Philip de Vellis, aka ParkRidge47, has arrived. He is the individual claiming responsibility for the video on Youtube showing Mrs. Hillary Clinton as "Big Brother". This is his claim to fame. According to himself, he produced the video at home on his own computer with no input from his employer, Blue State Digital, who happens to be working for the Barack Obama campaign.
Part of me feels that we should just laugh heartily at the whole spectacle (which I will be talking more about here!) - that would be the part of me that is not enrolled in BECA 702. But a part of me (that which is enrolled in BECA 702) is "compelled" to analyze this whole spectacle.
What has happened here? A well produced political video/advertisement has been shown to the public (in the millions). At first "the people" did not know the identity of the creator. There was a big search (mostly by the political groups) for the creator's identity and then he came forward and said that he was proud of it. Then he resigned his position. He said, "The company had no idea that I'd created the ad, and neither did any of our clients. But I've decided to resign anyway so as not to harm them, even by implication."
Whether he was fired or resigned or resigned by "encouragement" the question is why. Why would this individual be jobless as a result of being creative and democratic?
Barack Obama said on "Larry King live" that this phenomena is the "democratization of the campaign process." While it seems to be media access for "the people" I wonder if Obama feels that the individual's joblessness as a result of this post is a democratic result.
Other sources (www.patrickruffini) suggest strongly that this production is too professional to be a creative project at home. This source has posts suggesting more of a conspiratorial organization working on behalf of the Obama campaign. Kinda like a "Big Brother" behind the scenes operation!
Already we have Hillary shown as "Big Brother" (sorry Hillary) and now we have the Barack Obama campaign being likened to the "Big Brother" idea.
Let's see if the individual instigator (if he did work as an individual) can be "Big Brother" too. I won't bore you with all the definitions of "Big Brother" in my Merrian-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary but indulge me for one definition - "an all-powerful government or organization monitoring and directing people's actions." Taking a page out of de Vellis' book we can be creative and see a way to arguing that he is "directing people's actions."
One may even argue that de Vellis is THE "Big Brother" in this instance. His creation has directed a lot of action. But he did become jobless as a result either by choice or design. We need more investigation in this "information age" to determine who is suffering here and who is really directing. (We will ignore the suffering of "the people" listening to the whole affair for now.)
Hillary Clinton suffered by being portrayed as "Big Brother" in a negative ad. Barack Obama suffered by having his campaign associated with a negative ad campaign. Philip de Vellis suffered by becoming unemployed (possibly as a result of trying to be "Big Brother").
On the other hand: Hillary Clinton may have gained popularity by "the people" seeing that she is being victimized by political ads. Barack Obama may have gained popularity by being seen as not interested in this kind of negative ad.
Philip de Vellis may have gained... - we don't know yet. He might get a great job. He might be the "Big Brother" that has gained popularity. We all know who he is now and we didn't know two weeks ago. Maybe he'll be famous for being famous. Maybe he's going to join the race! Who knows?
All three can be identified in this case as "Big Brother" (sorry Hillary). Maybe they are. If they all are "Big Brother" then equality exists. By all the players being "Big Brother", all the players are equal. If all the players are equal then are we not moving towards a Marxist situation?
Or is it a mix of Democracy and Marxism? In this case we can see "Access to the Media, "the people's" media" as the acting government in a democracy where every individual has real potential access to the media i.e the government. Have we attained that which many have sought for generations - A Democracy for the People - A Marxist Society - A Democracy for the people by the people - Equality?
What we have here is true democracy in the guise of "Big Brother" through democratic technology. The democratic media technologies are giving voice to all sides.
A marxist result is apparent.
Who would've guessed this if they just laughed heartily at the whole spectacle. Thank you BECA 702.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/22/MNGDROPM7G1.DTL
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/us/politics/22hillary.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.huffingtonpost.com on 3/21/07 and go to "I made the "Vote Different" Ad"
http://www.patrickruffini.com
Friday, March 23, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Sex Sells!
By: N. Long
Two weeks ago, our class asked, "What is journalism?" Unfortunately, we ran out of time before even getting a chance to address the massive issue. Within 2 hours of Britney Spears shaving her head, cnn.com, fox.com, and msnbc.com all had pictures with a brief article on the front page of their respective websites. On March 4th, 2007, Jonathan Curiel wrote and Op Ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle about the use of sex and celebrity to sell mainstream news media. According to Curiel, the Sun, a London newspaper, attracts 9 million visitors a month to their website, making it the most popular newspaper website in England. By comparison, only a few American newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today, are able to attract an equal number of visitors to their websites. Like the New York Times, the Sun covers war, politics, and crime. But unlike the Times, the Sun relegates these types of stories to page two. Page one features Britney Spears' shaved head next to a picture of a half-naked model. It should come as no surprise that the Sun is a successful newspaper, for as we all know, sex sells. However, just because stories about sex and celebrities sell, is reporting on such stories considered journalism?
Anyone who has taken Dr. Ibrahim's Broadcast Journalism course, or any basic journalism course for that matter, knows that reporters are supposed to follow a certain code of journalistic ethics. However, that code, which is voluntary, only suggests how a reporter should go about researching and reporting a story. It does not suggest what kind of story a reporter should research or report. Theoretically, media outlets should report on events relevant to the lives of their audience. Doing so would allow them to make informed decisions on a daily basis. But while people are concerned about traffic and weather, they seem to be titillated by sex and celebrity scandal.
In a democracy, majority rules. The majority of news audiences have voted by buying newspapers and visiting news websites that feature celebrity gossip and scantily-clad women. On the other hand, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. In a republic, elected officials represent the best interest of the people. While no one elected them, media owners, editors, and reporters determine the output of their newspapers, television programs, and websites. One can argue that it is their job to determine what news is relevant to the day-to-day lives of Americans. However, a news outlet can only operate so long as it has an audience, and if an audience wants sex and scandal, media outlets must report sex and scandal or risk being voted out.
