic, 10 hour traffic jams and bridge closures. After it was discovered that this was nothing more than a viral marketing campaign, the people of Boston were understandably infuriated. Blame has been placed on Ted Turner and TBS, on Interference, Inc. and on the people who actually installed the signs.

The reaction to these signs in Boston was dramatic. In all the other cities, they were received quite benignly. For example, in San Francisco, here was the reaction of one man who was faced with a blinking Aqua Teen Hunger Force sign:

“One of the devices was found last week on a sign above a Clement Street art gallery and design store called Park Life. Store owner Jamie Alexander, 37, said the device was 12 inches wide and 15 inches tall, with a blinking, robotic figure displaying a middle finger. It had been attached with magnets.
“Alexander said he did not suspect a terrorist plot.
“"I thought, 'What the hell is this?' " Alexander said. "I left it up. I though it was cool."
“Alexander said he had seen the Cartoon Network show, but didn't make the connection.
“On Sunday, after the device ran out of battery power and stopped blinking, he had a friend climb a ladder and take it down.”

What is it about Bostonians that made them react so rashly? The signs were placed in several cities including New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle and San Francisco and yet there was no ensuing panic. Specifically, Boston's officials are invoking the September 11th attacks, which comes across as an attention getting ploy. Perhaps rather than shaking their fingers at TBS, they should investigate their own city's emergency response team who escalated a marketing gimmick and essentially a joke to drastic heights.

Turner has issued a formal apology, the text of which follows:

"We apologize to the citizens of Boston that part of a marketing campaign was mistaken for a public danger. We appreciate the gravity of this situation and, like any responsible company would, are putting all necessary resources toward understanding the facts surrounding it as quickly as possible. As soon as we realized that an element of the campaign was being mistaken for something potentially dangerous, appropriate law enforcement officials were notified and through Federal law enforcement channels, we identified the specific locations of the advertisements in all 10 cities in which they are posted. We also directed the third-party marketing firm who posted the advertisements to take them down immediately. We appreciate the commitment demonstrated by the Boston police department and other law enforcement agencies, as well as the Massachusetts Governor's Office, and deeply regret the hardships experienced as a result of this incident."




Turner will also be reimbursing the city of Boston for the expenses incurred as a result of this misinterpreted marketing campaign, which are currently estimated at $1M. Truly, though, TBS and Aqua Teen Hunger Force are the winners in this situation. Not only has this basic cable show now gotten worldwide exposure, they have made history. No doubt the viewership and merchandising for this show will skyrocket and I’m guessing the box office sales for the upcoming movie will be much greater than they would have been otherwise. Out of morbid curiosity, if nothing else, people will be interested to see what this show is all about. The amount of cash that will come out of TBS’s coffers to pay for this stunt will be significantly overshadowed by the profits that they will see as a result. Also, whenever there are national news events of this scope, viewership of CNN and hits to cnn.com go up. As TBS is also the parent company for CNN, the national exposure and immediacy of this news has, in a roundabout way, made even more money for TBS. Sometimes, there really is no such thing as bad publicity.


Interestingly, on television, the sign, a which is displaying a middle finger was censored. I for one, find it very funny that the scandal of the signs wasn't enough; that a picture that's essentially created with Lite-Brite technology is actually offensive enough to be pixellated. It's bad enough that people are overreacting and invoking a genuine national tragedy. To throw censorship into the whole affair takes it to a new level of absurdity.





http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=top&newsitem_no=18985
http://www.tv.com/story/8531.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/31/BAG2INSDPI4.DTL
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0201hoax-ON.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/31/boston.bombscare/index.html

(Sorry about the formatting, I've never used Blogger before.)

Parental Advisor: Explicit Censorship

Last week the Justice and Interior ministers of the European Union (EU) announced that they were looking at ways to prevent the sale of violent video games to children in their nations. The EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini was quoted as encouraging member states to “prevent, to ban violent video games.” Mr. Frattini stated that the EU would be creating a website where parents would be able to verify whether or not games were suitable for minors.

