Finding What Media do now

Deep Space Naan

2009-10-06T06:00:00.000-07:00

50 years war Israel and the Arabs episode one (part1-29)

2009-10-06T05:53:00.000-07:00

ipod touch

2008-05-22T17:33:00.000-07:00

Ipod Touch

What are the transitions of electronic media in the world? We once celebrated debut of portable music player like MP3. We once embraced easy ways of enjoying photos by LCD frames. We even welcomed an era when people can legally download whatever movies they like at whenever they want. Those are all great developments in today’s electronic media revolution.

So let us image: if we put all the above-mentioned technologies in one cute and compact box, what will happen? Yes, we get the state-of-art multi-media player --- Ipod. Can we make our lives even more convenient? Yes. Here comes our star today: Ipod touch. With the advanced multi-touch technique, one can easily operate any functions by simply touching the aimed functional image. Instead of learning how to use various buttons and switches, a really cool touch on part of the screen will lead you to where you want to go in this digital library.

All the electronic products are under the trend of being compact in size, being comprehensive in functions and being simple in operation. Ipod touch greatly exhibits all the above advantages. It works like a personal art center where you can enjoys many forms of arts. With your LCD photo player, you would feel like walking into a miniaturized art gallery with various pictures and photos. With your music player, you would feel like being in a concert with your favorite songs. With your movie player, you would feel like being in a mini cinema with your choice of movies and stars. Moreover, the internet-based media technique would always update you with the latest trend and development of the whole world.

As one can tell, Ipod touch reveals the latest transition of electronic media in the world: building up your personalized media library base on the whole world resources with a simple “touch”.

Microsoft Joins the One Laptop Per Child Project

2008-05-21T09:55:00.001-07:00

Microsoft announced on May 16th, 2008 that it will be joining the One Laptop Per Child project as a software partner. This business decision came three years after Microsoft expressed interest in adding its internationally popular Windows platform to the project for global distribution. But until now, the OLPC project has held off on allying itself with an international technological giant like Microsoft. And in turn, the New York Times states that Microsoft has “long resisted joining the ambitious project because its laptops used the Linux operating system, a freely distributed alternative to Windows.”

While countries and communities around the globe are already placing orders and bringing the XO laptops (with the open source software) to classrooms in diverse regions of the world, some large potential clients, including India, have rejected participation in the project from the start. The Register reports that the Indian Ministry of Education cast off the OLPC as “pedagogically suspect” for reasons including the lack of Western industry-standard tools like the Windows operating system.

Why the stand off? As a communication tool, the OLPC project is fundamentally rooted in Papert’s constructionist educational theory, which emphasizes experiential learning, or learning through doing.” By keeping the OLPC’s XO laptop fundamentally open source, the project has ensured that students and communities learn through developing their own software and by adapting preinstalled programs and layout aesthetics to fit the customized needs of each individual community. What then, will the inclusion of Microsoft in the project, mean for future learners?

Switching the laptops from open source to industrial software changes the educational purposes of the project entirely. Instead of creating ways to create new learning, the Windows-loaded laptops will be teaching future generations how to become workers in the existing capitalist market. The potential here is for the technology to become a communicative tool of oppression, restricting educational goals to those that coincide with the immediate needs of the global market instead of becoming a tool of resistance to such a situation by distributing a means of creating indigenous digital software and community-based learning and communication systems.

Still, some members of the OLCP project remain hopeful that the original goals of the program will continue to shine through the Windows (pun intended). On OLPC’s news website, a member of the OLPC Indian Student chapter reminds readers that at its heart, this is “an eduation project, not a laptop project.” The student also hopefully declares that “I know OLPC will get worldwide acceptance if it sticks to its original vision [of being open source].”

For more information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/technology/16laptop.html?ex=1211860800&en=5c6fe04817a45890&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.olpcnews.com/software/operating_system/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/26/india_says_no_to_olpc/

http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204701926

CAPITALISM THROUGH COMMUNICATIONS AND CONSUMERISM? A LOOK AT THE NEW CUBA.

2008-05-06T23:26:00.000-07:00

The New York Times recently asked “Can a rice maker possibly be revolutionary?” The answer for now, at least in the case of Cuba, is a still tentative “maybe.” Appliances including rice makers, DVD players, televisions and home computers have gone on sale to the general public in Cuba, following President Raul Castro’s declaration that these items should be available to the average Cuban citizen (BBC, 2008). While Fidel Castro fought for years to maintain a strictly communist political and economic system in place, Raul’s actions are quickly beginning to weave threads of capitalism into the system with consumer goods and increased access to communication devices.

Castro has also taken other leaps toward bringing 21st century technology to the hands of many more than his brother’s previous policies by expanding access to personal communication devices. Earlier this year, he opened the doors for privately owned cell phones in the country. Prior to the change, only government employees and foreign workers could use them. Other policy changes include allowing farmers to manage their unused land for profit and lifting a ban on Cubans using tourist-designated hotels. However, we must not be too quick to view these policy changes as indicators of larger steps for the Cuban population until the impact of these changes become clearer.

The New York Times article quoted government officials as saying more restrictions will be eased up in the near future as Raul continues to settle in to his new role. Possibly up next on the agenda? Allowing Cubans to buy and sell their own vehicles and relaxing restrictions on traveling abroad. However, it is worth noting that while the restrictions that have been relaxed in the first part of 2008 may seem like huge steps for the previously rigidly socialist nation, these changes are still only a reality for a small portion of the public. The Times notes that a rice maker, at $70, currently costs three times the average monthly income in Cuba and a home computer will not be a reality for many Cuban families for quite some time to come.

Still, according to the BBC, over 7000 cell phone contracts have already been sold in the two weeks since the devices became accessible to nongovernment workers and ordinary citizens, demonstrating a clear demand for such products. And Etecsa, the mobile service provider, anticipates selling over a million new phone contracts by 2013, despite a new contract costing six times the average monthly salary in Cuba.

Not all obstacles to communication lie within the Cuban government. For instance, the BBC reports that while personal computers may be on sale, the ban remains on Internet access across Cuba. However, the Cuban government is insisting that the cause of the disconnect is the inability to complete undersea fiber optic cables, due to the US trade embargo with the country, limiting Internet access at the moment to spotty and expensive satellite service. So where does Cuba go from here?

With China now serving as Cuba’s second largest trading partner, could the development of a more complex system of consumerism be on the rise side by side in both countries as more goods and services become more reasonably priced? Possibly. Economists and politicians are at work asking questions about how significant these recent changes are to Cuba in the big picture. Is this a sign of a much larger change in Cuba’s economic and political infrastructure? Or just a sign of the current structure adapting to the times in order to continue to go strong?

Many news sources are focusing attention on the symbolic freedom of such policy changes, regardless of how accessible these freedoms may be for regular Cuban citizens. For example, the Havana Journal, a Massachusetts-based publication, reported that the unrestricted sale of these new appliances and electronic communications devices was “the first sign President Raul Castro is moving to improve access to consumer goods for Cubans.” B

The recently relaxed policies discussed here create just one example of how, while Cuba is clearly shifting away from the rigid consumer and communications restrictions of Fidel Castro’s rule, we must still wait and see just how far his brother is willing to take these new implementations into the twenty-first century.

For more information:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7381646.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7364791.stm

http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/cuba-allows-cuban-people-to-own-computers/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/02/world/americas/02cuba.html?em&ex=1209873600&en=8cbea22a8fcc2025&ei=5087%0A

Comparing Taiwan and the U.S.’s media of the overall reporting perspectives on Taiwan’s presidential election

2008-03-31T17:01:00.000-07:00

March 22, 2008, the historical moment for Taiwanese to practice the democracy again by voting for the next president. Ma Ying-Jeou, the candidate of Nationalist’s Party, was elected in the forth direct presidential election in Taiwan. It is quite interesting to look at this event through the reports from different countries, especially form local, and the U.S perspectives.

From the U.S. media, such as the New York Times, we can see more descriptions about Ma Ying-Jeou himself, and his family, emphasizing he is a Harvard-educated elite. It is a fair treatment because most Americans are not familiar with the candidates, not to mention the domestic issues in Taiwan. But interestingly enough, when it comes to Taiwan’s standpoint to Chinese Government, the New York Times reporter said the two parties provide “slightly different” approaches to maintain a relationship with China, while Taiwan’s media often use more strong adjectives such as “opposing viewpoints”, “strongly disagree to each other’s opinions ”, or “condemn the counterparts’ attitude on the issue across the Taiwan Strait” to illustrate two election campaigns’ very different standpoints. Another article on the New York Times indicates that the result of this election is positive news for the U.S., and this article also points out that since Taiwan elects a supporter of closer Mainland ties, Washington will be relieved that at least the relationships among the U.S., China and Taiwan could be more stable than past few years. The application to join the U.N under the name of Taiwan and the referendum provoked a lot of issues between supporters and opponents in Taiwan, in China, as well as the White House. And it seems that most people in the U.S who follow the presidential election in Taiwan are optimistic about the results.

Nationalist’s Party and Democratic Progress Party (DPP) are two major political parties in Taiwan, and the biggest difference between these two is their attitude toward Mainland China. Nationalist Party holds a view that “One China” is negotiable and seeks for closer relations with China. While DPP, a relatively young party established in 1986, insists that Taiwan is an independent entity and should has a self- government. Therefore, what happened in Tibet few weeks ago has been a big surprise during this election, and Chinese government’s suppression on Tibet raised an intense debate. Since Tibet is unrest, it has quickly became a domestic issue in Taiwan’s presidential election and both parties showed that they’re going to be tougher now when facing Chinese government. In Taiwan, the bleeding rebellion became the headline news on prime-time newscasts and the No.1 issue discussed in several famous talk shows. Besides showing sympathy about Tibetan, somehow I think the two election campaigns, and the news programs were both overdone with the Tibetan rebellion during the election period, repeating day after day for the similar speeches from two presidential candidates, and many Taiwanese people were upset with the situation in Taiwan and worried about being the next victim under the threaten of Chinese government, which I think is an unnecessary and imbalanced comparison.

But anyway, I am so glad to see that the presidential election in Taiwan finished peacefully. One should never forget the fundamental obligation of being a leader of a country is to build up a harmonious society first, than he or she is qualified to lead the country to a prosperous, promising future. Democracy is either a tool for politicians to fool people around or a slogan for citizens to be proud of. Rather, it is only through reasonable practices that could manifest the value of democracy. President-elect Ma, Ying-Jeou is going to become the new president of Taiwan after the inauguration on May 20. It is time for him and his team to demonstrate their abilities to people in this island as well as people around the world that if they are qualified to lead this country. Time will tell, and people will use their ballots to make a choice.

Sources:

The New York Times:
http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/for-the-us-positive-news/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/world/asia/24taiwan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

News form Taiwan:
http://www.cna.com.tw/2008PresidentialElection/ShowTopicNews.aspx?TopicNo=0463&NewsID=200803210129&strType=&PageNo=1

http://www.worldjournal.com/pr/taiwanvote/twv_news.php?nt_seq_id=1688626&sc_seq_id=3825

http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NATS1/4265334.shtml

http://times.hinet.net/SpecialTopic/2008_vote/news.jsp?id=1421220

Chinese News Regulation

2008-03-04T11:33:00.000-08:00

The United States and European Union are taking action through the World Trade Organization to push China into lifting restrictions on foreign news distribution within the country. Currently, outside news organizations (such as newswire distributions) must distribute content through a Chinese-government regulated agency such as Xinhua. The New York Times stated that the proposed change in policy would open doors for business information & news companies including the Dow Jones, Bloomberg, Reuters and others. The news organizations argue that China's restrictive policies currently limit their abilities to sell news information to banks, businesses, and other customers throughout China.

But, as trade restrictions between U.S./Europe and China relax in the the 21st century, are severe actions such as filing claims with the W.T.O. hurting or helping international relationships? In the NY Times article, a Unites States trade official, Susan Schwab said "China's restrictive treatment of outside suppliers of financial information services places U.S. and other foreign suppliers at a serious competitive disadvantage." But, isn't that the point of such regulations?

A spokesman for China's foreign ministry says the regulatory action will help standardize news releases and help protect intellectual-property rights for foreign news services in the country (Asia Times Online).

With high speed internet and satellite communications able to beam information around the globe in milliseconds, it's no wonder that countries like China are taking steps to protect domestic communications agencies from being dominated in the open market by Western communications superpowers. Schwab's comments reveal that this is not merely a communications or a free speech issue for either the West or China. This is a business issue at its heart. To begin a serious discussion of opening further communication services between China and the U.S./Europe, we need to take a step back to examine this issue in the much larger context of mismatched economic policies among these nations.

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/business/worldbusiness/04trade.html?ref=todayspaper (requires NY Times login)

Additional resources:
Asia Times Online
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HI14Ad01.html

International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/03/business/3wtofw.php

The Interpretation of Cuban Leader Changing in the US and China

2008-03-01T16:05:00.000-08:00

On February 19, 2008, Cuban leader Fidel Castro announced that he decided to resign, and would not accept a new term as president or commander-in-chief. On February 24, 2008, Raul Castro, Fidel Castro’s younger brother, was elected as the new president of Cuba, ending Fidel Castro’s near half century rule. As the special relationship between Cuba and America, the Cuban leader changing has brought up some attention to the American media, and Chinese media have been reporting Fidel Castro’s resignation as well.

American media mainly focus on Castro’s quitting, the new regime of Cuba, making prediction about the future relationship between the US and Cuba, which has just ushered a new leader. New York Times, for instance, published an article Castro Quits One Role, but May Not Be Done Yet that indicated the if Raul was elected to be the new leader, the power would still be remained to the Castros, which means Cuba was actually not so eager to seek a change either of itself nor with Washington. Two articles on New York Times and Washington Post paid attention to the action Raul took on human rights in Cuba just a few days after he became the president of this country, reviewing that Raul’s policy implied he would like to improve Cuba’s current state of human rights rather than his brother Fidel, of course in the condition of himself being in charge of the country.

In the meantime, with regard to Cuban leader’s changing, Chinese media report more about Fidel Castro himself, and his achievements as a great leader of a communist country. Words like “icon” and “legend” are commonly used in the reports. They generally emphasize that as the new president of Cuba, Raul will lead the country wisely as his brother did, while Fidel will still be the spiritual leader of Cuba. Some of the reports, but not too many, talked about the change of international relation (basically with the US) that Cuban leader changing would bring, and these views are usually mentioned in the special columns that demonstrate Fidel himself.