Free access to news and information is inherently intertwined with a democratic system of government. But aside from being a democratic society, the United States is also a heavily capitalistic one. And in a capitalistic society, money rules all. People want sex and scandal, and people will pay to read about sex and scandal. Therefore, journalist report on sex and celebrity scandal. It may not be Pulitzer winning material, but a story is a story, and as long as journalistic principals are upheld when researching and reporting on Britney's new hairdo, it is still journalism.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/showbiz/music/02/17/britney.bald.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17197876
http://http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/04/ING44OD5701.DTL
Two weeks ago, our class asked, "What is journalism?" Unfortunately, we ran out of time before even getting a chance to address the massive issue. Within 2 hours of Britney Spears shaving her head, cnn.com, fox.com, and msnbc.com all had pictures with a brief article on the front page of their respective websites. On March 4th, 2007, Jonathan Curiel wrote and Op Ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle about the use of sex and celebrity to sell mainstream news media. According to Curiel, the Sun, a London newspaper, attracts 9 million visitors a month to their website, making it the most popular newspaper website in England. By comparison, only a few American newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today, are able to attract an equal number of visitors to their websites. Like the New York Times, the Sun covers war, politics, and crime. But unlike the Times, the Sun relegates these types of stories to page two. Page one features Britney Spears' shaved head next to a picture of a half-naked model. It should come as no surprise that the Sun is a successful newspaper, for as we all know, sex sells. However, just because stories about sex and celebrities sell, is reporting on such stories considered journalism?
Anyone who has taken Dr. Ibrahim's Broadcast Journalism course, or any basic journalism course for that matter, knows that reporters are supposed to follow a certain code of journalistic ethics. However, that code, which is voluntary, only suggests how a reporter should go about researching and reporting a story. It does not suggest what kind of story a reporter should research or report. Theoretically, media outlets should report on events relevant to the lives of their audience. Doing so would allow them to make informed decisions on a daily basis. But while people are concerned about traffic and weather, they seem to be titillated by sex and celebrity scandal.
In a democracy, majority rules. The majority of news audiences have voted by buying newspapers and visiting news websites that feature celebrity gossip and scantily-clad women. On the other hand, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. In a republic, elected officials represent the best interest of the people. While no one elected them, media owners, editors, and reporters determine the output of their newspapers, television programs, and websites. One can argue that it is their job to determine what news is relevant to the day-to-day lives of Americans. However, a news outlet can only operate so long as it has an audience, and if an audience wants sex and scandal, media outlets must report sex and scandal or risk being voted out.
Free access to news and information is inherently intertwined with a democratic system of government. But aside from being a democratic society, the United States is also a heavily capitalistic one. And in a capitalistic society, money rules all. People want sex and scandal, and people will pay to read about sex and scandal. Therefore, journalist report on sex and celebrity scandal. It may not be Pulitzer winning material, but a story is a story, and as long as journalistic principals are upheld when researching and reporting on Britney's new hairdo, it is still journalism.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/showbiz/music/02/17/britney.bald.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17197876
http://http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/04/ING44OD5701.DTL
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Leave Cartoons Alone!
In reading the Chronicle this past weekend, an article particularly caught my attention. It addresses the censorship of political and satirical cartoons. Political cartoons are a potent propaganda tool. Complex political issues are simplified into simple drawings, usually with a biting punchline that illustrates the artist’s, and by extension the publisher’s agenda.
The cartoonists themselves have been feared, watched and even killed. In World War II, the Gestapo put the Evening Standard’s cartoonist on a hit list for mocking Hitler. In the 1950s, J. Edgar Hoover put Mad Magazine under surveillance. An Argentine who portrayed the leaders of the ruling junta as space aliens in the 1970s was “disappeared” along with his family. The Danish artists who were responsible for the recent Mohammad cartoon controversy were so inundated with death threats that they were forced to seek protection and go into hiding.
What makes political cartoons so inflammatory and so powerful? I suspect it’s a combination of factors. As I mentioned earlier, the ability to simplify a complicated concept into a picture that anybody can understand, then embellish it with a political punch is potent. This format makes the issues accessible to just about anyone; even people with no attention span for politics have the patience for a one panel cartoon. But a cartoon doesn’t just simplify the issue; it pushes at best an opinion and at worst an agenda onto the public. By putting a satirical twist onto same agenda, it makes that side of the issue relatable and sympathetic to the reader.
As for the targets of the cartoons, well, nobody likes to be made a fool. When a cartoon portrays a specific person rather than a symbol representing an abstract concept (i.e. a man with “Russia” written across his belly to represent the whole of Russia), it is usually a powerful national or world figure. Visually, the person is caricatured, morally, their ideologies are mocked and torn apart. It’s a direct hit to the ego and perhaps I’m stereotyping here, but I can only imagine that people that wield global power have engorged yet delicate egos.
All these controversies have resulted in an unfavorable view of the newspapers that publish the offending cartoons. This has forced editors to more carefully scrutinize the editorial page and unfortunately, this frequently results in censorship. Political cartoons are meant to be inflammatory and abrasive, ideally they get people to discuss issues and choose a side. To simplify things a bit, perhaps the most clever propagandist wins. Instead, editors are so afraid of offending someone in the nebulous “out there” that they pull the cartoons altogether, effectively stifling the political opinions and free speech of their own employees.
I happen to like funny pictures and I happen to like free speech. I’d like to tell these editors to leave the cartoonists alone, publish a disclaimer if they have to. The fact that cartoons get pulled out of fear of offending Grandma Moses in Middle-of-Nowherestown offends me.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/11/INGU4OGDT11.DTL
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article726508.ece
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blantiwarpics.htm
The cartoonists themselves have been feared, watched and even killed. In World War II, the Gestapo put the Evening Standard’s cartoonist on a hit list for mocking Hitler. In the 1950s, J. Edgar Hoover put Mad Magazine under surveillance. An Argentine who portrayed the leaders of the ruling junta as space aliens in the 1970s was “disappeared” along with his family. The Danish artists who were responsible for the recent Mohammad cartoon controversy were so inundated with death threats that they were forced to seek protection and go into hiding.