To some these statements and actions may seem like a reasonable reaction to the increasing availability of extremely violent entertainment material to children who may not be suited to best comprehend the line between entertainment and reality. To others though these steps could well be the first salvo in a dangerous encroachment on artistic and free speech civil rights. While a government certainly has the right and obligation to ensure the health and safety of its citizenry the leap between the state banning video games deemed to violent (often by individuals who have never played these games) to the state banning books deemed to insurrectionary (once again often by those who have not read the prohibited material), does not require a wholesale abandonment of logic.

Censorship is best exercised on the personal level. If one finds certain materials offensive they can simply not participate. If parents want to limit the type of material their children have access to they should be able to obtain reviews of said content. This does not mean that the state needs to create a system that rates games, bestowing legitimacy on approved material. For all forms of media there are numerous content producers which provide in-depth reviews of entertainment materials. I believe it is far more effective for citizens to apply their own critical reasoning skills by forming an opinion based on independent outside reviews of material. When the state begins to rate and approve material they usurp the role of arbiter of appropriateness. One only has to look at the flawed system of parental advisory warnings in place in America to see the arbitrary and misleading nature of state run artistic regulation.

In 1985 the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) bowed to pressure from the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) and began to label music deemed offensive. This program was expanded and brought to the forefront of American culture due to the visibility of PMRC founder, Tipper Gore, wife of then Senator and future Vice President, Al Gore. To some the Parental Advisory stickers placed on explicit or obscene music may seem like a minor, inconsequential intrusion. These stickers do not represent a ban on said material just warnings to consumers that explicit content lies within. The issue though is not that information is being conveyed to consumers but rather who is determining the explicitness of the content.

In 1985 musician Frank Zappa testified before congress stating

“The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal's design. It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC's demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation. (...) The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of moral quality control programs based on things certain Christians do not like. What if the next bunch of Washington wives demands a large yellow "J" on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to concealed Zionist doctrine?”

The next year Zappa’s album Jazz from Hell was slapped with a parental advisory sticker. The label was order on the album due to a track entitled “G-Spot Tornado” despite the complete absence of lyrics on this instrumental song. This brew-ha between Zappa and the PMRC perfectly illustrates the ludicrousness of state approved censorship. Because potentially one person in a position of power thought the mention of the G-Spot was obscene the entire album was labeled as explicit. The inclusion of this label prevents the content from being sold at major retail outlets, such as Wal-Mart, due to internal morality policies. In many rural areas where Wal-Mart may be the only physical retail outlet for music the parental advisory label acts as a de facto ban on material.

Additionally the criteria for an explicit label is shifting and vague. Several albums receive these stickers for the inclusion of a single curse word while other artists are allowed to slide with multiple profanities. As I stated previously I believe there is a fine, often indefinable, line between declaring material as inappropriate for profanity, violence, or sexuality and declaring certain positions and stances as objectionable. One person’s sacred belief is another person’s deeply offensive belief. Government regulation of obscenity can often have the intended or unintended consequence of stifling artistic expression.

The famous incident where Janet Jackson’s nipple was briefly exposed during the Super Bowl created the regulatory furor that has made broadcasters consider airing material such as the war film Saving Private Ryan due to the exponentially raised fine amounts levied by the FCC. The potentially huge fines has also caused PBS to demur from producing content that could stray into objectionable territory where ever that vague no man’s land lies. All of this because some children may have been forced to comprehend the fact that women have nipples. Common sense is often the best form of censorship, unfortunately the larger the bureaucracy the larger the chance that common sense will be completely lacking. For those who are interested in seeing a current dramatization of the battle between broadcasters and censors Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip has included a central plot line based on a showdown with the FCC over the inclusion of an obscenity during a live news broadcast from a war zone when a RPG exploded next to the interviewee. As absurd as the idea that the FCC would penalize a broadcaster for airing a live obscenity by a soldier in a war zone while under attack the idea that a council of five individuals is ordained to protect the nation from nipples is, in my opinion, equally ridiculous.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07022/754222-96.stm
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002913247
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/12/DDGHK7JE0V1.DTL
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jaypfunk/trading/fzpmrc.html