I understand the difference between the reports from China and America. From American perspective, the US has been imposing embargo against Cuba since February 1962, both the American government and media are paying attention on Cuban leader changing, and are looking on the changes it might bring to the Cuba-US relationship. China is a communist government leading country as well as Cuba, and these two countries have always had a “friendship” like most of the Chinese media say, therefore, China does not pay attention much on a “change”, but on Fidel himself. The American and Chinese different attitudes and points of view on Cuban leader changing actually reflect the difference of their media system and social system.

Sources:

New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/world/americas/20cuba.html?pagewanted=2&sq=Castro&st=cse&scp=4

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world/americas/25cuba.html?st=cse&sq=Castro&scp=5

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/world/americas/01cuba.html?st=cse&sq=Castro&scp=1

Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/01/AR2008030100491.html?sub=AR

ChinaNews.com:

http://www.chinanews.com.cn/gj/gjxqdb/news/2008/02-28/1176745.shtml

xinhuanet.com (the official Website of Xinhua Agency):

http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/kasiteluo.htm

The Comparison between Chinese and American Media on Reporting the Independence of Kosovo

2008-03-01T14:25:00.000-08:00

Kosovo announced its independence to the whole world on February 17^th, 2007. Kosovo, once an autonomous province of former Yugoslav Republic of the Union of Serbia, started fighting for independence since 1980^th. Since then, discussion on this issue in United Nation has always had no results and the confliction in that area has never stopped. Consequently, Kosovo’s announcement was like a bomb which attracted all countries’ attention. It became the headline of every media’s news on that day. Here I just want to make a comparison between Chinese media and American media on this issue. The source I use is basically from CNN’s news on website, peoplle.com.cn and Phoenix TV’s news on website.

First of all, after browsed all these websites, the first impression I got was that Chinese media seemed to pay more attention on this issue. All of these three media especially set a column for it but Chinese media made more specifically report. In people.com.cn and Phoenix TV’s website, we can see there are different categories which are latest news update, background information, professional view, reaction all over the world and related pictures and videos. On the other hand, in the CNN’s website, although there are different categories, the content is not as rich as Chinese ones. For example, there is not so much deep analysis from experts and there are also not so many related pictures reports in the website.

Secondly, the angle of the reports in Chinese and America media is different from each other. In CNN’s website, we can see reports about the refugees, Yugoslavia’s future, military campaign and peace settlement, which focus more on the Kosovo and Yugoslavia themselves. In Chinese media website, however, what we can see is reports about the reaction of other countries, the effect of Kosovo’s independence and the analysis about the inside of its independence, which focus more on the whole world. Certainly, it does not mean that the more international angle the reports are, the better they will be. In my opinion, the media has its right to choose how to report an event. I also believe that the choice will be affected by culture, as well as official political views.

The other aspect I want to mention is that, in these two Chinese media websites, both of them talked about the news that Kosovo claimed that the government would not accept the admission from TaiWan government while the CNN’s website did not mention it at all. I think it reflected that the media in China speaks for the government. It is plain to see that the government wanted to use this piece of news to say to the whole country or to TaiWan government that there is no hope for TaiWan to be independent because no countries in the world will support TaiWan’s independence even a brand new country. I can understand that it may be natural for to connect this two issues together in China. But I still think that the media gave too much to this piece of news, which made this issue like a political tool for Chinese government. As media, what they should do I think is to focus on the issue itself to report more the situation now happening in Kosovo. On the other hand, I think it may be not fair to push all responsibility to media because the model of Chinese media system and the relation between media and government also decide what media can do.

The main purpose of this comparison is not to find out which one did a better job in this issue. The difference can not only show us the distinction of the reports themselves, but also reflect the distinction of media environment and culture.

In Oil-Rich Mid-east, Shades of the Ivy League

2008-03-01T14:24:00.000-08:00

There was an interesting article on New York Times which talks about the American education in the mid-east. Education City, the largest enclave of American universities overseas, has quick become the elite of Qatari education, sort of local Ivy League. There are already five universities have brought programs to Doha, the capital of Qatar, and more are on their way. Cornell’s medical school will graduate the first Qatar-trained physicians this spring; Virginia Commonwealth University brought its art and design program to Qatari women few years ago and began admitting men this year; Carnegie Mellon provides computer and business programs. Also, the largest of the Education City schools, Texas A&M, offers engineering programs. The latest arrival is Georgetown’s foreign service school, and soon, Northwestern University’s journalism program will join in.

Globalization makes all these happen. Living in this global village, now we have a new “global classroom” in mid-east. There are definitely some good sides of Education City in Doha: Women have more opportunities to get higher learning in a nation where many parents do not allow their daughters to travel overseas for advanced study or to mix casually with men; young people have chance to broaden their horizons, thinking critically of some issues such as faith and religion; and students are able to visit the American home campus for a semester or a few weeks, fulfilling the experience of studying abroad.

However, some drawbacks are inevitably revealed in this system. While The Education City is proud of its endeavor to provide the so-called “real American education”, this island of American-style open debate in what remains an Islamic monarchy. Because Education City graduates will be broadly educated elites who have had extended contact with American professors and American ways of thinking, this consequence also makes some parents worried about their traditional values and way of life. In addition, whether the job market will view Education City graduates the same as American graduates of the same schools is not yet clear, since these graduates will be the first batch, and no one can guarantee how well they will do. There are also some potential problems from the faculty. According to Dr. Antonio M. Gotto Jr., dean of Weill Cornell Medical School in New York, there are about 15 percent of lectures are through videoconferencing. Although the new technology allows both instructors and students in Education City have a convenient way to interact and to communicate via screen, the quality of the lectures raises some concerns. Another question is, even with free housing, bonus pay and big tax advantages, and still few professors want to move to Qatar. “You get a lot of people at the end of their careers. Coming to Qatar, where you don’t have graduate students and research grants, does you no good for getting tenure.” Said one computer-science professor at Carnegie Mellon.

People outside of the U.S. see or hear about American education from different sources, one of the important sources is electronic media. From the TV programs, Hollywood movies, and the “omnipotent” Internet, the different learning atmosphere presented on the media allures bunch of people coming here to study. No matter the media portrayed education in the U.S. in a partial or an oversimplified way, there must be some reasons that many countries in the world recognize the overall concept of American education. I believe that to many international students, one of the most precious characteristics in American education, meanwhile the most different one comparing to the philosophy of education in their own countries, is that students are encouraged to share their own opinions with others, and are welcomed to have alternative voices as well. Especially in Asian countries, students are taught to be “happy-mediums”, according to the golden mean of Confucius school. Harmony and modesty are the basic principles that most of Asian people shared. There is no right or wrong since cultures and customs vary from nation to nation. But I do think that a person’s intellect needs to be stimulated. Just like the dean of Carnegie Mellon in Qatar explains that American education is a very big change for many of their students, who had no experience with questions like “What do you think the author meant by that?” or “Do you agree or disagree?”

Overall, I think Education City is a successful example of bringing more diversity and creating more opportunities for people in Qatar. But at the same time, the dilemma between maintaining the traditional values and being a more globalized person by adopting American education exists in every student’s minds at Education City. Professor Gary Wasserman, who taught “U.S. Political System” course at Georgetown branch in Doha, mentioned that students came up with questions he had never thought of. “You can see how much they want to be a part of a globalized world, but you also can see that they don’t want to have to give up their faith, their family, their traditions. And why should they?”

source:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/education/11global.htmlpagewanted=1&_r=1&sq&st=nyt&scp=55

Fred Thompson Airs Political Face-Slap During Youtube Debates

2007-12-18T12:44:00.000-08:00

The Republican YouTube debates were held on Wednesday, November 28, 2007. This highly-publicized debate featured (nearly) all of the main Republican candidates for president in the 2008 election. This debate mirrored the Democratic YouTube debates, held about 1-2 months prior. Each candidate was allowed a 30-second advertisement to be aired during the commercials. Fred Thompson made headlines by choosing to air an ad which attacked two of his rivals. Although aggressive campaign ads are certainly nothing new, Fred Thompson took the concept of media and ethics to a new level, by bringing a heightened level of interactivity to the debates. It is my opinion that regulation should be put in place for media manipulations such as this one.

Fred Thompson's 30-second spot discusses Romney's record of support for Roe vs. Wade, despite his anti-abortion stance. The commercial also dogged Huckabee for raising taxes as governor of Arkansas. When the live debate returned, Huckabee and Romney were forced to confront the issues brought up by this commercial. In the eyes of many critics, both candidates handled the razzing admirably. Romney said, "on abortion, I was wrong," and explained how he had transitioned to a pro-life stance since the Roe vs. Wade decision. Huckabee pointed out several tax cuts he had overseen as governor.

One might argue that this is not a new occurence. Political ads have aired during televised debates for many years. However, I believe that this incident is unique, due to the availability of Internet. In response, both Huckabee and Romney gave succinct quips, which may have even resulted in an improvement in their status in the eyes of viewers. Yet, when the Internet community replays the clip of Fred Thompson's ad, they won't see the responses unless they are watching the entire debate. Combined with the fact that Thompson's ad has made headlines, it can be expected that many more people will see Thompson's ad than will see Romney and Huckabee's responses. This is unique for modern times- in the past, such selective replays were entirely unavailable.

Despite the smooth handling of the situation by Huckabee and Romney, it should definitely be examined whether Fred Thompson's actions can be considered "ethical." On the one hand, an unexpectedly aggressive political commercial can certainly become an unexpected curveball to the candidates upon which it focuses. This could be considered a "low" tactic, since it is used as a surprise trick to throw off candidate. However, the purpose of these debates is to discuss controversial actions- if Thompson had aired a softer campaign commercial, then(when the live debate returned) simply stated his accusations against Huckabee and Romney, there would be no discussion of whether he violated morals, as his entire actions were within the normal frame of a debate. So, there's definitely a solid argument for both sides.

This definitely seems to indicate that technology will only make the U.S. Presidential race more "backhanded". So, should ads such as Fred Thompson's be banned from live debates? I am certain that I do not know the answer- both sides have strong and cohesive arguments. However, the potential for damage is there, so I strongly feel that a panel should be selected to review the laws governing political advertisements, with the goal of updating them for modern technology.

Source:http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html

Prince Sues Three Fansites for Distributing His Image

2007-12-18T12:42:00.000-08:00

Recording artist mogul Prince moved to sue three popular websites which distribute pictures and video clips of him. Although these websites are technically distributing unlicensed images of him, they are doing so for no profit, and are "fan sites" which exist solely to praise and promote Prince. Naturally, there are two sides to this argument, and both sides are significantly extensive.

First, one issue to consider is a matter of ownership. Prince legally owns the rights to copyrighted photos and videos. Is this right? To argue on Prince's behalf, he invested a significant amount of effort into creating these photos. Not only did he pose or perform, but he also arranged for the cameraman to film, and orchestrated the entire production. In a sense, most of these images can be thought of as products, since they are available for purchase at Prince's official website. So, it is a natural argument that Prince should own the rights to his own
product.

However, to play devil's advocate, there needs to be something said for the rights of the fans to enjoy Prince. If I wish to make a website to celebrate Prince's life and his music, it would be quite barebones if I had to display only pictures I took, myself. Therefore, I would conclude that it is right for Prince to own the rights to his own works, however, it is wrong for Prince to have 100% control over the distribution of these works, especially in the case of not-for-profit transactions.

Moving on, another issue which can be brought up for debate is that of restricting public access to the media. Prince went so far as to sue fan websites for displaying pictures of Prince-oriented tattoos and Prince-oriented license plates. This brings up an interesting concept- if one can outlaw the unrestricted printing of one's logo, anywhere, then how is fair media reporting, possible? Conceivably, Prince could walk around wearing a giant sign of his logo, and then sue the paparazzi for taking and publishing his picture. Naturally, that is a ridiculous notion, so one must ponder exactly where to draw the line.

At this point in time, I can only suggest possible solutions for this conundrum. Perhaps it would be best to treat a logo in a similar manner in which the law treats recorded songs. In other words, restrict the direct sharing of the logo, but allow a drawing of that logo to be shared, not unlike how cover songs are considered legal to record and perfom. Though this might work, the best solution is undoubtedly a full aand regular review of the way copyright law is viewed in regards to the Internet. Naturally, it is easy to see how copyright law can be fully outdated, despite efforts to keep up with the constantly dynamic Internet.

If Prince's goal was to anger millions of fans, then he certainly succeeded. This may be a horrible career move from the gentleman who already purposefully alienated himself from his record company and his distributors. However, if Prince was attempting to show the world the faultiness of modern logo protection, and chose to do this by playing the "bad guy," then his experiment could be considered a success, as the courts are now paying ample attention to his case.

http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html

Are you my mother?: Weaning kids off technology’s breast milk.

2007-12-17T22:45:00.000-08:00

Darren Waters writes an article on the “$100 laptop could sell to public” on the BBC website. Darren later attaches a blog apologizing for the “misspoken statement” made by the executive of OLPC organization (One Laptop Per Child) to sell the computer to the public. PR at OLPC said the executive misspoke and that it was only a possibility, not a guarantee, to sell the laptop to the public.

Who cares about a silly mishap with words…why aren’t we commenting on the quote made by chief connectivity officer Michalis Bletsas, that his hope is “that the laptop project would help children enrich their lives to the extent that one day they could become consumers of they will one day become consumers of the types of technologies on display in Las Vegas.”

So the goal of the OLPC organization is to produce young consumers who will eventually buy more stuff? What happened to the idea of “enriching their lives” and the educational impact on these children in developing countries? If this organization stands for expanding education in developing countries, they sure have a consumerist way of showing it.

Mr. Bletsas also comments that “it will stimulate their interest in looking further- not waiting for some teacher or adult.” Mr. Bletsas completely downplays the role of the parent, giving the child full reign with their new $176 dollar laptop. Bletsas wants them to look further, look further into what? How will they know what to look for without the direction of a teacher or role model to influence their decision making? I am arguing to give children all the answers to the quiz, but adults need to be there to provide the right scantron to take the quiz. Nor am I arguing that all parents are geniuses, but I think that the participation of parents, teachers and role models should not be undermined when it comes to technology.

These children who are “connected” will have a lot of information at their fingertips, their brains are vulnerable, alive, and bright, but it is up to us as the “adult” to guide children.

It’s not about whether children have the technology or not but it is about what they do with that technology; how do they truly use it as a resource. A child could have all the technology in the world, but if you use it on gaming and chatting, are you truly “enriching your life?” Parents of the internet addicted teens would disagree.

I’m sure Mr. Bletsas would have a difficult time using the same argument in relation to the kids at the South Korean internet addicted boot camp.

This is where the parents come in. any medium can be constructive and educational for kids, but it is how the parent shapes that learning that is important. Take TV, would Mr. Bletsas make the same comments about TV “stimulating their interest to look further”? Without the parent’s involvement and participation, we don’t know what that kid could be watching. It’s the same idea with internet, it’s about participating in their learning.