What makes political cartoons so inflammatory and so powerful? I suspect it’s a combination of factors. As I mentioned earlier, the ability to simplify a complicated concept into a picture that anybody can understand, then embellish it with a political punch is potent. This format makes the issues accessible to just about anyone; even people with no attention span for politics have the patience for a one panel cartoon. But a cartoon doesn’t just simplify the issue; it pushes at best an opinion and at worst an agenda onto the public. By putting a satirical twist onto same agenda, it makes that side of the issue relatable and sympathetic to the reader.
As for the targets of the cartoons, well, nobody likes to be made a fool. When a cartoon portrays a specific person rather than a symbol representing an abstract concept (i.e. a man with “Russia” written across his belly to represent the whole of Russia), it is usually a powerful national or world figure. Visually, the person is caricatured, morally, their ideologies are mocked and torn apart. It’s a direct hit to the ego and perhaps I’m stereotyping here, but I can only imagine that people that wield global power have engorged yet delicate egos.
All these controversies have resulted in an unfavorable view of the newspapers that publish the offending cartoons. This has forced editors to more carefully scrutinize the editorial page and unfortunately, this frequently results in censorship. Political cartoons are meant to be inflammatory and abrasive, ideally they get people to discuss issues and choose a side. To simplify things a bit, perhaps the most clever propagandist wins. Instead, editors are so afraid of offending someone in the nebulous “out there” that they pull the cartoons altogether, effectively stifling the political opinions and free speech of their own employees.
I happen to like funny pictures and I happen to like free speech. I’d like to tell these editors to leave the cartoonists alone, publish a disclaimer if they have to. The fact that cartoons get pulled out of fear of offending Grandma Moses in Middle-of-Nowherestown offends me.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/11/INGU4OGDT11.DTL
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article726508.ece
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blantiwarpics.htm
Democracy—cragged but never given up
The first time I leant about the term of democracy is in my high school. I still remember what the text book writes: democracy and dictatorship can’t be separated. They coexist and interact. There is no absolute democracy and no complete dictatorship. No democracy can exist without dictatorship, and no dictatorship can survive without democracy……
This is how the Chinese educators comprehends and explains the relationship between democracy and dictatorship. It may be a little extreme in some distance, after all China was always being criticized for its bad democracy environment. However, from other point of view, these explanations also make some sense. Just see the debates about democracy and the embarrassment of democracy among all the world, even in the USA, who is famous for its democracy system and also face with the problem of democracy weakening, then we know the fact that democracy and dictatorship really can’t depart from each other, no matter we would like to accept it or not. Of course, the term dictatorship here is a little too strong. Maybe we can change it with governing. But whatever term we used, we all know that democracy must be controlled and influenced by the government. The only difference is, how much democracy we can strive for and how far our government can permit us to go.
Though all of us realize that, democracy is only a beautiful dream, which can not be totally reached. But from both the history and the contemporary era, we gain a conclusion that, human-beings never give up the hope of striving for the democracy, no matter how difficult and tough the situation it is. Let’s take Chinese media for example. It is well-known that Chinese media is under government’s strict control. But in these two years, especially in the south city near Hongkong and Taiwan, the media appears a strong intent of advocating democracy, which in terms of encouraging citizens to participate in the politics through media or to express themselves in the media.
There are two kinds of news programs which can be counted into this range. One is operated as forum. Every Sunday, the program producers will invite all kinds of people, ranging from common citizens to government officials, to discuss a certain topic. At first, this forum is ignored by the citizens and the officials. But after a year, more and more citizens found that, this is a good chance for them to express themselves, and most of the case, the problem they raised can get a satisfied response or settlement. Then more and more citizens will go the forums, which don’t require sighing up, anyone being able to attend. At the same time, those officials also found that this forum provides a good chance to prove their good relationship and interaction with the citizens, which is very helpful for their personal promotion. Therefore, more and more officials who are in important government department are willing to go this forum. In that case, this forum lasts for 10 years till now, which is a good case of democratization of the media. Of course, some citizens will declare some ill-suited opinions that the Chinese censorship may don’t like. But because this programs is not an on-air show, editors can cut the segments that include those improper opinions when it is shown in television. Thus this program is never warned or forbidden by the government. Of cause, in that case, the so-call democracy has some limitation. However, it has provided a good chance for the citizens to express themselves and get an interaction with the government, which also raised citizens’ consciousness of democracy.
The other program is characteristic of encouraging citizens to shoot the news which include their comment for the television station. This owes to the population of DV camera in China. News providers will receive some money as reward, but only 100-200 RMB. However, many audiences quite enjoy the feeling of being a journalist temporally. They will record some unfair phenomena or flaws of the city plus their comment in the news, which not only extend the news source but also offer a stage for these citizens to express their opinions.
Besides Chinese new attempt of democratization of the media, among all the world, other countries also try to break the limit of democracy. Such as in some western industrialized countries, there are Wikipedia and Wikinews as tools of media democracy. “Anyone—regardless of educational background, experience, or in-depth knowledge—can edit, expand, or remove content. Wikipedia operates as a not-for-profit, and accepts no advertising or corporate investment which can influence or silence particular ideas. Operating costs are paid by typically small individual donations.”
In India, Sunil Khilnani also observes that "the coming of democracy necessitates a new kind of social intelligence, a different division of intellectual labor in the society.” Democracy, which is considered by many people that is only a dream, but is also being searched by many confident people. It exists and strives between the freedom and government. All of us are looking for a balance, which may be changed according to different countries and periods. But as long as we can reach a certain kind of balance, then I think the democracy will serve us a lot, either to the government or the citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_democracy
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0305-27.htm
http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/jan/med-hoot0301.htm
This is how the Chinese educators comprehends and explains the relationship between democracy and dictatorship. It may be a little extreme in some distance, after all China was always being criticized for its bad democracy environment. However, from other point of view, these explanations also make some sense. Just see the debates about democracy and the embarrassment of democracy among all the world, even in the USA, who is famous for its democracy system and also face with the problem of democracy weakening, then we know the fact that democracy and dictatorship really can’t depart from each other, no matter we would like to accept it or not. Of course, the term dictatorship here is a little too strong. Maybe we can change it with governing. But whatever term we used, we all know that democracy must be controlled and influenced by the government. The only difference is, how much democracy we can strive for and how far our government can permit us to go.