Martin Flacker writes about a boot camp in Korea for internet addicted teens in the New York Times article titled “In Korea, a Boot Camp Cure for Web Obsession.” He writes about the boot camp “Jump Up Internet Rescue School” where young teenage boys in South Korea go to beat their internet addiction. “One participant, Lee Chang-hoon, 15, began using the computer to pass the time while his parents were working and he was home alone. He said he quickly came to prefer the virtual world, where he seemed to enjoy more success and popularity than in the real one. He spent 17 hours a day online, mostly looking at Japanese comics and playing a combat role-playing game called Sudden Attack. He played all night, and skipped school two or three times a week to catch up on sleep.” The children get no sense of participation and involvement of the parents. This article begs the question: Where are the parents? There is a lack of parental responsibility going on. They are living in their parent’s home, and at no time did the parent say, “No, you don’t get to use the computer because you have been on it all day” or “I’m worried about your physical activity.”

The theme of these articles is very simple: the importance of parental involvement or lack thereof. Technology can advance at the speed of light, but technology alone is not going to enrich children’s lives, I think it still takes a village for that.

References:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/intels-approach-to-laptops-for-poor-children/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18rehab.html?pagewanted=2&bl&ei=5087&en=7857a1f63763a21e&ex=1195707600

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6246989.stm

“Can I get a non fat grande novel with no whip please?!”

2007-12-17T19:55:00.000-08:00

While some people may argue the timeline that books have, the reality is that books will not go away because of the technology we have. Books gratify a different need then a computer screen, books can be categorized as a leisure activity. While a computer screen could be argued to be a leisure activity, the elements of the computer are not the same as a book. William Powers tells “On the Media” that a book requires the reader to use their hands more, “the hands are telling the brain where you are, how much further you have to go, and so forth.” According to Powers, paper- based, or close to it, is here to stay.

People are still reading books, they are just not going through the traditional way of the library or bookstore, but they are fusing two mediums, the Internet and books, in order to be more effective and convenient.

The invention of the car comes to mind: did people stop walking when Ford came around? No, people do both, it is just another addition to the repertoire.

Sara Nelson argues her point on NPR that there are too many books. But isn't that the point of digitizing, to have a lot of information available to you? Can there be such a thing as too many books? I think so, but we have to filter out what we can to find what we need.

Jonathon band, a professor at Georgetown Univ. Law center does make a strong point that Google allows for those books that are hidden in a huge school library to make it easier to access these diamonds in the ruff for students on a search for resources and references. The sampling debate rises out of this example and makes a case where sampling can be viewed in a positive light. The sampling does not show the entire book, but just enough to either help you in your research or to go out and buy a fresh paper copy yourself. Sampling in the case of books, drives the sales of books so that the reader will want to buy it at their local Borders.

The small bookstores are few and far between, being taken over by media conglomerates. While it may seem unfair to the small bookstore owner, technology is making books more readily accessible.

Jonathon bland claims that Google’s library search will make books more relevant or relative, a book is only worth anything if it is on Google library or Oprah’s book club. Our society is at the point where we don’t take the time to search ourselves, we just take what’s popular from Google and Oprah; what these media conglomerates are telling us we should read. If we go to back to Sara Nelson’s argument on the overabundance of books, then these popular filters perpetuate the ideas in our culture, because this is the book critic we use when deciding what to read.

Some authors claim that Google should have to pay for the books that they use in their library. With this debate, we fall back into copyright, but being that the library falls under “fair use” doctrine, Lessig discusses this type of use of the Internet media. It is used as a promotional tool for that book, and if the person wants more information, they have to buy the entire book. People may not necessarily settle for an electronic copy if they are interested in the book. Books are a collection of who you are, and downloading it to your favorites is not the same as collecting the books you love.

We are a culture of speed and convenience, and the new digital book called Kindle creates a light and accessible way to read something that is “book-like.” Bob Garfield interviews the vice president of research for E-ink, Michael McCreary who says that this new E book will have a real pigment of ink and actual books. The product is called the Kindle and it is a digital book. The digital memory can hold numerous books, and the battery life can last as long as five hours.

New technology, like the Espresso Book Machine is advancing the print of books and the speed of printing. Out of print books is no longer an option with this machine that can print any book in seconds.

As our new technology continues to progress forward, books still find a way to hold on to the coat tails of technological advances.

Eating up all the Pie

2007-11-26T21:08:00.000-08:00

Rupert Murdoch has once again flexed his muscles in the media by starting the Fox Business Network, the sunnier side of business news. Some critics debate over whether this network will flourish, while others think that this “Main street” style will not last past nine months.
Rupert Murdoch and the Fox business network (FBN), bring an everyday people kind of environment to the business market. FBN wants to be different from CNBC by sugar coating the financial news. It puts a positive light on what’s going on, and gives it that good ole “go capitalism!” feel. It underestimates the potential of people. What FBN does is close the gap to variety, shrinks the possibility for “the other.” The variety of outlets is smaller with big corporations taking more of the pie.

Alessandra Stanley writes an article on the “Perky debut for the Fox Business Network” (October, 16th, 2007). This network is perceived as a joke because the tone is “giddy” and upbeat. Stanley argues that although the show gives an upbeat, uncomplicated, positive side the financial market, it still shows a bias that Fox is known for, “with the underlying drumbeat of Fox News (global warming is natural and so are tax cuts).” It makes you wonder, if the style is pro business, what are they going to report about when corporations do the wrong thing? Is this truly a network for Main Street, or is it yet another network that businesses can benefit from propaganda?

Joe Nocera, writer from the New York Times, deems the Fox Business Network as unrealistic to what is going on in our economy. “In a week when Countrywide’s chief executive was discovered to be under S.E.C. investigation, when the market lost about 4 percent of its value, when evidence emerged that the housing slump was deepening, the tone at Fox Business was upbeat” (Nocera). How can Fox Business Network compete with other networks like CNN when they are not showing the pitfalls of our economy, they are glazing over everything that is not entertaining; news entertainment at its best. Nocera suggests that it is difficult to take this network seriously when the interviewer Liz Claman “turns positively giddy” during an interview with Warren Buffet (Nocera). If the authoritative or serious tone is removed, will the public still look at this network as “news”? Or is that how the FBN wants to differentiate themselves from other networks?

What is interesting to me is the point of view that each article takes on Rupert Murdoch starting Fox Business Network. The article from the Associated Press took more quotes from Fox associates than Nocera or Stanley’s article, and this changed the overall perception of the FBN; it put an optimistic outlook on the new Network. When we look at the articles by Nocera and Stanley, the debut of the Fox Business network is perceived as “giddy and simplistic.” The theme behind the AP article is that in time, the Fox Business Network will become more like CNBC because they will want to go after a more “profitable demographic” for advertisers. Kevin Magee, executive vice president of Fox News, said “our goal is essentially to broaden the pie that watches business news.” How ironic that he used the same pie metaphor that I used in the beginning of this paper. Magee is not broadening the pie but actually shrinking the pie that people, or the viewers, can eat.

Reference Websites

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/business/media/20nocera.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/business/media/16watch.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=login
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/15/business/main3366877_page2.shtml

Big Brother, will you make my decisions for me?

2007-10-20T12:52:00.000-07:00

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a media consolidation review rule bill on their desks now. It all began in June of 2003 when the FCC passed changes granting more relaxed rules regarding media ownership. These rules were overturned a year later in 2004, but the rules are under revision currently. Senators Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott are working a bill to directly dealing with this issue (1). They would need to get this bill in before the December revision committees to halt any action by the FCC. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has pushed for a timetable regarding this issue and it is now set for December 18th (2). The proposed changes would only allow big media companies to own even more media outlets in the same communities. We all know expansive the Clear Channel and Viacom empires have become. This new ruling would allow media conglomerates to own radio, TV, newspaper and cable TV stations in one area, essentially providing a monopoly on the media in the area (3). This could be argued that the big companies would have even more power to dictate culture, public opinion and even the course of political information. Is it ethical to have a few companies dictating our media? This is a question the BECA Department attempts to answer. Power. Money. Opinion. All these go into the decision.
FreePress states the myth of deregulation, “Relaxing or eliminating media ownership rules is characterized as ‘deregulation” (3). “The implication is that the choice is between government regulation or free market regulation, based upon competition” (3). In truth, this practice leads to less competition as argued by Robert McChesney. “In some respects, the global media market more closely resembles a cartel than it does the competitive marketplace found in economic textbooks” (4). McChesney mainly concentrates on the global market being controlled by 7 huge corporations. His writing does explore the problems indicative of the United States media market. His argument is perfectly in tune with his title, rich media make for poor democracies. His argument against deregulation is strong. Can market forces control media? He states that deregulation causes less competition and more concentration within local markets. He gives the example of the consequences of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Clear Channel became a very powerful entity with no competition after this ‘deregulation.’
Compaine on the other hand believes that ‘a few big companies’ are not taking over the media. He also concludes that U.S. companies don’t dominate the global media, that corporate ownership is not killing hard-hitting journalism and that global media does not drown out local content (5). Compaine believes with the history of takeovers, mergers, and acquisitions hinder big companies from taking over a majority of the market. He gives an example of Clear Channel buying up local stations but making sure that local flavor is always aired to continue interest in local music.
So, do big companies like Clear Channel, clearly the company with the biggest advantage after the 1996 Telecomm Act, shrink playlists, recycle same material and ruin the democracy of radio? It can be argued yes, but as always there is a different side.
These new regulation rules will only further the control of the same companies that benefited from the 96 Act. Less government intervention and policing on ownership will only allow big companies to edge out the little local guys. The color or the "Americana" that is signified by the mom/pop joints from Route 66 to the local public access and radio stations that give us 'objective programming.' I use this term loosely.
FreePress.net is urging citizens to get involved by demanding that the FCC listen to citizens and hold official hearings in people’s respective states. If this happens, people need to involve themselves and make their opinion known. Whether they are for further deregulation or for making the rules stricter, make this known to the FCC. The FCC falls victim to public relations nightmares, political red tape and non-objective bias, but with more information and public opinion, the best decision can be made.
Regulators need to hear on clear message: Protect what we have and make sure we can democratically build on it. The PUBLIC media needs to remain so. Public media is part of the public sphere that should be considered everyone’s property and everyone’s decision should matter how it evolves.

(1) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6492609.html
(2) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6492368.html
(3) http://www.freepress.net/rules/page.php?n=fcc
(4) McChesney, R. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. University of Illinois Press. 1999.
(5) Compaine, B. Global Media. Foreign Policy, November/December 2002.
(6) A link to the 2003 ruling. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=56&aid=36005
(7)

Billboards and TV take away civil liberties

2007-09-28T12:30:00.000-07:00

As I was listening to NPR the other night, an interesting tidbit came on the radio; “Billboards in Bogota, Columbia will not only have advertisements, but will start posting photos and names of known sex offenders” (NPR, Wednesday September 26th, 2007). Bogota is a city of 7 million people (1) with 17,000 reported cases of sexual abuse to minors last year alone (2). The City Council in Bogota approved this measure earlier in the year hoping to protect citizens from sexual predators. Councilwoman Gilma Jimenez stated that over 200,000 kids a year are sexually abused with only a small amount being investigated (1). This is where the numbers get confusing, but think about the 17,000 reported in other article. The billboards will give the sex offender’s names, their photo, the men’s crimes and the age of their victim. 40 billboards will go up around the city located on highways and busy roadways (3). Recently, the consequence sof sexual predation have become more strict as the government raised punishment from 12 years to 25 years. This was only the start. This new law also calls for the prisoners images to be broadcast on television. Obviously, the prisoner’s lawyers are having a field day with the possibility of violation of the men’s constitutional rights.
Proponents say this will help the society, while adversaries say this is social injustice.
Should sexual offenders be ‘victimized’ or given additional punishment after their jail sentence?
In the United States two recent laws have been passed. California recently passed Jessica’s Law, which prevents sexual offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks or beaches. Furthermore, Megan’s Law was passed to allow communities to be able to access a database via the Internet that informs the public of the whereabouts of sexual offenders in their community (4). I briefly looked up my community. In my county alone, there are 1635 registrants with 1,169 known addresses of sexual offenders. In my zip code there are 75 registrants with 51 full addresses. The first law has been debated as unconstitutional due to its retroactive actions regarding previous offenders. The latter law has been accepted and widely used among families with young children.
The state of Iowa Supreme Court recently deemed the former law unconstitutional due to its retroactive nature (5). The news editorial this originates argues that sexual offenders have civil liberties also. It begs the question, ‘If they have served their jail time, do they deserve to be continually punished upon release from their incarceration?’ It recognizes the law as ‘commendable’ for its task of protecting the children, but also recognizes that it’s the government’s job to protect the citizens. The editorial continues on stating that as long as other sentences withstand constitutional scrutiny, they should or could be utilized. I agree with this editorial even with my own prejudices against these types of criminals. One must empathize with these offenders, they have served their initial jail time, should they be hounded and punished further?
In the United States, ankle bracelets and close scrutiny of parole officers have been utilized as post-jail treatments, along with registering with the local law enforcement. So far, this process seems sufficient or at the least adequate. Bogota’s newspapers and other organizations are calling for similar actions to be taken in the capital. Their stance against the billboards recognized the civil liberties of the prisoners. The latest news involves prisoners staging peaceful protests against this new law in Bogota (2).
Does this law in Columbia give due process? Does it allow the prisoner’s their constitutional rights after release from prison? One must recognize that people go to prison to ‘heal.’ Prison is not only a punishment, but a place to, theoretically, heal a prisoner so that they can function in society again.
Should media be used to ‘educate or inform’ the public about local deviants? I believe accessing the whereabouts of sexual predators via the Internet is powerful and informative. Beyond this, how does the government stay involved, but respect civil liberties. The government can’t follow these offenders everyday making sure that their walks, drives or transports don’t take them near schools, beaches, parks or the like. We must trust in the ‘reform’ system of the jails to ‘heal’ these offenders. These offenders lose so much going to prison and afterwards, we, or the Columbians should not enact retroactive laws for previous offenders. I also believe that pasting the photos of these offenders puts the power of regulation in the hands of gangs, irate citizens and anyone seeking revenge or action against the offenders. Public knowledge should be granted, but it should be accessed, not pushed onto the general public. The television spots and the billboards push these offender’s discrepancies onto the public, which could incite more violence and retribution. The media in Columbia should stay neutral and not allow the government to regulate or dictate what is aired via its outlets.
The media should be utilized to educate and inform, but the government’s blatant disregard to citizen’s well-being is being overshadowed in this instance. These pictures and information will reach the masses and when the masses are given power, that power is easily corruptible. I hope that the prisoners do not see retribution taken against them by gangs or fellow citizens.

1. http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4054924

2. http://www.iol.za.org/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=122&art_id=nw20070509221120165C420017

3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7015707.stm

4. http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/homepage.aspx?lang=ENGLISH

5. http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/2004/02/16/Opinion/Editorial.Sex.Offenders.Have.Civil.Liberties.Too-1098792.shtml

NPR radio

Free Speech or F*** Speech

2007-09-23T17:41:00.000-07:00

Controversy? Read on and contemplate.
Socrates fought for it during his trial in Athens. The Magna Carta was signed to promote it in England. Milton published ‘Areopagitica’ to argue restriction against it. The First Amendment guarantees it.
Free Speech. Simply put this could be the greatest power we as Americans, humans and citizens of the world have in our arsenal. What happens when this power is lost? What happens when our civil liberties are taken away?
This past week, a University of Florida student attended Senator John Kerry’s forum. Kerry spoke and afterwards took questions from the audience. During the questioning period, Andrew Meyer, the UF student, got up and asked a few questions. Some of the questions Meyer asked include; “What do you think about voter suppression in the 2004 Presidential race?” “Why didn’t you appeal the 2004 Presidential vote count?” “Were you a member of the Skull and Bones fraternity with President George W. Bush?” “Why hasn’t a move been made to impeach Bush?” The microphone Meyer was using cutoff and police officers came to escort him out of the forum. After raising his voice and having several police officers grabbing him, Meyer was tased. Please see video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag
Both of these videos give two different views of the incident. Obviously some students agreed with this gentleman’s questions and rational, and others disagreed; proven by their clapping at his being escorted out of the forum. The student was subsequently arrested, jailed overnight and charged with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace.
These are great, interesting, valid, depth-seeking questions. They are also controversial, or can be seen as controversial by many people. Kerry even acknowledged the questions and began answering the questions as the student was being tasered in the back of the auditorium. This, in my opinion, only recognizes these questions as valid and not a distraction.
No matter the background of this student, which has come into questions, a bigger issue of civil liberties becomes present.
In response to this occurrence, students on university campuses across the nation have been reacting. In a column in Colorado State University’s paper, The Collegian, students reacted with differing opinions, (http://www.collegian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=69ff4709-2ad4-4309-845f-5ebc419b240f).
Then, on Friday September 21, the editorial page of the same paper had a heading with the following, ‘Taser This… F*** Bush’. It spoke about the loss of civil liberties and the right to free speech. The editor did not publish this account maliciously, but instead in an action to incite opinions and conversations about free speech. Now, the editor is embroiled in controversy with the CSU presidential office. The paper has lost $30,000 in advertising money along with putting McSwane’s job on the line.
The editor has written a response to this uproar and the CSU president’s reaction (4). He did this by writing a controversial heading. This challenges our ethos. It challenges the daily standard. This challenges the traditional sense of newspaper reportage. It has been looked at with mixed emotions also.

“The editorial was bound to raise hackles, said Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists, who advises newspapers on ethical issues. The best of editorials are evocative and provocative, but shocking readers in itself is not necessarily good journalism, nor is the use of shock-therapy editorial language the wisest expression of free speech." (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6972545?source=rss).
Free speech is the only way how reporters, and us as citizens can agree, disagree, fight and challenge the government, authorities, and anyone’s opinions. Free speech is a healthy expression for us and essential to the media, especially media considering themselves public service media.
I digress, in free speech incidents closer to this area, one can look at what was happening to the University of California-Berkeley in the 1960s. Students became embroiled in controversy there over the subject of a park – People’s Park – and how the situation was being handled amongst the University administration and the student body. Residents of San Francisco fight for free speech everyday. This past spring, citizens performed a ‘die-in’ in the streets of downtown San Francisco. This demonstration was met with mixed reviews, with several citizens being arrested because of blocking traffic and disturbing the peace.
Now, did cops take away the civil liberties of this student at John Kerry’s forum? Did the editor of The Collegian act irrationally and with malcontent when publishing his editorial page in response to the tasering incident? The latter question is easier to answer. Obviously, the editor was not out to maliciously hurt George W. Bush, I have seen transients and panhandlers with more appropriate cardboard signs for this justification. I do believe that the strong language utilized by McSwane’s editorial page was a bit off the mark. One can incite conversation and inform the public without startling them to the point of irrationality. Some strategic asterisks or cartoons can be used instead of printing a word that has become taboo in our society. (http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2007/09/22/colorado-state-university-student-newspaper-under-fire-for-taser-thisfuck-bush-editorial/).
Now, an alternative of challenging free speech with telling Bush off, would be to produce a story directly involved and in response to the tasing of Meyer the UF student. Why not print a story with the headline, “Tase this…F*** the tasing cops!” Wouldn’t that have hit home a bit more than to attack Bush? Don’t get me wrong, I am not protecting Bush, I am sure I have been known to join the choir in doing some Bush-bashing, but the larger picture here is free speech and civil liberty suppression regarding a law enforcement act against a citizen at a public forum.
Backtracking to the civil liberty in question to UF student Meyer. If after watching the videos of Meyer, you feel that cops used excessive force and were wrong in escorting Meyer out, then my guess is you feel that his civil liberties were taken away. On the other hand, if you feel that he was being disruptive in public and being a nuisance to his fellow citizens, then the cops were acting accordingly.
Personally, I think Meyer went to far when wasn’t concise and direct with his questioning. His postulating was too much. Furthermore his mentioning of Clinton’s fellatio incident was not suited and not relevant to what he was intending to get answered.
Meyer could have made a better point if he asked his specific questions quickly, directly and then held up a sign that stated his beliefs. (just an idea)
In saying that, I also think that the cops using tasers on the student were misdirected. With 4 or more police officers around him, my question is why couldn’t they cuff him and lead him out without using excessive force.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20835952/

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/kerry_taser.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297126,00.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI

http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Taser.Incident.Ignites.Debate-2983312.shtml

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6972545?source=rss

http://www.collegian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=69ff4709-2ad4-4309-845f-5ebc419b240f

http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Letter.From.Collegian.Editor.In.Chief.Regarding.Bush.Statement-2984663.shtml

Slippery Ethics Issues - Open Ended Response

2007-09-21T13:22:00.000-07:00

Ken Burns recently produced a $13 million, 7 part, 15 hour, and epic documentary on WWII. The series will start airing on PBS, especially our local KQED station this Sunday night. Burns’ rushed to tell this story, as 1,000 WWII veterans are dying a day. (1) This urgency was one of the leading reasons Burns felt this story needed to be told. Burns’ always intimate, personal stories are successful because they tell a big story with a lot of heart, and endearment. Even with Burns’ mentioning he did not intend to make an all-inclusive story, he is being met with resistance to his film (3). Burns’ retroactively co-produced with Hector Gallan, a prominent Latino filmmaker, 30 minutes of extra footage concentrating on the Latino contributions and achievements during WWII. Latinos initially contacted Burns sponsors, PBS, and through legislation insisting on their addition to ‘The War’ (4). Latinos are planning protests outside of 4 PBS stations in California on Sunday and further protests will happen in Washington D.C. and Boston. These issues was discussed this morning on Forum with Michael Krasny, with substitute hose Dave Iverson. The questions posed in the show are the same thoughts I had during Burns’ speeches at his premiere, and at SFSU campus on September 14th. This will be discussed after some background (5).
As pervious WWII films have concentrated on strategy, commander’s opinions and heroes, Burns’ story focusing on the stories he does best, personal stories. (1). Young viewers, whose previous knowledge of WWII undoubtedly come from sources such as Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Flags of our Fathers, and other dramatic representations of ‘the greatest war,’ will be able to find truth, heart, vital information and a true educational experience in watching the war. Burns’ The War is an aural assault but could possibly be his greatest achievement (2). The movie’s graphic scenes are intense scenes to digest, but all a part of the necessary story. “‘The War’ invigorates history – in an honest fashion” (2). Burns has always been a historical buff with a creative streak enabling him to tell epic stories such as Jazz, Baseball, Unforgivable Blackness, The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson, Mark Twain, Civil War, The West and more (6). Burns is an artist, a documentarian, and a mainstay of Public Broadcasting for over 20 years. Not many people would say that Burns is a racist, biased, individual, but one cannot deny that themes of race and discrimination permeate his productions (6, Charlie McCollum). Viewers can take a look at the story of Jack Johnson, an African American boxer that was given little chance at professional boxing because of his race. Now, historically he is revered as one of the best boxers of all time. ‘Baseball’ touched upon the discrimination issues during the 1900s, ‘Jazz’ explored racial profiling, and now ‘The War’ not only discusses how diversity was huge in California after the war, but has now been amended to include the Latino contribution to WWII.
On NPR’s Forum with guest host Dave Iverson, guests Armando Rendon, the chair of the Northern California Defend the Honor Campaign, Hector Gallan, producer and filmmaker, Charlie McCollum San Jose Mercury journalist, and Linda O Bryan, Northern California PBS management, all discussed the Burns’ issue of initially excluding Latinos from ‘The War.” Burns declined his invitation to speak with the program, and I recognize his withdrawal from this issue as he has been dealing with it for over a year now.
Prior to discussing the Forum radio show, viewers need to know a few things.
1. Burns did not intend to make an all-inclusive documentary. 2. ‘The War’ was done for over a year when Burns was contacted by PBS national and his sponsors about including Latinos in his series. Burns amended his film by adding 30 minutes of footage at the end of episodes 1, 5, and 6. I was lucky enough to see the premier of episode 1 at the Letterman Digital Arts Center in the Presidio. 3. As a documentarian, Burns does not have to be objective like a journalist, his art is important, but as a documentarian, he has to recognize that there may be a bigger story. 4. The Hispanic Caucus used leverage in legislation to get recognition for this issue. As of present, I do not have information regarding what sort of conversations between any legislators and the national PBS offices have had in the past concerning this issue. 5. Protests being held in California and other PBS affiliates, a comic strip are being utilized to express Latino influence during WWII and take a stance of education on this issue (4). 6. PBS, especially KQED have now produced a series of Latino involvement in WWII that will air after ‘The War.’ They will also be continuing to produce radio, TV and Internet documentation to archive the contributions of Latinos in WWII. This is in direct response to Defend the Honor Campaign and other protests against what has happened.
The questions posed on Forum, and ones that I have been thinking about were these:
What are the dangers of interests groups changing an artist’s vision?
Should legislation get involved when it comes to Public Broadcasting and equal rights?
The guests on forum expressed the following thoughts:

Armando Rendon, chair of the Northern California Defend the Honor Campaign (5)
He is still concerned that Burns failed to recognize Latinos in WWII contributions. He wants to question not only the integrity of Burns’ filmmaking but all filmmakers. He wants to remind people that you can’t ignore the Latino history. Rendon recognized Burns’ wanted to celebrate American’s diversity with this film, but in order to do that, he wants to include the Latino population. Rendon has states that PBS has a tremendous responsibility to be diverse and they dropped the ball with Ken Burns. Rendon believes if any precedence is being set here, it is that people are independently editorializes their artwork.

Hector Galan, an independent documentary filmmaker and co-producer of ‘The War’ and its portrayal of Latinos expounded the following: (5)
As an artist, he stated that he would not want to be part of what Ken Burns is having to go through. He feels the series is great. It is filled with Latinos images, but we do not hear their voices. He even recognized his father on a ship. He recognizes that Ken Burns did not purposely exclude Latinos, but he feels that Latinos are off the radar for people on the East Coast including PBS. He equates this with why Latinos were added initially. Galan enjoyed working with Burns on the amended pieces and feels the quality of the footage was parallel to the previous footage. Still not 100% satisfied because it is still an add-on or appendage. The show ‘ends’ or fades to black and then the addition comes on screen. Afterward credits roll. Galan feels this situation sets precedence because it defends the honor of Latino filmmakers. He did not have a true opinion on how do you, as an artist; respond to the pressure from interest groups on your sponsors. He does feel that with Ken Burns’s success, that he should be more conscious of opening up his vision. Although he didn’t intend this to be a definitive piece, the story arcs cover many grounds and added another 30 minutes was needed. (5)

Reporter Charlie McCollum had the following to say: (5)
He feels that this incident sets a precedent for interest groups and their rights. He recognizes that the voices of Hispanics are simply not heard, but he worries about the pressure put upon filmmakers. McCollum states that documentarians are not journalists, they are artists that have visions and want to tell stories. (5)

Linda O Bryan, CPB management had the following to say: (5)
This situation has created a debate that needed to be discussed, but worries about the precedent it is setting due to the political issues that may arise. How is this going to deal with Public Broadcasting legislation? She does not know what sort of ‘creative freedoms’ will be compromised with such a precedent of change. KQED’s goal and PBS’ is to stay independent, diverse and produce quality programming. KQED will continue producing material that concentrates on Latino and Asian contributions to the war while archiving all this information on the Web and on Radio. (5)

I have personally seen the first episode and seen Burns speak about his series, his goals and respond to criticism, I commend him for his integrity to make the film, which is possibly the greatest film he has produced, and I commend him for co-producing the extra footage and adding it onto his current film. I understand that he took a lot of pressure from interests groups, national PBS, and the general public to amend his work. He did it in the best way he saw possible, by adding the footage on, without destroying the integrity of the piece he has already produced.
My own personal thoughts are that no legislation or interest groups rights should hinder, manipulate, change, or amend an artist’s vision on his/her project. I do recognize from past experiences working with public broadcasting, that certain criteria need to be followed and certain goals need to be met. From personal experience I have been part of producing series that fed to the masses, and targeting the general public without being perceived as discriminatory. I have had to change piece of a show due to graphic and or critical footage, but I understood the rational behind changing the piece. That situation differed from Burns’s situation. I believe PBS folded in its integrity on this issue. Essentially making Ken Burns add footage and story to his film to diversify the message amends their own independent mindset. I agree with the stations producing their own material in addition to showing Burns’ piece. KQED is producing ‘Soldados,’ ‘Nisei Soldiers’ and ‘The War: Bay Area Stories.’ (2) All these can be perceived as supplemental material to Burns’ piece, but also in response to the Latino protests regarding their exclusion from Burns’ piece. Burns set out to make a story of four towns and their relation to the War and the families in those towns. He did not set out to make a piece about difference races’ involvement with the War. That is a completely different story.
Interests groups have a right to their opinion; they are a strong, integral part of this society’s masses. Their responses of protests and demonstrations are understandable, but I believe there are more constructive ways to getting their message across. The cartoonist expressing his feelings behind his cartoon, Galan producing Latino pieces form Texas, and the possibility of making their own Latino WWII pieces are all great ideas and financially viable productive and constructive options.
If interests groups get too involved with manipulating artists’ visions, we will be left with no independent thought, and no chance of people being able to express themselves without hindering someone else. I recommend that people produce their own docs in response to anyone else’s.
I also believe that legislation should not get involved by amending free speech rights, or manipulating PBS, which get funding from the public, to put pressure on their independent producers. Legislation that requires independent producers to follow criteria for diversification is Orwellian and dictatorial. If this happens, I believe less and less independent production will occur and we will be left with no voice. If a society is left without opposing voices and differing opinions, we will be robots achieving a goal none of us has set for ourselves.
Media’s responsibility is to inform, educate and create conversations. This piece alone will do that, but should issues overshadow the quality of the piece? That is a bigger issue.
This is a sticky issue with no resolve, but one needs to recognize that Burns has created a masterpiece and this issues of ‘excluding’ Latinos was not on purpose, it was just not his initial vision.
Any recommendation or comments are sincerely requested.