Though all of us realize that, democracy is only a beautiful dream, which can not be totally reached. But from both the history and the contemporary era, we gain a conclusion that, human-beings never give up the hope of striving for the democracy, no matter how difficult and tough the situation it is. Let’s take Chinese media for example. It is well-known that Chinese media is under government’s strict control. But in these two years, especially in the south city near Hongkong and Taiwan, the media appears a strong intent of advocating democracy, which in terms of encouraging citizens to participate in the politics through media or to express themselves in the media.
There are two kinds of news programs which can be counted into this range. One is operated as forum. Every Sunday, the program producers will invite all kinds of people, ranging from common citizens to government officials, to discuss a certain topic. At first, this forum is ignored by the citizens and the officials. But after a year, more and more citizens found that, this is a good chance for them to express themselves, and most of the case, the problem they raised can get a satisfied response or settlement. Then more and more citizens will go the forums, which don’t require sighing up, anyone being able to attend. At the same time, those officials also found that this forum provides a good chance to prove their good relationship and interaction with the citizens, which is very helpful for their personal promotion. Therefore, more and more officials who are in important government department are willing to go this forum. In that case, this forum lasts for 10 years till now, which is a good case of democratization of the media. Of course, some citizens will declare some ill-suited opinions that the Chinese censorship may don’t like. But because this programs is not an on-air show, editors can cut the segments that include those improper opinions when it is shown in television. Thus this program is never warned or forbidden by the government. Of cause, in that case, the so-call democracy has some limitation. However, it has provided a good chance for the citizens to express themselves and get an interaction with the government, which also raised citizens’ consciousness of democracy.
The other program is characteristic of encouraging citizens to shoot the news which include their comment for the television station. This owes to the population of DV camera in China. News providers will receive some money as reward, but only 100-200 RMB. However, many audiences quite enjoy the feeling of being a journalist temporally. They will record some unfair phenomena or flaws of the city plus their comment in the news, which not only extend the news source but also offer a stage for these citizens to express their opinions.
Besides Chinese new attempt of democratization of the media, among all the world, other countries also try to break the limit of democracy. Such as in some western industrialized countries, there are Wikipedia and Wikinews as tools of media democracy. “Anyone—regardless of educational background, experience, or in-depth knowledge—can edit, expand, or remove content. Wikipedia operates as a not-for-profit, and accepts no advertising or corporate investment which can influence or silence particular ideas. Operating costs are paid by typically small individual donations.”
In India, Sunil Khilnani also observes that "the coming of democracy necessitates a new kind of social intelligence, a different division of intellectual labor in the society.” Democracy, which is considered by many people that is only a dream, but is also being searched by many confident people. It exists and strives between the freedom and government. All of us are looking for a balance, which may be changed according to different countries and periods. But as long as we can reach a certain kind of balance, then I think the democracy will serve us a lot, either to the government or the citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_democracy
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0305-27.htm
http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/jan/med-hoot0301.htm
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Big Brother: We are watching you
The debate continues over whether big brother is watching us, but one thing is clear: We [the British public] are watching Big Brother. Viewing figures for the last series of the archetypal reality show peaked at 8.2 million viewers. That means at some point one in every seven British people was watching. If only democracy could compete with that kind of interest.
This year’s Celebrity Big Brother, which began on 3rd January 2007 and ran for 26 days, continued to satisfy public hunger for peek show spectacle. One-time 70s pop singer Leo Singer voluntarily left the house within days after discovering he had forgotten to pack clean underwear in his suitcase; Jermaine Jackson, of Jackson 5 fame, gave a bizarre performance in a Big Brother challenge as lead singer of a Jackson 5 cover band; and Donny Tourette, singer of punk band Tower of London, walked out after being told he was to be a servant to another contestant, saying “I'm not waiting hand on foot on some f**king moron and her family”.
However, one remarkable episode came to define this year’s Celebrity Big Brother. From auspicious beginnings, racial tension began to mount between contestants Jade Goody, Jo O’Meara, and Danielle Lloyd, on one side, and Shilpa Shetty, on the other side. The former group, all British, formed a catty alliance of gossip and behind-the-back slander against Shetty, a successful actress from India. On around 14th January, the British women began to talk together at length in a way that shocked the watching public. Amongst other things, fun was poked at Shetty’s accent, she was referred to as a “dog”, an accusation was made that she was bleaching her skin to appear whiter, and Lloyd stated on one occasion that she wished Shetty would “just f**k off home. She can't even speak English”.
The backlash outside of the Big Brother house was torrential. Despite viewing figures rising by over two million during the episode, the public reacted with horror. British media regulator Ofcom received over 50,000 viewer complaints – a record for a UK television program. Channel 4, the outlet carrying the show, received another 3,000 complaints. The media was similarly vociferous. Tabloid newspaper, the Daily Mirror, represented the common sentiment by decrying the "disgraceful racist bullying of Big Brother's Shilpa Shetty". Across the country, and the world, similar disgust emerged. According to the BBC, in all, the episode “generated 300 newspaper articles in Britain, 1,200 in English-language newspapers around the globe, 3,900 foreign-language news articles and 22,000 blog postings”.
It didn’t stop there. The political establishment made an unprecedented contribution to the flurry of interest. Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said “the racism towards Shilpa Shetty on Celebrity Big Brother is completely unacceptable”; Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated "I want Britain to be seen as a country of fairness and tolerance. Anything detracting from this I condemn”; Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said "I think this is racism being presented as entertainment, and I think it is disgusting”. Even Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had not seen the program, stated “I would agree entirely with the principle that we should oppose racism in all its forms”. Abroad, Indian Minister for External Affairs Anand Sharma said “It has caused indignation, it is most unfortunate, and any kind of racism - or racist slur - is unacceptable in any civilised society”. To cap it all off, Hertfordshire police began investigations into the alleged abuses and the show’s sponsor, Carphone Warehouse, immediately suspended its support.