(1) http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-09-20-the-war_N.htm
(2) http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/21/DD1SSA04H.DTL
(3) Burns personal communication, SFSU University Friday, September 14th, and Movie Premiere, Letterman Digital Arts Center, Friday, September 14th.
(4) http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5145953.html
(5) Forum with Michael Krasny
(6) http://www.florentinefilms.com/ffpages/FFIntro-frameset.html

Other interesting Web sites.
On the Net: Baldo: http://baldocomics.com/

Defend the Honor: http://www.defendthehonor.org

The War: http://www.pbs.org/thewar/

Washington DC is actually located in Hollywood, CA

2007-09-12T13:36:00.000-07:00

The politicians, their aides, lobbyists and others Inside the Beltway do not want the general public to know this. Or do they?
On the Media, a weekly radio show produced by WNYC, New York Public Radio, explored the fundamental impacts that Oprah’s ‘endorsement’ of Barack Obama might have on this next presidential election. 8 and half million people view Oprah Winfrey’s television program and 2 million people buy her magazine. (1, 5) Oprah has repeatedly given Barack kind words in public, but the most powerful may have been this past week’s party held at her California home for Barack. "I haven't been actively engaged before because there hasn't been anything to be actively engaged in. But I am engaged now to make Barack Obama the next president of the United States," The party drew celebrities, politicians, and the elite raising over 3 million for Barack’s campaign.
According to Steve Ross, a USC Professor interviewed for On the Media, Barack has become ever more powerful because of the backing of Oprah. He believes that Barack has found a person that can galvanize the voting public. He also mentioned, “If Oprah can get 1 percent of the net voting population that does not vote, and thinking about the last two elections and how close they were, those votes could swing the vote.’ (1)
This has not been the first celebrity filled gala that Barack has seen. This past February, a gala thrown by Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffery Katzenberg and attended by George Clooney raised over $1 million. Barack is being courted and he is doing the courting in this political back and forth game. (3)
This celebrity and politician relationship is nothing new, but one can be sure that with TV and the multitude of magazines present, we as a public is being inundated with it more.
In 1912 Mabel Normand, a silent movie star, backed a Socialist. Louis B. Mayer, a production company owner eventually becoming part of MGM, hosted politicians frequently, setting up photo ops and meet and greets with the politicians favorite actors. One night, John F. Kennedy visited Harry Belafonte, a famous singer. JFK received Belafonte’s endorsement after JFK agreed to meet with Dr. Martin Luther King. (1)
Ronald Reagan was an actor prior to his governorship and presidential responsibilities. Our present California governor was a body builder and actor in some weird previous life. Charlton Heston endorsed Nixon. I am up for further research but if this didn’t deal with the NRA and its rights, I have no clue why Heston would say, “Nixon is a great guy.” The jury is definitely still out on that one.
In today’s world, it seems that more and more celebrities are getting involved in politics. George Clooney, Sean Penn, the Dixie Chicks, Dave Matthews, Neil Young, and now Oprah.
Politicians have always sought out the beautiful, glamorous, and publicly popular Hollywood celebrities. In today’s media world, how we are perceived in the media is a strong influence on voters, young and old alike.
Hun Yul Lee mentioned a great example of the power of the media. Sean Penn is chastised in the media, but is highly involved and participates in the democracy of the US. Who wouldn’t want Sean Penn to be chain smoking and saving you off a rooftop in N’Awlins after the hurricane? What about socialism and visiting Chavez in Venezuela? Isn’t that about relationships, communication and participation? Well, participation and knowledge are two key points of democracy and Sean Penn has them down. It is unfortunate that Penn is perceived as the bad guy. Speculation of his falling out with the media may be his reclusive nature towards the paparazzi, his attitude towards them, or even his low amount of cigarettes for the day.
In a study about voting habits for young or emerging adults, musicians and celebrities were given top billing on how influential they are concerning politics. Doesn’t everyone want to vote for whom Bono endorses? Wait – he’s Irish. What about voting for whom Diddy (Sean P. Diddy Combs) endorses. Speaking of Diddy, not only is he a musician, a producer, a media and business mogul, but also a politically active citizen who writes books. Whether he wrote this next passage for the book Crossroads: The Future of American Politics while wearing his ‘Vote or Die T-shirt’ is still up in the air, I am expecting an email soon. ‘The problems is that there’s no one to vote for. Republicans and Democrats speak a good game – when asked about what they’re doing to appeal to young people they’ll spit chapter and verse about their record on education and social services – but in reality, politicians have given up on the kids. And so, in return, kids have given up on them… (2)
This is a powerful statement from a celebrity that has been seen hob-knobbing with politicians before.
Do celebrities make politicians sexy? Appealing? Well, if the old saying, “ You are who your friends are” is true, then celebrities and politicians are of one mold.
No one can deny the allure of relationships with people of the power elite – whether they are politicians or celebrities. Elites tend to commiserate with those being socially alike. The tendency towards financially alike gets included in the social realm in a capitalist society.
A few other things, I do not think we can fault politicians for looking pretty with the celebrities. They are trying to associate themselves with people that are popular for their abilities, looks and association with the perception of the general public. However shallow it may be, they are getting involved themselves.
I also do not think we can fault the celebrities for getting involved in politics. In a democracy one has a duty to participate, to be socially and politically active. If the celebrities are doing this through glamorous parties and massive amounts of donations, then so be it. They are participating. It is up to the general public to look through the smoke and mirrors of Hollywood and DC politics to see the facts and the platforms represented.

(1)
http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2007/09/07

(2)
Eisner, Jane; Taking Back the Vote, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, pg 47.

(3)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/movies/awardsseason/06holly.html?ex=1328418000&en=bf9affa61c90fe04&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

(4)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003871130_oprah06.html

(5)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/549017,CST-NWS-sweet09.article

(6)
http://cbs2chicago.com/nationalpolitics/politicsnational_story_244114256.html

Get Rich or Die Tryin'

2007-05-20T23:33:00.000-07:00

Gangsta rap is the most commercially lucrative subgenre of hip-hop.

If you listen to it, you’ll know it is populated with expletives, drug dealers turned emcees, the size of fly bling, rims, and booty in the strip club. The music seems to perpetuate a lifestyle denigrating women, homosexuals, whilst all the while advocating violence and self-destruction in pursuit of the almighty dollar bill.

Although, Snoop Dogg (and others) made a living from it since the 1980’s, it’s popularity really became commercially evident in the 1990’s, with the release of Dr. Dre's album, 'The Chronic' in 1992.

Criticism has come from both right wing and left wing commentators, religious leaders and black activists alike. In August 2006, civil rights activist -- the Rev. Al Sharpton warned of the dangers of doing nothing about the glorification of the gangster lifestyle.

Many people strongly believe, that Gangsta rap fosters criminal behavior amongst our ‘impressionable’ youth. Many have tried to quantify this tangible effect and though there have been varying results -- the majority lean with the argument that music (more so than television) has an effect on social behavior. (David Gordon, 2006)

There are many ethical issues at stake here. For instance, many Gangsta rappers often defend themselves by claiming they are only describing their reality of inner-city life, which leads me to question how they can justify making such vast amounts of personal profit from this exploitation. To what measure is it ethical and acceptable to profit from the plight of poor black conditions? The quandary deepens should it be proven that this behavior also inspires new and more illicit activity as well.

The rivalries between East and West Coast rap artists have led to countless deaths already. Two high profile rappers 2Pac Shakur and Biggie Smalls have already succumbed to their end in high profile drive by shootings. Record companies capitalized on the glorification of gang violence in rap music. These are people who can’t even defend themselves with the argument they are ‘describing the reality of their lives’.

The other day, we watched a snippet from “Born into Brothels’. We agreed it’s film-makers probably profited in some way or another, but at the end of the day there was not one person who accused it of encouraging inner-city depravation as we suspect Gangsta rap does.

Put that next to 'Get Rich or Die Tryin'; another film depicting inner city life loosely based on rapper 50 Cent’s gangland reality and violent experiences and you hear outrage.

To begin with, its movie poster shows 50 Cent (real name Curtis Jackson) with his arms outstretched, a microphone in one hand and a gun in the other. The poster was later ammended to calm criticism:

Later on, the DVD box looked like this:

Nevertheless, Jim Sheridan, who directed the film is an aclaimed director of ‘My Left Foot’ fame. Surely, he felt the project was worthwile.
In the movie, Jackson plays Marcus, a low level drug dealer turned rapper on the mean streets of New York. Tough is a big understatement when your father isn't around and your mom's busy pushing drugs. His rap dreams aren't solely based on fleeing his past.

It is a new perspective on Gangsta rap. In the movie, Marcus is given the opportunity and could use violence against those who want to mortally harm him, but instead opts for a more dangerous road; one that inolves using lyrics as verbal bullets to humiliate his foes. He famously walks on stage with a bullet proof vest. He's saying that if you live in the same conditions as he did, then you have braver more nobel means than violence at your disposal. It is the gangland's alternative to 'Kids with Camera's' solution.
In one scene, 50 Cent is shot nine times. He was shot nine times in real life too. Some say his album by the same name, ‘Get Rich or Die Tryin’, reveals the emotion that makes 50 Cent a powerful musical artist. The album was a huge commercial success, making him one our richest rappers!

However, When you choose to entertain with violent and sexist images, you run the risk of numbing kids (and adults too) to its effects. People consume this material very differently. An individual’s psyche may respond negatively to this type of stimulation. We can’t prevent kids from seeing this stuff and ‘misunderstanding’ its meaning and growing up to think it’s just ok to behave the same way. In the movie, Marcus himself comments that “Parents think you see nothing, but the truth is you see everything."
___________________________________________________

www.wl.k12.in.us/hs/clubs/scarlette/ jan27-06%5Cpage3Scarlette012706.pdf

Gordon, D. W. (2006, Nov) The Effect of Gangsta-Rap Radio on Urban Homicide Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology (ASC), Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles, CA . 2006-10-05 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p127575_index.html

Film: Get Rich or Die Tryin’ (2005)

Proof, BBQs, & Contacts, oh my!

2007-05-20T21:10:00.000-07:00

As further proof that little eight-pound six-ounce baby jesus loves my final paper, the 400th episode of The Simpsons was based around the ramifications of an FCC over-reaction to an indecency complaint. Unlike the last eight years or so of The Simpsons, the 400th episode was actually kind of funny.

If any of you are so inclined to make it down to Menlo Park this next Saturday, Maggie and I are having a BBQ. Here's the info

Location:	445 Encinal Ave, Apt. N, Menlo Park, CA View Map
When:	Saturday, May 26, 6:30pm
Phone:	650-324-2953

Mat's Graduating! Join us for a celebratory BBQ before Mat heads to LA! 6:30-whenever! We'll have the hamburgers, hot dogs and some side dishes. It would be rad if you can bring beer (or other beverage of your choice), a side dish, or dessert. If you're intrested in dropping by just let me know so we can make sure we have enough grub for everyone. Lastly, if you guys are in L.A. in the future drop me a line. My permanent phone number is 917-940-2348 and matthewpatrick@gmail.com is the best way to get a hold of me. It's been swell, y'all. Matthew

Reason meets Desire

2007-05-20T17:05:00.000-07:00

A lot of people question the ethics of selling consumers things they don't need. But what of our ethics in selling products known to be harmful too?

In 1996, the alcohol beverage industries self-imposed ban on broadcast advertisements by the major hard liquor distillers came to an end. Some federally licensed broadcast outlets chose to accept and air the ensuing advertisements for distilled liquor products but others refused preferring to only accept fermented alcohol products such as beer and wine.

The fact we even make a distinction between fermented beverage and distilled beverage is irrational. Beer is the drink of choice in most cases of heavy drinking, binge drinking, drunk driving and underage drinking. (Rogers and Greenfield, 1999). Nearly two out of every five Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic crash in their lifetime. (Loyola University Chicago Health System: http://www.luhs.org/depts/injprev/Transprt/tran1-06.htm). So, if The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) don’t make this distinction, why are advertisers thinking it fit to do so?

Given the knowledge of alcohol consumption and its negative relationship upon overall health, shouldn’t alcohol (along with tobacco) advertising be barred from our airwaves? The fact remains that the scope and wide spectrum of alcohol use and abuse are so far ranging and complicated to categorize that the majority of reported alcohol-related DUI’s aren’t even perpetrated by alcohol abusers. (http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1789,00.html) The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) would not see the difference.

Yet to achieve their sales agenda, alcohol marketers push positive messages about drinking and downplay and/or ignore negative consequences.

It is no doubt, a highly complicated ethical matter. A ban on the promotion of alcohol would be portrayed as forerunner to wider civil restrictions. Any state intervention in the communications between individuals and organizations will harm and raise questions over our civil liberties.

A spokesperson for the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States claimed that friends and family have more effect on a young person's decision to drink than advertisement.

Yet, what hope does a non-drinker have when all those around him are being seduced to buy and consume alcohol? It is clear the promotion of drinking to individuals will have an effect on others, so we cannot ignore the fact that the promotion through direct marketing will affect non-drinkers too.

As it stands, alcohol advertising should not be designed to appeal to people under the age of 21, for example, using cartoon characters as spokespeople is discouraged. Advertising cannot promote brands based on alcohol content or its effects. Advertising must not encourage irresponsible drinking.
The industry will use a reductio ad absurdum argument:

Father- Why were you drinking?
Son – Because all my friends were doing it.
Father- You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too?

The alcohol industry has traditionally argued that drinking is a private pastime, in which people knowingly assume risks in return for pleasure. They say, that the purpose of advertising is to "encourage existing consumers to switch brands" and to "drink in moderation," From their point of view, even, this would not make good business sense. The alcohol industry needs replacement drinkers. It is obvious marketing seeks to retain drinkers and consolidate the market by promoting the pleasure to new drinkers coming of age.