What are we to make of this incident, which so shocked societies, the media, and politicians worldwide? On this occasion, through Big Brother, did the media use its status as public forum for enlightenment, opinions and discussion constructively or did it merely expose foul behavior for cheap shock value? One thing is for certain: Big Brother is a program that capitalizes on the public desire to peer into people’s private lives and delight in the sensational. So the very format of the show, though it may not be intended as a regular showcase for racism and bigotry, facilitates the exposing of this sort of behavior. Besides that, children and adults alike witnessed socially unacceptable conduct; who knows how such examples might influence future behavior. For them, the image of Britain as a place of racism and division was surely reinforced by the incident.
The end result, however, may not be so gloomy. Whilst the actions of three Big Brother contestants were deplorable, their attitudes, the likes of which reside in minds and actions around the world, showed the public how horrific such conduct is. The racism that lays inside many was bared and enabled viewers to see the true nature of these sentiments. Moreover, the unanimity of the public shock was reassuring: despite the prevalence of racism, society as a whole disagrees with bigotry and fiercely voices this when necessary. Whilst this episode was uncomfortable, the media arguably acted in the public interest: it exposed racism for it is and reaffirmed public opposition to such attitudes.
It would be difficult to argue that the media does not bear some responsibility for acting in the public interest - enlightening, informing, and facilitating discourse – but it is naïve and simplistic to think that this responsibility is only acted out by portraying examples of correct behavior. It can be just as effective to show behavior detrimental to society that the public can clearly see as wrong, as this incident shows. For Celebrity Big Brother 2007, morality won the day.
This year’s Celebrity Big Brother, which began on 3rd January 2007 and ran for 26 days, continued to satisfy public hunger for peek show spectacle. One-time 70s pop singer Leo Singer voluntarily left the house within days after discovering he had forgotten to pack clean underwear in his suitcase; Jermaine Jackson, of Jackson 5 fame, gave a bizarre performance in a Big Brother challenge as lead singer of a Jackson 5 cover band; and Donny Tourette, singer of punk band Tower of London, walked out after being told he was to be a servant to another contestant, saying “I'm not waiting hand on foot on some f**king moron and her family”.However, one remarkable episode came to define this year’s Celebrity Big Brother. From auspicious beginnings, racial tension began to mount between contestants Jade Goody, Jo O’Meara, and Danielle Lloyd, on one side, and Shilpa Shetty, on the other side. The former group, all British, formed a catty alliance of gossip and behind-the-back slander against Shetty, a successful actress from India. On around 14th January, the British women began to talk together at length in a way that shocked the watching public. Amongst other things, fun was poked at Shetty’s accent, she was referred to as a “dog”, an accusation was made that she was bleaching her skin to appear whiter, and Lloyd stated on one occasion that she wished Shetty would “just f**k off home. She can't even speak English”.
The backlash outside of the Big Brother house was torrential. Despite viewing figures rising by over two million during the episode, the public reacted with horror. British media regulator Ofcom received over 50,000 viewer complaints – a record for a UK television program. Channel 4, the outlet carrying the show, received another 3,000 complaints. The media was similarly vociferous. Tabloid newspaper, the Daily Mirror, represented the common sentiment by decrying the "disgraceful racist bullying of Big Brother's Shilpa Shetty". Across the country, and the world, similar disgust emerged. According to the BBC, in all, the episode “generated 300 newspaper articles in Britain, 1,200 in English-language newspapers around the globe, 3,900 foreign-language news articles and 22,000 blog postings”.
It didn’t stop there. The political establishment made an unprecedented contribution to the flurry of interest. Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said “the racism towards Shilpa Shetty on Celebrity Big Brother is completely unacceptable”; Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated "I want Britain to be seen as a country of fairness and tolerance. Anything detracting from this I condemn”; Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said "I think this is racism being presented as entertainment, and I think it is disgusting”. Even Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had not seen the program, stated “I would agree entirely with the principle that we should oppose racism in all its forms”. Abroad, Indian Minister for External Affairs Anand Sharma said “It has caused indignation, it is most unfortunate, and any kind of racism - or racist slur - is unacceptable in any civilised society”. To cap it all off, Hertfordshire police began investigations into the alleged abuses and the show’s sponsor, Carphone Warehouse, immediately suspended its support.
What are we to make of this incident, which so shocked societies, the media, and politicians worldwide? On this occasion, through Big Brother, did the media use its status as public forum for enlightenment, opinions and discussion constructively or did it merely expose foul behavior for cheap shock value? One thing is for certain: Big Brother is a program that capitalizes on the public desire to peer into people’s private lives and delight in the sensational. So the very format of the show, though it may not be intended as a regular showcase for racism and bigotry, facilitates the exposing of this sort of behavior. Besides that, children and adults alike witnessed socially unacceptable conduct; who knows how such examples might influence future behavior. For them, the image of Britain as a place of racism and division was surely reinforced by the incident.The end result, however, may not be so gloomy. Whilst the actions of three Big Brother contestants were deplorable, their attitudes, the likes of which reside in minds and actions around the world, showed the public how horrific such conduct is. The racism that lays inside many was bared and enabled viewers to see the true nature of these sentiments. Moreover, the unanimity of the public shock was reassuring: despite the prevalence of racism, society as a whole disagrees with bigotry and fiercely voices this when necessary. Whilst this episode was uncomfortable, the media arguably acted in the public interest: it exposed racism for it is and reaffirmed public opposition to such attitudes.
It would be difficult to argue that the media does not bear some responsibility for acting in the public interest - enlightening, informing, and facilitating discourse – but it is naïve and simplistic to think that this responsibility is only acted out by portraying examples of correct behavior. It can be just as effective to show behavior detrimental to society that the public can clearly see as wrong, as this incident shows. For Celebrity Big Brother 2007, morality won the day.
Links
http://thediaryroom.net/tbbs/index.php?page=ratings
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6236471.stm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=beauty-v-bigot%26method=full%26objectid=18494160%26siteid=94762-name_page.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/world/europe/21brother.html?ex=1173758400&en=132dbf690a930b7e&ei=5070
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6282883.stm
http://thediaryroom.net/tbbs/index.php?page=ratings
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6236471.stm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=beauty-v-bigot%26method=full%26objectid=18494160%26siteid=94762-name_page.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/world/europe/21brother.html?ex=1173758400&en=132dbf690a930b7e&ei=5070
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6282883.stm
(you won't bother to check. They could be anything. They could be porn)
Friday, March 9, 2007
Thank you for NOT smoking!
As a non-smoker myself, I will not think to start smoking because I see someone smoke a cigarette in a movie or a TV show; I will just simply ignore it. However, it does not mean our children – those “vulnerable” adolescents who have not enough maturity and autonomy in decision-making would also be immune to the influence of the smoking images shown on the big as well as small screens.
In fact, Hollywoo
d has a long history in having actors/actress smoking in the films, and the biggest drive behind-screen is the tobacco companies. There was an overall increase in the depiction of smoking in films in the 1990s which appeared to coincide directly with restrictions in advertising. As we can imagine, the actor/actress in the movie “has to smoke” not merely because the director thinks it is necessary in portraying the character, moreover it’s because the tobacco company is paying them for that. By frequently showing their product and people using the product, the companies hope to persuade more people, especially the young ones to form a favorable perspective toward smoking and further become the consumers of tobacco.Researchers say that there is mounting evidence linking Hollywood’s depiction of smoking in movies and adolescents attitudes to smoking and their smoking behavior. But is it really the case? Will the adolescents who never smoked before start smoking only because they see it in the film or on TV? Aren’t they more likely to become smoker if their parents, older siblings, best friends or schoolmates smoke?
Maybe it’s not just “anyone” in the film or on TV; it must be their favorite stars who smoke onscreen that will be the most influential to the youngsters. I can easily hear some 14-year-olds say:” Brad Pitt’s so cute when he smokes in
that movie!” Or “Look at Marilyn, I wish I could hold a cigarette just like that, so sexy.” Research has been done on showing that adolescents whose favorite movie stars use tobacco onscreen are significantly more likely to be at a more advanced stage of smoking uptake and to have more favorable attitudes towards smoking than adolescents who choose non-smoking stars.So should we now join the “Screen Out” program and force MPAA to give an R to all the movies that contain images of smoking or tobacco? Should we eliminate all the TV shows that have people smoking from afternoons and early evenings? Or should we insulate our children from all the mediated messages showing smoking? Even if we should (as those anti-smoking activist believe), we simply can not, just like we are not able to get rid of the pornography and violence in the current media.
When the reality is in this country, one out of four people is a smoker. And since most of the films and TV shows are based on real life stories, it will be awkward and lack of credibility not to show any images related to smoking at all. However, science has proved that smoking is a dangerous habit and can cause serious health problem; we cannot ignore the possibility that certain portrayal of smoking in film and TV shows can lead to the initiation of smoking among adolescents.
A study by Pechmann 199918 suggested that young people can be “immunized” against the influences of film stars smoking by showing a strong anti-smoking advertisement before those films that contain smoking scenes.
Or maybe we should say to the Hollywood:
Thank you for NOT smoking!
Links:
Smoking Under Fire
Do Favorite Movie Stars Influence Adolescent Smoking Initiation?
Interpretations of smoking in film by older teenagers
Smoking List Movie Reviews
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Hail to the King of the Air waves
On March 8th, 2007, ABC News.com ran a story titled, "Obama Pays Parking Tickets 17 years Late." Just as it has happened before with other presidential hopefuls, the dirt is piling up. The reporting of the investments that Obama had made "unknown" to himself doesn't seem to be sticking so we get treated to another little bit of dirt today. Parking Tickets!! My God, how can he be a president? And then he goes and pays them off 17 years late - how patronizing!
I thought to myself, "Rush will have a field day with this. He'll either make a complete mockery of it or he'll make it a grand crime against the masses that Obama thinks he's above the law. Either way - it'll be entertaining."
It was eleven minutes to the end of Rush Limbaugh's 3 hour show before he mentioned it. "Yes , even King Rush is predictable, I thought." But he didn't ridicule the story. He didn't knock Obama for trying to be above the law. In fact he didn't criticize Obama in any way for his parking tickets. He read the story from the website and let the words of the story (not his words) take on their own level of ridiculousness. With one swing of his majestic verbalage he announced that the source of the story "had to be the Clinton camp." In his eyes and for his millions of listeners and 800 stations there was only one source that could be responsible - "Clinton INC".
He then played a little audio piece of Obama responding to questions about his questionable investments. And pointed out that, for the first time in Obama's speaking career, Obama was using a lot of um's and ah's rather than direct confident oration.
All of this was squashed into the last 11 minutes. In a feat of genuis broadcasting he appeared fairly objective by "defending" Obama against the "Clinton INC" camp and then suggested subtly that Obama was losing his confidence in speaking as a result of the questions about his investments. Then (after 3 hours) he was gone. He left us with 11 dense minutes of 1. defending/supporting Obama, 2. criticizing "Clinton INC", (for something that he had no idea if they were responsible or not), and 3. subtle analysis of Obama to expose the impending collapse of his run for president. And then he was gone.
Golfing is where he said he was going in the afternoon, (in between criticizing all theories of global warming). One might even think that he wanted to get finished and golfing as quickly as possible and that the last 11 minutes were thrown in as an afterthought.
I got the impression that the 11 minutes were orchestrated to be dense and "balanced". That segment gave the impression of an objective broadcaster but under analysis we can see he was trying to knock the two democratic candidates. A fitting finish to his 3 hour broadcast!
He got me. He didn't have a field day in the way I thought he would - i.e. ridicule or criticism.