Young people view nearly 2,000 are for beer and wine. For each anti-alcohol public service announcement teenagers are seeing twenty-five more advertisements enticing them to drink.
Whether or not the advertisements have any direct impact, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism there are:
• 1,400 deaths per year
• 500,000 injuries
• 600,000 assaults
• 70,000 sexual assaults
• Over 2 million drove a car in 2001 while under the influence

Conservatives such as Margret Thatcher have famously argued "there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families". But individuals and families constitute society. Every drinker has an impact on those around him.

Fortunately, alcohol advertising is one of the most highly regulated forms of marketing. So for instance, there are hundreds of beer commercials on air, but not one of them shows somebody actually drinking the beer.

In the United States, this sort of ‘restraint’ comes in the form self-regulatory bodies that make these "ethical" choices themselves, presumably to avoid federal government intrusion and regulation into their affairs that may lead to permanent legislation governing their advertising.

As if to add insult to injury; All but one complaint from the fourteen lodged by a panel of experts, were dismissed by advertising regulators nevertheless. Seven of those complaints never made it because this self-regulating body doesn’t count one-off promotions. (www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1656790.htm). Which leads us to question whether ethical responsibility are being met.

Get to Them By Making Them Come to You

2007-05-18T22:39:00.000-07:00

Sneaky sounding title right? Well being sneaky is what this article is all about. I am referring to the trends that marketing agencies are starting in an attempt to get to consumers in today’s atmosphere of the internet, DVR, satellite radio and the many other facilities consumers have that allow them to avoid tried and true advertising techniques. The New York Times and The Washington Post have both run similar articles in the past few months regarding ad campaigns run by several large corporations that have focused on consumer created ads. Possibly the most famous of these was the Doritos’s ad campaign put together by Frito Lay during the run up to the Super Bowl. They held a contest for regular people to create 30 second commercials and posted the best 5 on their web site. They then directed people to their website through a number of means (I interestingly enough first found out about this campaign through an article in The New York Times Business section, nice job getting some free advertising Frito Lay) and let them view all five ads and vote for their favorite. The winner was to be aired during the Super Bowl, but I think I remember seeing more than one of the ads during the game.
This was an effective campaign for several reasons. First of all, I am still thinking about it and letting you folks know about it several months after the campaign began and they spent the $2.6 million per 30 second ad during the Super Bowl. (This seems like a good time to offer a link to their web site: http://www.doritos.com/). I also should let you know that I just went to their site to get that html address and was made aware of their new campaign to name a new flavor. Something that I am thinking I should go back and check out when I am done with this blog. Another reason this is a successful campaign is because they practically cut out their production costs. If regular people are making commercials for them and submitting them for air time for free Doritos only continues to save money. Finally, there is an argument to be made for the idea that the people who are creating these ads may better understand the Doritos demographic as they are probably a part of it themselves.
Another interesting attempt at dealing with commercial free competition comes to us from a Clear Channel radio station in Dallas, TX. They are starting a commercial free station that will have companies sponsor hours of broadcasting during which the DJ will incorporate their product into his regular on air talk. This will make up only two minutes of air time an hour, as opposed to the usual 12-16 minutes of air time that are normally devoted to commercials on regular commercial radio.
As an independent artist, this talk of marketing makes me once again ponder the notion of self marketing. While I agree that the internet and many other new technologies make it possible for independent artists to get themselves out into “the market”, whatever their market might be. However, it always seems to me that someone, or some large company is benefiting from your work and I have a hard time coming to terms with that. A perfect example of that is the My Space phenomena. I am often asked for “my my space” when I am out DJing and have gotten some really strong reactions from people when I tell them that I don’t have a My Space account. Just last week a woman huffed and walked away muttering something about “free marketing”. I can’t help but think that it is not totally free because from my understanding of My Space (limited no doubt) any time art work is posted on a my space page, the artist gives up some rights to My Space. Additionally, any time you are sending someone to a myspace, you are only directing eyeballs to their advertisers and at times I have trouble with that. Even though I know I do that every time I recommend a television show or any other medium that makes its money from advertising it seems different. Why? I’m not really sure. I think it has something to do with an overplayed sense of ownership and freedom that comes with things like my space. While I enjoy the opportunity that things like satellite radio offer the modern consumer in terms of personal choices and the ability to avoid commercialism I get nervous when I feel like people think they are getting more for free than they really are.

Hope I didn’t come off too angsty, still got a little 16 in me I guess.

Putting the I in Advertising - washingtonpost.com… http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050700035_pf.html

In Dallas, Commercial Radio Without Commercials - New York Times… http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/business/media/23radio.html?ex=1334980800&en=670c621f965488ef&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

Multiplying the Payoffs From a Super Bowl Spot - New York Times…
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70B15FF3C5B0C758EDDA80894DF404482&n=Top%2fNews%2fBusiness%2fSmall%20Business%2fMarketing%20and%20Advertising

General Discontent

2007-05-18T20:13:00.000-07:00

For years now I have been watching as a seemingly endless parade of retired military officers appear on the cable news channels to explain why our military is so great, how we are doing such an excellent job in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how when our weapons work, you know the lines, surgical bombing, collateral damage, extraordinary rendition, all the usual military euphemisms. So it was refreshing to see General John Batiste appear in a TV commercial recently sponsored by a group called VoteVets.org, in which he scolds President Bush for his poor management of the War in Iraq. “Mr. President, you did not listen,” remarks the General.
“There was never enough. There was never a reserve,” he said. “Again and again, we had to move troops by as many as 200 miles out of our area of operations to support another sector. We would pull troops out of contact with the enemy and move them into contact with the enemy somewhere else. The minute we’d leave, the insurgents would pick up on that, and kill everybody who had been friendly.”

Wow!

Ouch!!

Now I am no fan of this war and occupation, but I do understand the need for a military, and I believe if you are going to do anything, do it right. It was bad enough to watch this nation led into war on bogus terms, and to discover that there were no weapons of mass destruction, but to have Generals who served in Iraq resigning from the military in protest for the way the “Commander in Chief” has been conducting the war, which is what General batiste has done, makes me wonder what is it going to take for some people to admit that President George W. Bush is an utter and complete failure.

Close your eyes, clinch your fists, and repeat, “stay the course, stay the course,
stay the course…”

Not to worry, there is a new plan, the “surge” will solve our problems.

This story gets better, because after the commercial with General Batiste aired, he was asked by CBS news, who employed him as a consultant, to step down from his position at CBS news. Linda Mason, a vice president at CBS news made a statement in which she said that when military officials are hired by CBS, they are expected to share their expertise with the CBS viewers, and that by appearing in an anti-Bush ad, viewers would get the feeling that everything he says would be anti-Bush. The General agreed to step down.

I don’t watch CBS news, but I do wonder if CBS news would ask a General that appeared in a commercial praising the ability of “Commander in Chief” George W. Bush to step down.

Oh well, this may be difficult for me to understand, but it is probably more difficult for the Republican Party, because General Batiste and VoteVets.org are campaigning in the districts of Republican Congressmen in hopes of getting them defeated.

Times must be tough for Republicans when even the military is opposed to their policies.

CBS Asks Batiste to step down
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/11/publiceye/entry2791091.shtml

General Batiste speaks out
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/us/13generals.html?th&emc=th

Batiste fired
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/cbs.php

Public trauma and the media

2007-05-17T16:45:00.000-07:00

Columbine, 1999; September 11, 2001; Madrid, 2004; London (“7/7”), 2005; Virginia Tech, 2007. These five events, amongst many others, were tragedies, not only for survivors directly involved but for whole societies fearful for the implications such events might have on their own lives. In such instances, the media not only informs the public about what happens on the day but is also central in shaping the trajectory of the dealing of the event afterwards.

This is a moment in time in which the shocking events of April 16 – the shooting of 32 people, and the wounding of many more, at the Virginia Tech campus by student Seung-Hui Cho, who then committed suicide – are still being processed by the public. This, the deadliest shooting of its kind in modern US history, was followed by an outpouring of grief and sympathy nationwide. If public trauma can be defined as “a collective stress that occurs when members of a social system fail to receive the expected conditions of life from their social system due to external or internal sources” (Barton, 1970), then Virginia Tech was certainly that.

In “What Makes a Tragedy Public?”, Doka analyses further the factors that influence how important particular events come to be to the public. Scope, the number of victims, relief workers, and loved ones involved, is important. Equally influential is how closely the public identifies with the event and victims. Mass cult suicides are shocking partly because those involved are often ordinary people psychologically ensnared in sinister organizations; anybody could have been in their place. The social value of the victims also influences public attention. Students are likely to rank above elderly because of the social value attached to youth. Wider consequences are key. September 11 was so traumatic, not only because of the numbers of victims but also because of the potential implications for the security of people's own lives. The duration of the event is a complex factor; an ongoing affair can enable resource mobilization and allow the public to feel a sense of control or it can lead to a sense of powerlessness and eventually apathy. Whether or not the event was intended, or was an accident, can invoke public wrath and prejudice against a group to which the causer(s) belonged, if intention was involved, or produce sympathy towards victims in the tragedy was unforeseen. Linked to intention is preventability. High expectedness, for instance, can cause public anger. Lastly, the nature of the victims' suffering may influence public grief. Comfort may be taken knowing that victims died instantly and painlessly, horror may arise out of a long and painful episode ending in death.

Through this prism, the reaction to the Virginia Tech shooting can be more clearly understood. For a crime of this nature, the number of victims was wide in scope; most who were shot were students whose youth carries a high social value; the public was shocked by the wider implications of the event and the idea that their children in education, or even themselves, might be at risk; the shooting was intended (between shootings, Seung-Hui Cho even mailed footage and photos of the killings to NBC) in a way chilling to mass audiences; and the unimaginable suffering on the day was also horrific to contemplate.

These factors were ones produced on the day of the massacre and were influences that any media outlet reporting the basic facts had little influence over. More control by the media over public perception, however, is possible in the period immediately afterwards. The media is key in relaying the significance of an event. The extent of coverage, the type of footage used, the witnesses and spokespeople and who they represent, and the issues raised are all important in how the public perceives and processes tragedy.

In the aftermath of Virginia Tech, the nature of the media's coverage this time has sparked debate about what is ethically acceptable to report in the aftermath of such an event. Proportional to the perceived importance of the event, the media has covered many elements that might otherwise have been left unreported. The family of Seung-Hui Cho was interviewed, his sister saying “Our family is so very sorry for my brother's unspeakable actions. It is a terrible tragedy for all of us”. The mourning in Virginia was extensively covered. On April 20, the state of Virginia's observation of a day of mourning was reported. A moment of silence at noon was observed by students, staff, and visitors on campus, dressed in orange and maroon. Police investigations were detailed, specifically in relation to the disturbing behavior of the killer before the shootings and the attempts of the university faculty to encourage him to attend therapy. The names and stories of the victims were also detailed, providing an emotional connection to the human scale of the tragedy.

This detailed coverage was uncontroversial. Knowing the victims offered catharsis, the events of mourning enabled the public to share in the grief, police investigations enabled some closure and a sense of safety, and the killer's family's statements diffused potential animosity. All such stories were beneficial and a positive part of the media's role. More controversial, however, was the airing on April 18 of the “multimedia manifesto” sent to NBC by Seung-Hui Cho. Steve Capus, NBC news president, justified the release on the basis that the killer's motivation and mental condition were important facts for the public to know. But victims' families, police, and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) disagreed, the latter saying that such a release “seriously jeopardizes the public’s safety by potentially inciting 'copycat' suicides, homicides, and other incidents”.

The media regularly faces questions about whether to carry sensitive material, even if few instances are as dramatic as the Seung-Hui Cho multimedia manifesto example. Certainly, whether or not it is ethical to show the corpses of war victims has been an ongoing site of contention over the course of the Iraq war, with Al Jazeera television attracting significant criticism for showing such images. In few instances is it clear to discern motives on the part of outlets that carry difficult material. Such coverage can alarm and challenge viewers, awakening them to the reality and horror of a story and encouraging them to take it seriously and to ask important questions. Most commentators would agree that it is the role of the media to challenge and provoke. Agencies that seek to mute the shock of an event often do so for personal interests that conflict with the public's right to know.

But such worthy motives can be difficult to separate from the desire to make financial profit from attracting alarm, even if the public gains little from being shocked. Despite the many courtroom dramas following from Anna Nicole Smith's death, it is unclear how the grief of involved parties benefited viewers. And, as the APA noted above, sensitive material can be a safety risk to the public. Copycat killers, inspired by the dramatic movie-like material in the multimedia manifesto, are threats in the Virginia Tech case. In Iraq, authorities often express concern that insurgents will be inspired by successful terrorist acts depicted on the news and seek to repeat them.

Whilst such dangers are theoretically possible in every news story involving harm committed by one or more persons to another, one needs, to an extent, to accept that this is part of the territory of covering such stories. It is to be decided on the facts of every case whether the risk of copycat reprisals outweighs the need for the public to understand the true seriousness of an event. Also necessary for consideration is the potential slippery slope to widespread censorship that might result from stopping shocking images reaching the headlines. In Iraq, for example, to censor the depiction of any war corpses would set a dangerous precedent. If such censorship were acceptable in one case, would it not be acceptable in all?

References

Barton, P. (1970). Communities in disaster: A sociological analysis of collective stress situations. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Doka, J. (2003). What Makes a Tragedy Public? Retrieved May 17, 2007, from
http://www.hospicefoundation.org/teleconference/2003/doka4.asp.

'Campus killer's family 'so sorry''. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6578319.stm

'Virginia mourns massacre victims'. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6577095.stm

'Virginia shootings: The victims'. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6564075.stm

APA Urges Media to Stop Airing Graphic Cho Materials. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/07-25OpenLetteronChoMaterials.pdf

FLOWERS, BUNNIES, AND SUNSHINE!

2007-05-16T05:33:00.000-07:00

Since September of 2001, there have been disturbing events occurring around the world. The most disturbing events in my opinion are the events that are happening to the rights of individuals in this country.

I am personally not paying enough attention to understand all the legal labyrinths that are being navigated In regards to the prisoners that have been being held at the Guantanamo Bay military detention center in Cuba, with terms like “enemy combatants,” and “extraordinary rendition,” but I do understand what it means when the US government announces that evidence will be allowed at tribunals that was obtained by torture.

The President of the United States has repeated a number of times that “we do not torture,” and in his new book, former CIA director George Tenet insists that “ we don’t torture,” while at the same time he has confirmed that in the period following September 11th, 2001, that he oversaw the use of morally questionable techniques of interrogation on terrorism suspects.

And as “Our Great Leader” George W. Bush is spreading freedom around the world, he seems to be spreading something else, and I don’t mean bushwa, (that is not a typo, look it up). As the US military was freeing the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, they were also rescuing them from the threat of torture at the hands of his regime, Shortly, and I mean very shortly, after we freed the Iraqi people and save them from torture at the hands of Saddam’s regime, the American people were shown the picture of American troops “abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib, and the world is told that this was just the work of a few out of hand soldiers.

In a recent survey of US troops that served in the war zone of Iraq, 40% believed that torture is okay if it will same the life of a comrade. Shortly after these numbers were made public, General Petraeus wrote an open letter to his soldiers warning against the use of torture. I’m sure this made some people sleep easier at night, but probably not Iraqis.

At the time that the photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib became public, I was attending college an innocently taking a course in Latin American history, while at the same time I was enrolled in a film history class. The Latin American history class was taught by a nice Argentinean man who regularly told jokes in Spanish, as a way of sort of bonding with the predominantly Spanish-speaking students. Toward the end of the semester we were studying Latin American history when the US was a major player in the politics of that region. Part of that history involves US backed military coups in Guatemala, Chile, and El Salvador, and one thing all these US backed military governments all had in common was the use of torture against their own populations. In the class we were reading about torture in Guatemala, disappeared citizens in Chile, and “death squads” in El Salvador. At the same time, our professor in the film history class had us watch “The Battle of Algiers,” which is a recreation of the fight in Algiers between the French Army, and Algerians who wanted to end the French occupation. This film has some really disturbing reenactments of the way that the French tortured the Algerians, to destroy their “terrorist network.” By the way, the French were eventually forced to leave.

So where am I going with all this?

I suppose I can say in summation that since September of 2001 I have watched as torture, which was before relegated to those regimes that the US has supported, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Iraq, has made its way into mainstream American culture. My reaction to this is the same as my reaction was a couple of years ago when I was reading seemingly endless accounts of torture in Latin America, and the final for my film class was to watch and the write about a torture scene from “The Battle of Algiers,” I am in shock.

I want to end on a happy note, so…

FLOWERS, BUNNIES, AND SUNSHINE!

Evidence obtained using torture is admissible

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/mariner/20070515.html

General Petraeus warns against torture

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_health_study_070504w/

Soldiers OK torture

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_health_study_070504w/

Tenet says, “We do not use torture”

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00277&stoplayout=true&print=true

Visionaries and crackpots

2007-05-15T16:59:00.000-07:00

"Visionaries and crackpots, maniacs and saints, monks and libertines”. An open democracy, and a democratic media, is a spectrum whose poles look like this. As the BBC discovered this past week, that spectrum includes Scientology.

Scientology, a so-called religion established in 1952 by science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard (pictured), is famous for its use of Hollywood celebrities to promote an organization marked by heavy-handed tactics in suppressing criticism. Ex-members, journalists, and citizens who dare to publicly criticize Scientology are followed, threatened, humiliated, and sued by the Church which critics say has much to hide.

On the surface, Scientology professes to be “the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life”, an approach based on observation, not faith. However, beneath its Buddhist-like ring of liberation, Scientology is a financial organization that charges its members vast sums to attain ever higher stages of teachings and often force followers to cut themselves off from family and friends in a practice known as 'disconnection'. Although it publicly denies so, those who have accessed the top echelons of the Church's teachings claim the belief is based on a science-fiction-esque story of alien souls (Thetans), killed by an evil galactic warlord named Xenu over 75 million years ago, that attach themselves to humans and cause all the psychological suffering that humankind experiences today. Today, marked by criticism regarding its financial dealings, tactics, and belief system, Scientology struggles to gain recognition in places such as the UK where the British Charity Commission refuses to acknowledge Scientology as a religion.

On Monday, the BBC's current affairs program, Panorama, aired “Scientology And Me”, a documentary about one BBC journalist, John Sweeney, and his investigation into whether Scientology still uses its infamous repression tactics and how it responds to being labeled a cult. Available on the BBC News website and on Youtube, the documentary is a thriller, albeit real, of the kind more often seen in movie theaters. Over the course of his week-long visit to the US to work on the story, Sweeney discovered firsthand the methods used by the Church against critics, methods that were every bit as sinister as those the organization denied it was still using. Beginning with Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis, who insisted that the BBC reporter neither use the word 'cult' nor speak to any critics of the organization, Sweeney interviewed guests including ex-members, parents whose children had been severed from their families, celebrity followers, and one journalist, Shaun Lonsdale, whose investigation into Scientology was featured on his cable access show “Cultwatch”.

During his research, Sweeney was relentlessly dogged by individuals shadowing his every step. Most often, Davis himself was involved. In the middle of interviewing Lonsdale, Davis arrived and listed felonies Londale had been found guilty of since the late 1980s; returning to his hotel late at night, Sweeney found Davis waiting for him; and, exhausted from the relentless intimidation, Sweeney and his crew hid in the bathroom as Davis repeatedly knocked on the door asking what was going on. Other times, an unknown tracker in a minivan followed Sweeney as he drove across Los Angeles, someone sat across the room during breakfasts, and the same person was seen in the garage where the camera crew was parked. In all, an estimated thirteen strangers tracked the crew during their US visit. Close to losing his mind, a final confrontation with Davis drove Sweeney into a fit of rage (pictured), shouting repeatedly at the spokesman, who, true to his training, remained deadpan calm.

Panorama editor Sandy Swift has said about the tirade “I'm very disappointed with John [Sweeney]”. However, neither Swift's disappointment nor Sweeney's apology has prevented the reporter's 'losing it' becoming headline news. The BBC has been criticized for Sweeney's behavior and the Church of Scientology itself has waged an anti-Panorama campaign, placing a documentary on Youtube hitting back at Sweeney and the BBC and distributing a DVD of the documentary to all British Members of Parliament. There is speculation that 10,000 copies of the DVD are in production.

Though the Church has faced high-profile criticism before, the BBC is the largest institution yet to air condescension. In its response to Panorama, Scientology has also used the media, with vigor, raising questions about the use of media as a forum for 'maniacs to saints'. Though one may opine on the true motives of Scientology and condemn its tactics, there can be little doubt about the organization's right to broadcast the Sweeney outburst on Youtube, DVD, and elsewhere, along with its opinions about Panorama's journalistic methods. That such opinions might be spurious and propagandist cannot be due cause for preventing their airing because of the subjective nature of 'spurious and propagandist'. The nature of an open forum that exists in today's Internet age is that ill intentions can vie equally with more righteous ones. This is a messy space, one that can lead to significant miseducation, but to compromise this would be a slide into totalitarianism.

Outlets such as the BBC do, of course, exercise some control over the airing of viewpoints, under its own charter. In this instance, the corporation can be praised for its handling of the Scientology vs Panorama affair. For a start, no attempt was made to gloss over the Sweeney tirade. Sweeney's outburst was aired on the program and the BBC was open in its criticism of his behavior. Swift appeared on the BBC news to address the event and refused to defame Scientology itself. Instead, he addressed the organization's approach to public discourse, questioning the validity of such harsh suppression of criticism.

In this sentiment, Swift is correct. The BBC knows that from a discourse, as well as a public relations, viewpoint, frank discussion is the best approach. Audiences trust flawed but honest institutions. By taking the opposite approach and attempting to stifle open discussion by intimidating reporters and denying the BBC the right to use footage from interviews the Church has originally sanctioned, Scientology became its own worst enemy. The BBC's original intention for the Panorama documentary was to investigate both the Church's reaction to its labeling as a cult and whether or not it had abandoned its intimidating past behavior. The goal had never been, it must be noted, to criticize the Church or its beliefs. By turning the story into something else - a journalist's fight to freely report viewpoints - the Church failed in its main goal: to secure itself a public relations victory.

It is the nature of the territory that all media outlets struggle with the unanswerable question of how much space to give visionaries and crackpots. This is a delicate issue. It is difficult to say if, by investigating, broadcasting, and subsequently responding to such an organization, the BBC gave Scientology a louder voice than it deserved and represented and earned the Church much sought-after publicity. On the other hand, with the recent opening of a lavish new London headquarters, the BBC exposed the debate about the Church to the public.

Of course, one can easily speculate that an organization not interested in arguing its case in an open forum really does have something to hide. Though not the ambit of this blog, much evidence exists to support this notion. But in this case, the Church lost the PR war. The viewer comes away from Scientology And Me with one overwhelming feeling that Scientology is indeed a sinister cult.

References

Keane, J. (1991), "The Media and Democracy", Polity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/6655207.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J8-Zfzd55E&mode=related&search=
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/05/investigating_scientology_1.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3172648&page=1
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/05/did_scientology_turn_the_table.html

What the Media is Doing Tomorrow

2007-05-14T23:32:00.000-07:00

Over the course of the last few weeks and through to the middle of May, the television networks have been carrying out their upfront presentations with major advertisers in New York. But as AP television reporter David Bauder notes, the timing of these meetings could not be worse for the networks. He cites a recent study which shows that "more than 2.5 million fewer people were watching ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox than at the same time last year." Further, Bauder notes, "NBC set a record last month for its least-watched week during the past 20 years, and maybe ever then broke it a week later."

With figures like that, it becomes fairly difficult to deny the fact that we are in the midst of a cultural transformation. An optimist might even suggest that we may be beginning to experience a revolution of consciousness. A pessimist would indicate that we're probably just collectively coming to terms with the reality that there is nothing worth watching on television. I find it hard to argue with either point. As is usually the case with significant phenomena, there is certainly more than one factor at work in the function of this change.

If we can assert that traditional structures of television viewing have ceased to offer a fructifying identificatory resource to the culture, what is most interesting to think about is: what happens next? The 2.5 million viewers who have tuned out over the past year join a vast populous of culturati carving out new senses of self in the modern media matrix, simultaneously patching together the most logical forms of meaning making and waiting for someone or something to make sense of it all. If necessity is the mother of invention, in this mild crisis/celebration of cultural chaos, what technologies will we turn to next to make sense of our lives in the contemporary world?

One suggestion is the forthcoming media marketplace formally known as Joost. Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, founders of Skype and Kazaa, have collaborated to offer one of the more exciting commercial ventures to arrive in recent memory. Applying the same fundamental technologies at work in P2P file sharing, P2PTV will allow content providers to distribute their "television" programming on-demand to broadband users. This is probably the first significant unveiling of Internet television and it will be exciting to see how well this experiment pans out. There are indeed a series of other sites offering this kind of service, from YouTube, to Brightcove, to Veoh Networks and Sling Media to name a few, but none with the sheer commercial velocity boasted by the Joost venture.

Internet television is the new kid on the media block. The ontology of television viewership is about to change drastically and it is likely to have a significant impact on the way television content is produced and received. A few years down the line it is not hard to imagine that we might all be interacting with a commingled batch of televised and web-based content on machines that look something like Jeff Han's reification of the technology most popularly represented in the film "Minority Report."

It is exciting and bewildering to think about the unpredictable ways these new technologies will effect media production and ethics. We will certainly begin to obtain a more realistic understanding of what sort of programming is popular. Ratings will finally begin to reflect real people's viewing habits. This mark of interactivity creates a whole new kind of media ethics.

What if media we have traditionally considered to be taboo and intolerable becomes the most popular content available? Will commercial interests fundamentally change the nature of the public sphere? Will the capacity to measure specific users viewing choices structure the society in more inclusive or exclusive ways? Will there be any detectable difference at all? It is hard to say, and hopefully we will know very soon, but for now I am content to wonder about what the media will be doing tomorrow.

RESTRICTED!

2007-05-14T19:52:00.000-07:00

WARNING: Quitting Smoking In Movies Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Ratings.

No showing smoking in movies.

No accidental nipple exposure on TV.

No Simulated sex on stage on an island 2000 miles away.

Maybe I am the only one who sees these prohibitions as absurd.

Honestly though, the irony is killing me.

So the ratings system of the Motion Picture Association of American is going to consider showing smoking in movies in the same way it now considers showing violence, sex, and the use of coarse language. From what I have read on the subject, this has made no one happy. Filmmakers don’t like the restriction, and they don’t want to worry about how much smoking, or in what context showing smoking will earn them a rating for their film that will cause them financial harm. Those advocating for removing all smoking from films are not happy either because they were advocating a total ban.

Personally I don’t really care if I am treated to scenes of smoking in my movies or not, so long as the movie “works,” but I can see real problems arising for filmmakers and their craft.

I suppose a good example of a movie that “needs” smoking is Good Night, and Good Luck, a film that recently came out that was about legendary newsman Edward R. Murrow in which smoking was pervasive in the film. Murrow was a heavy smoker, and was constantly smoking while he was reading the news on TV. Murrow also died of lung cancer, most likely because he was a heavy smoker. I thought this film was an excellent movie, and I also think it was important for the film to show how smoking was so socially acceptable at that time. In this way, I thought that the film was a highly effective in showing how terrible smoking can be, but also to show how just because something is socially acceptable now, does not mean that it can fall from grace, in the same way smoking has in our society. To offer a contemporary example, today cell phone use is pretty much totally socially acceptable. People whip out their phones all the time, and nobody really thinks twice about it. Try looking around some time, as I do, at the people using cell phones in public places, and how attached people are to their phones, how as soon as they are finished with something they can’t wait to get out their phones. When I see this it reminds me of the way smoking used to be, except that smoking was always about smoking with people, and with cell phones it is about doing something with people, just not the ones that are standing next to you. So now imagine that cell phones turn out to be hazardous, and within say 50 years there is a near total ban on cell phones, the only people who use cell phones are pretty much the ones who can’t quit, or don’t want to quit. Now imagine that showing cell phones in movies is being restricted, because children might see cell phones as glamorous. If a filmmaker were making a film about SFSU at the turn of this century, don’t you think the film would be incomplete without showing students on cell phones?

Back to Good Night, and Good Luck, I really don’t think that movie could be made now, and that would be a shame, because it tells a really important story, not just about Edward R. Murrow, and how news programs were made at that time, but also about McCarthyism, and how a form of McCarthyism is sprouting in our society today, in the form of anti-terrorism.

I don’t think this film could be made today because even if I see this film as an anti-smoking movie, I am sure that others would disagree and say that the film glamorizes smoking. And Good Night, and Good Luck was pretty much a marginal film, the type that might not be made if the smoking in the film would bump it from a PG to an R rating, marginalizing it even more.

I think that adding smoking to the rating criteria is a mistake, but I don’t expect many to agree with me. As for the irony I mentioned earlier, I decided to bury it in the last paragraph, because I doubt anyone will finish reading this. For me the irony is living in a society that is restricting the items mentioned above, including showing images of smoking in movies, while publicly and seriously discussing when torture is acceptable. Talk about Koyaanisqatsi.

MSNBC- Smoking affects ratings
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18601051/

New York Times- Puffing could cost PG rating
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/business/media/11smoking.htmlWashington post-

Would Casablanca be rated XXX
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051001347.html

A Journalist in Wolf's Clothing?