He is subtle and subversive. He is a genuis. His theatrics are second to none. His voice carries and is perfectly toned for radio. His apparent knowledge (communicated by his confidence) is omnipotent.
I have to admire his performance. I have to lament his popularity. I accept that he has the biggest radio audience in the U.S.
I ask, "Is this what I must be to be a successful talk show radio host?" Maybe not.
How do I define successful? Broadcasting is a competition for the audience. Popularity is success in broadcasting. So, for today, if I want to be the most popular radio talk show host - Rush is the goal!
Hail to the King of the Air Waves!
http://www.abcnews.go.com/politics/wireStory?id=2934061
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld
I thought to myself, "Rush will have a field day with this. He'll either make a complete mockery of it or he'll make it a grand crime against the masses that Obama thinks he's above the law. Either way - it'll be entertaining."
It was eleven minutes to the end of Rush Limbaugh's 3 hour show before he mentioned it. "Yes , even King Rush is predictable, I thought." But he didn't ridicule the story. He didn't knock Obama for trying to be above the law. In fact he didn't criticize Obama in any way for his parking tickets. He read the story from the website and let the words of the story (not his words) take on their own level of ridiculousness. With one swing of his majestic verbalage he announced that the source of the story "had to be the Clinton camp." In his eyes and for his millions of listeners and 800 stations there was only one source that could be responsible - "Clinton INC".
He then played a little audio piece of Obama responding to questions about his questionable investments. And pointed out that, for the first time in Obama's speaking career, Obama was using a lot of um's and ah's rather than direct confident oration.
All of this was squashed into the last 11 minutes. In a feat of genuis broadcasting he appeared fairly objective by "defending" Obama against the "Clinton INC" camp and then suggested subtly that Obama was losing his confidence in speaking as a result of the questions about his investments. Then (after 3 hours) he was gone. He left us with 11 dense minutes of 1. defending/supporting Obama, 2. criticizing "Clinton INC", (for something that he had no idea if they were responsible or not), and 3. subtle analysis of Obama to expose the impending collapse of his run for president. And then he was gone.
Golfing is where he said he was going in the afternoon, (in between criticizing all theories of global warming). One might even think that he wanted to get finished and golfing as quickly as possible and that the last 11 minutes were thrown in as an afterthought.
I got the impression that the 11 minutes were orchestrated to be dense and "balanced". That segment gave the impression of an objective broadcaster but under analysis we can see he was trying to knock the two democratic candidates. A fitting finish to his 3 hour broadcast!
He got me. He didn't have a field day in the way I thought he would - i.e. ridicule or criticism.
He is subtle and subversive. He is a genuis. His theatrics are second to none. His voice carries and is perfectly toned for radio. His apparent knowledge (communicated by his confidence) is omnipotent.
I have to admire his performance. I have to lament his popularity. I accept that he has the biggest radio audience in the U.S.
I ask, "Is this what I must be to be a successful talk show radio host?" Maybe not.
How do I define successful? Broadcasting is a competition for the audience. Popularity is success in broadcasting. So, for today, if I want to be the most popular radio talk show host - Rush is the goal!
Hail to the King of the Air Waves!
http://www.abcnews.go.com/politics/wireStory?id=2934061
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Pigtails and Porn
By: N. Long
"If a ten-year old can buy pornography on a street corner in New York for five dollars, isn't that too high a price to pay for free speech?" fictional United States president Josiah Bartlett is asked in the pilot episode of "The West Wing." "No," responds the president, "but I do think five dollars is too high a price to pay for pornography." Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post recently wrote an opinion piece entitled "Pigtails and Porn," about the effects of children's exposure to online pornography. This is not about child pornography, as some who read the title might first believe, but rather about children between the ages of 10 and 17 who run across or view pornography while surfing the internet. Quoting recent psychological studies, Parker argues that children who view pornography over the internet suffer irreparable psychological trauma, and heavily implies that content on the internet should be more heavily regulated. Using the same study, Parker also argues that pornography is addictive, and causes "dysfunctional relationships" in those who consume the media. Not everyone agrees with this medical assessment, but before addressing that issue, the impact of this argument on free speech must be examined.
The issue of regulating internet pornography arose in 2004, when the US Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 vote, struck down a law that would have made it a crime to place materials that would be "harmful to minors" within "easy reach of children on the internet." The 1998 law was called the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which never had a chance to take effect. This was the third time the Supreme Court has struck down such a law, citing violations of the first amendment and free speech as the reason. But the question remains, would this law have truly violated "free-speech guarantees." This law did not technically ban online pornography, but would have required adults to use access codes and other forms of registration before being allowed to see "objectionable material." Unfortunately, the definition of what constituted objectionable material was extremely general, which is one of the reasons the ACLU challenged the law on behalf of websites such as sexualhealth.com, that provides "sex information for people with disabilities." Luckily for the ACLU, the majority of the Supreme Court agreed with a study arguing that internet filtering software was far more effective in keeping children away from online pornography than registration requirements. Voluntarily installing such software would not, in any way, violate "free-speech guarantees." This was the legal justification for the court's ruling. The ethics of the situation are a bit more complicated.
According to Parker's article, internet filtering software is only effective 50% of the time. The other half of the time, children are exposed to internet pornography. Without the law holding site operators accountable, parents have no recourse, except perhaps to sue the producers of the filtering software, which is never guaranteed to work in the first place. If I'm a parent, whose child has been exposed to, and perhaps scarred by internet pornography, the absence of this law might be upsetting. On the other hand, if I run a site such as sexualhealth.com, I might be very upset if my attempt to help those with disabilities have a more fulfilling sex life is thwarted by a law that infringes upon my ability to get a message out into the world. In this case, as would be the case with the many safe sex websites in the world, my right to free speech has indeed been impeded. If ran an informational sex education website that included instructions and depictions of how to use a condom, would that be deemed obscene material? If someone from an abstinence only website filed a complaint, would I be fined? Who gets to decide? While a law attempting to shield children from online pornography is noble in nature, the possibilities of such a law violating free speech is too great. And speaking of shielding children, how much damage do they really suffer from viewing online pornography.
As I said earlier, Parker cites one study conducted by a psychoanalyst when claiming that the viewing pornography can become addictive, and can cause negative behavioral patterns. However, as many studies as there are that takes Parker's position, there are an equal number that take a rival stance. Dr. Daniel Linz, a psychologist from the University of California, Santa Barbara, disputes claims the pornography is addictive and harmful to viewers. According to Linz, viewing pornography is not the same things as taking a narcotic. It is a learned behavior like watching football on Sunday's. And like any learned behavior, viewing pornography can be unlearned with the same amount of effort it would take to stop watching football on Sunday's. Furthermore, Dr. Linz iterates that for pornography to have a negative effect on behavior, it has to be violent in nature. For most people, "the message of violence against women must be present for negative effects to occur." For this reason, violence in conjunction with sex in pornography has been banned in the United States for decades. Dr. Linz concludes that exposure to most forms of pornography should not have any long-term adverse effects on either children or adults.
Both of these studies can be disputed, and perhaps it is better to be safe than sorry. No one wants 10-year olds to be exposed to online pornography. Unfortunately, enacting a murky law that not only makes it more difficult for adults to access online pornography, but might actually affect safe sex websites is very dangerous ground to tread. Such a law comes too close to government censorship, and perhaps silencing political and philosophical opponents. So, if asked if the risk of exposing a 10-year old to pornography is too high a price to pay for free speech, my answer is no.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/12/EDGC7N72JH1.DTL
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?action=preview&coid=133
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/29/scotus.web.indecency/index.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/30/PORN.TMP
"If a ten-year old can buy pornography on a street corner in New York for five dollars, isn't that too high a price to pay for free speech?" fictional United States president Josiah Bartlett is asked in the pilot episode of "The West Wing." "No," responds the president, "but I do think five dollars is too high a price to pay for pornography." Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post recently wrote an opinion piece entitled "Pigtails and Porn," about the effects of children's exposure to online pornography. This is not about child pornography, as some who read the title might first believe, but rather about children between the ages of 10 and 17 who run across or view pornography while surfing the internet. Quoting recent psychological studies, Parker argues that children who view pornography over the internet suffer irreparable psychological trauma, and heavily implies that content on the internet should be more heavily regulated. Using the same study, Parker also argues that pornography is addictive, and causes "dysfunctional relationships" in those who consume the media. Not everyone agrees with this medical assessment, but before addressing that issue, the impact of this argument on free speech must be examined.
The issue of regulating internet pornography arose in 2004, when the US Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 vote, struck down a law that would have made it a crime to place materials that would be "harmful to minors" within "easy reach of children on the internet." The 1998 law was called the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which never had a chance to take effect. This was the third time the Supreme Court has struck down such a law, citing violations of the first amendment and free speech as the reason. But the question remains, would this law have truly violated "free-speech guarantees." This law did not technically ban online pornography, but would have required adults to use access codes and other forms of registration before being allowed to see "objectionable material." Unfortunately, the definition of what constituted objectionable material was extremely general, which is one of the reasons the ACLU challenged the law on behalf of websites such as sexualhealth.com, that provides "sex information for people with disabilities." Luckily for the ACLU, the majority of the Supreme Court agreed with a study arguing that internet filtering software was far more effective in keeping children away from online pornography than registration requirements. Voluntarily installing such software would not, in any way, violate "free-speech guarantees." This was the legal justification for the court's ruling. The ethics of the situation are a bit more complicated.
According to Parker's article, internet filtering software is only effective 50% of the time. The other half of the time, children are exposed to internet pornography. Without the law holding site operators accountable, parents have no recourse, except perhaps to sue the producers of the filtering software, which is never guaranteed to work in the first place. If I'm a parent, whose child has been exposed to, and perhaps scarred by internet pornography, the absence of this law might be upsetting. On the other hand, if I run a site such as sexualhealth.com, I might be very upset if my attempt to help those with disabilities have a more fulfilling sex life is thwarted by a law that infringes upon my ability to get a message out into the world. In this case, as would be the case with the many safe sex websites in the world, my right to free speech has indeed been impeded. If ran an informational sex education website that included instructions and depictions of how to use a condom, would that be deemed obscene material? If someone from an abstinence only website filed a complaint, would I be fined? Who gets to decide? While a law attempting to shield children from online pornography is noble in nature, the possibilities of such a law violating free speech is too great. And speaking of shielding children, how much damage do they really suffer from viewing online pornography.
As I said earlier, Parker cites one study conducted by a psychoanalyst when claiming that the viewing pornography can become addictive, and can cause negative behavioral patterns. However, as many studies as there are that takes Parker's position, there are an equal number that take a rival stance. Dr. Daniel Linz, a psychologist from the University of California, Santa Barbara, disputes claims the pornography is addictive and harmful to viewers. According to Linz, viewing pornography is not the same things as taking a narcotic. It is a learned behavior like watching football on Sunday's. And like any learned behavior, viewing pornography can be unlearned with the same amount of effort it would take to stop watching football on Sunday's. Furthermore, Dr. Linz iterates that for pornography to have a negative effect on behavior, it has to be violent in nature. For most people, "the message of violence against women must be present for negative effects to occur." For this reason, violence in conjunction with sex in pornography has been banned in the United States for decades. Dr. Linz concludes that exposure to most forms of pornography should not have any long-term adverse effects on either children or adults.
Both of these studies can be disputed, and perhaps it is better to be safe than sorry. No one wants 10-year olds to be exposed to online pornography. Unfortunately, enacting a murky law that not only makes it more difficult for adults to access online pornography, but might actually affect safe sex websites is very dangerous ground to tread. Such a law comes too close to government censorship, and perhaps silencing political and philosophical opponents. So, if asked if the risk of exposing a 10-year old to pornography is too high a price to pay for free speech, my answer is no.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/12/EDGC7N72JH1.DTL
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?action=preview&coid=133
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/29/scotus.web.indecency/index.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/30/PORN.TMP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