2007-05-14T18:43:00.000-07:00

On April 3, 2007, blogger, freelance journalist and SFSU alumnus Josh Wolf was released from the Federal Correction Institution in Dublin, California after earning the dubious distinction of serving the longest prison term for protecting journalist sources in the United States. As a publisher of a blog that documents protests and progressive activist events, Wolf captured videotaped footage of an anarchists' anti-G8 protest that took place on July 8, 2005 in San Francisco.

The United States Attorney believed that Wolf's footage contained information that could be used to identify perpetrators of violent acts that took place at the anarchist rally, including the assault of a police officer and the arson of a police vehicle. The United States District Court empaneled a grand jury and the FBI subsequently subpoenaed Wolf, ordering him to turn the footage over and testify in front of a grand jury. Wolf refused, citing press freedoms and his journalistic privilege to protect sources, and was eventually jailed for contempt of court. At the time of his release, Wolf had served 226 days in jail, breaking the previous mark of a journalist's prison term for protecting source materials by 58 days.

One of the problems posed by the Josh Wolf case is the absence of a legal standard and definition of what journalism looks like and who can be considered to be a journalist. In an interview for Frontline, Wolf explains: "I describe myself a lot of ways. I'm a journalist. I'm a documentary filmmaker. I've made some narrative films. I'm an activist. I wear a lot of hats . . . I'm also a video blogger." California, like most other states, has a media shield law that confers special protections to journalists. Self declarations aside, the question remains: is what Wolf is doing accurately described as journalism?

In the Frontline interview, Wolf acknowledges this concern, stating that: "One of the critiques about me not being a journalist is that I'm not objective. It's pretty clear what my politics are. But back when the First Amendment was written, when we guaranteed a free press, there was no such thing as objective journalism." While this question is better served by an historical debate over the intentions and meanings of the Constitution, it is important to note that Wolf seems to be making no claims to objectivity. Regardless of whether or not objective and impartial newsgathering and dissemination was established as a journalistic principle at the time of the Founding, it is undeniably an integral aspect of most professional codes of journalistic ethics both in the United States and abroad.

While going to jail for one's convictions and grand intellectual principles is admirable in any shape or form, and while a serious discussion about Wolf's 1st Amendment rights could be had outside of the ambit of a discussion about professional journalism but still within the realm of free speech, Wolf's case squarely calls into question the identity and definition of what journalism ought to be.

Should Wolf be considered to be a protected person under a media shield? Is it reasonable to suggest that activity that looks like journalism should always be exempt from some form of regulative control? Or should we be putting more pressure on the individuals who consider themselves to be journalists? Absent of some formal way of recognizing who and what journalism is, there are too many mixed messages freely propagated in the culture about the essential rights and freedoms of the citizens and of the press. Because this leaves the public with no definitive way of knowing what is and is not respectable and credible journalistic information, this ultimately functions as a profound disservice to the public interest.

For consideration, an article from the Fall 2006 issue of Media Ethics magazine brings to light three high profile cases of journalistic malpractice that have recently degraded the credibility of the media generally: Jayson Blair and the New York Times, Jack Kelley and USA Today, and Dan Rather and CBS News. In each case, in only slightly unique ways, the "professional journalists," who by all measures of the term would be covered by media shield laws, perpetrated fraud on the public and rendered gross journalistic malpractice. But what has changed? Aside from the fact that these journalists no longer work for the same institutions, many if not most journalists involved in scandals continue to practice as professional journalists in some respect. What guarantee does that give the public that news information of the future bears any resemblance to truth?

While it has always been agreed that the freedom of the press is one of the primary principles supporting the function of democratic self-government, the balancing act that determines what fits into the purview of press freedoms, and what does not, has always been a complicated and elusive task. While it is obvious that journalists require some protections that insulate their activities from the government's reach, it is not clear where to draw the line.

Acts of Meaning

2007-05-14T06:19:00.000-07:00

As I woke up this morning to NPR on my clock radio, I was struck by this story featured on today's installment of Morning Edition. The report tells of the "culture of deception" that characterizes America's leading subprime mortgage lender, Ameriquest. In the report, former employees discuss the shady sales practices that were not only accepted but also encouraged by Ameriquest managers. It is even stated that loan officers at Ameriquest were trained by a showing of the film "Boiler Room."

By way of disclosure and explanation, a younger version of myself thought that "Boiler Room" was a decent movie. But please do not take this post as any sort of film critique. What is noteworthy and useful to my anecdotal report about this film is the way it was latched onto by many of my peers who entered into the financial services sector within a few years of its release. On more than a few occasions, references to this film were made by my colleagues in casual conversation. And the general tone of their commentary was always celebratory and glorified, as if there was something specifically appealing about the lifestyle and general conduct of the characters in this film: something that each of these separate individuals aspired to achieve.

It is not a profound or controversial statement to suggest that the average late-adolescent male might find the idea of bombastically making lots of money to be quite an alluring proposition -- particularly if the accrual of this wealth can be carried out in a covertly deviant, legally suspect and rebellious way. But the film ends as a cautionary tale of greed and excess. And the moral we are supposed to leave with is one that insists that we pull our base selves up by the bootstraps and come to grips with the consequences of our actions lest we hurt innocent people with our recklessness. At least that's the logical, common-sensical way of looking at the film - that we're supposed to learn a lesson, we're supposed to leave the theatre with some understanding that the fate of the film's characters and the narrative mechanism of the plot ought to be advisory in some way.

Apparently that's not the case with this film. Apparently there's something more instructive than the plot device applied. Or maybe our baser selves are attracted to the shimmer, sparkle and flash of overblown glamour to the extent that cautionary tales make little or no headway in defusing the human pursuit of self destruction. Regardless, Ameriquest saw an opportunity to provide its sales force with an instructive cultural model. The culture of deception that floats in this film is the same culture of deception Ameriquest managers thought relevant to their project of internal corporate identity. And it is that same legitimate cultural model that was appealed to by my cohorts in the financial services sector.

It may not be surprising to know that these individuals no longer work in financial services. Indeed, subprime lending has gone out of political and economic fashion in the past several months. Foreclosure rates are climbing and the doomsdayers talk about the forthcoming economic bubble bursts. Depending upon your outlook and what you have at stake, the sky may indeed be falling.

But it's hard to point the fingers of blame, and that's certainly not the point of this post. As recent college grads looking for work -- any kind of work in a poor jobs market -- my friends never intended to do the dirty work of the subprime lending business. As filmmakers, Ben Younger and his staff never intended to engender a corporate culture of deception. "Boiler Room" is not responsible for tipping into motion some giant cycle of events that ultimately leads to a possible economic catastrophe.

So then, what is the point? If we can't blame the media for causing the problems of culture, we certainly can't hope that the media could ever solve them. To help get there, I want to mention an idea that has stayed with me from an undergraduate course that I was taking right around the same time that "Boiler Room" was in theatres. In his book "Acts of Meaning," Jerome Bruner introduces the idea of a "folk psychology," a concept that is useful for any conversation about the role of the media in the construction of culture. After hearing this morning's piece on Ameriquest's boiler rooms, I thought of this idea and went back to the text to look for some illumination. This is what Bruner offers:

All cultures have as one of their most powerful constitutive instruments a folk psychology, a set of more or less connected, more or less normative descriptions about how human beings "tick," what our own and other minds are like, what one can expect situated action to be like, what are possible modes of life, how one commits oneself to them, and so on. We learn our culture's folk psychology early, learn it as we learn to use the very language we acquire and to conduct the interpersonal transactions required in communal life. (35)

I mention this idea because it points directly at and reaffirms the power of the media practitioner. Media makers can and do shape and shift the folk psychology because we are involved in the actual production and construction of the "possible modes of life." Through a dynamic interaction and relationship with the cultural reality, media makers can subtly move the cultural language and shift our agreed upon cultural connotations.

As a piece of mass mediated culture, "Boiler Room" is both part and parcel of our folk psychology. But so is NPR, and Bruner's work, and, to some degree, so is this class blog on media ethics. In this regard, I don't mean to cast aspersion on the contents of culture, only to point out an anecdotal case of one way that mediated culture functions in the construction of identity and culture and why ethics is important in the management of mediated messages. I also wanted to echo a point that media practitioners ought to be endlessly preoccupied with: the consequences of their acts of meaning.

XXX

2007-05-13T19:20:00.000-07:00

Simulated Rape?

That’s what Fox News and TMZ are calling the incident involving Senegalese-American R&B singer Akon, and because of the furor created by this type of sensational journalism masquerading as the morality police, Akon has been cancelled by his sponsor, Verizon Wireless.

The same incident was described by The New York Times as simulated sex. You can watch the video on YouTube and judge for yourself.
I don’t know the first thing about Akon, he may be repulsive, but it is the principle involved in this episode that caught my attention.

In case you are not aware of the details of this event, it happened in Trinidad.

Yeah, Trinidad. Not in the puritanical climate of the US, but in Trinidad.

The story goes that Akon was performing in a nightclub, and at some point a girl got up on stage and they, fully clothed, performed what could be described as simulated sex.

I believe that part of the furor from the morality police was because it turned out that this girl was under-age. I saw the video, and that girl didn’t look underage. Akon has apparently tried to lay some blame on the club for letting the girl in, but I don’t know all the details.

What is crazy is that this is a non-event except that it was recorded and made its way onto the Internet.

So what we have is an event that happened in Trinidad, an Island that I’m pretty sure 50% of Americans couldn’t find on a map, that becomes known simply because it is circulating on the internet, and the morality police here in this country decide they need to put the pressure on his sponsor to drop him. I guess that is the equivalent of getting fired if you are an R&B singer.

This bothers me because in the name of morality, artists are going to need to watch themselves more and more, and censor their behavior before they are censored by the all watching eyes of the morality police. No more dangerous clothing at the Super bowl half-time show, for fear of wardrobe malfunctions. Watch what you say on the radio, someone might have recorded it and be waiting to play it back for the morality police.

For me it is freedom of expression that is vital to art and music, the things that I need to thrive.

And as for the label of “simulated rape,” I have seen simulated rape on TV and in the movies.

Have you ever seen “Straw Dogs,” which was directed by Sam Peckinpah? The film has a “simulated rape” scene which I personally found disturbing, but I liked the film. I probably just won’t watch the film again, but I won’t stop others from watching it. And I am sure that many people don’t take offense to this scene.

My point is this, if you find something offensive, don’t watch, but don’t try to be the judge of whether others should watch it.

And by the way, Akon has apologized. Not to Fox News, but to the girl, and to his public.

NYTimes- Simulated sex
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/arts/music/10akon.html
TMZ-simulated rape
http://www.tmz.com/2007/05/04/akon-axed-by-verizon-over-alleged-fake-rape/
Fox news: Simulated rape
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270130,00.html

The News is Flat

2007-05-13T17:07:00.000-07:00

In another sign that Tom Friedman was right when he claimed that the world is flat, the Los Angeles Times reported last week that PasadenaNow, a lifestyle magazine covering the city of Pasadena, has hired two reporters in India to cover the Pasadena City Council meetings for the publication. Per the article, these outsourced reporting jobs will be held by two people living nearly 9,000 miles away from the news source they are covering: "One lives in Mumbai and will be paid $12,000 a year. The other will work in Bangalore for $7,200." The article also indicates that one of the two journalists had attended the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

In an Associated Press article, the online magazine's publisher, James Macpherson, explains the move, saying "I think it could be a significant way to increase the quality of journalism on the local level without the expense that is a major problem for local publications." And perhaps Macpherson has a point. It is safe to assume that there are not many small publications with UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism graduates on their staff. The AP also reported that the 51 year old Pasadena native posted job ads on the Indian version of Craigslist with position summaries that explained, "We seek a newspaper journalist based in India to report on the city government and political scene of Pasadena, California, USA."

This idea is not only bizarre, it breaks the rules of the common cultural supposition that some industries were insulated from outsourcing. Journalism was generally assumed to be one of, if not the most prime example of such a field. Robert Niles, a commentator at USC's Annenberg Center of Communication's Online Journalism Review, expresses the concern arising over the issue, as "it plays to journalists' fear that the global outsourcing epidemic that many of us have been covering for more than a decade now threatens our jobs." Niles goes on to complain that he believes "the attitude behind the outsourcing reflects so much of what is wrong with the practice of journalism today." Rob Gunnison, director of affairs at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism agrees, telling the LA Times, "it just seems so fundamental to journalism to be there."

A sensible point, especially when we assume all the basics about news reporting. It seems obvious that in order to conduct proper newsgathering and in order to provide thorough reporting on relevant issues, journalists need to be close to the source, frequently visiting the events and people making news. And it seems clear that they should be enmeshed and existentially engaged with the cultural logic of the news making environment in order to make meaningful choices about what information should and should not be reported, who should and should not be interviewed, and to provide a proper perspective and create a meaningful context for the information being examined. All of this is very difficult to achieve from 9,000 miles away. While it does certainly remove news reporting out of the cultural bias that is sometimes reflected by localized journalism, this is not what advocates for journalistic objectivity had in mind.

Although this move ultimately devalues the quality of journalism overall, because there is no substitute for being on scene, it seems unavoidable and makes too much business sense to be deterred as a practice. Given a choice between a professionally trained and experienced journalist and a C grade lackey from slacker University, USA, it is safe to say that most people will prefer to get their news from the former. Based on a brief look at the kind of journalism that is proliferating, maybe a bit of international competition will do journalism some good. Perhaps journalists have gotten a bit too comfortable with their sense of entitlement to their work.

Indeed, most of the anxiety about this issue is spurred by the fact that journalists had long considered themselves immune to the problem of outsourcing. One can only imagine the smug look on the faces of millions of Americans who have lost manufacturing and computer jobs to outsourcing as journalists get a taste of the spine tingling, hair raising realities of globalization. Welcome to the party.

What Is News

2007-05-13T14:02:00.000-07:00

It is usually said, no news is good news. However, for all the journalists, no news is bad news.

With the increasing appetite if audience and drastic competition, journalists can’t avoid the problem that, how can we find more good news to satisfy the audiences, to attract their attention, to feed our broadcasting system. However, the world is not made of news. When lacking of news, some journalists will made up false news, or to sensationalize the news, which originally a piece of cake.

Then what is news? “Most journalists agree that the following eight elements make up what is considered ‘news’---immediacy, proximity, prominence, oddity, conflict, suspense, emotions, consequence. ” But most of the case, when something happen, journalists won’t compare these 8 elements before making the decision of reporting the news or not, how long or what details should be reported. They will use their occupational instinct to make the judge in order to become the first one to report the news. But due to the diversity of everyone’s instinct and experience, as well as the media’s industry’s development, every journalist have a different standard of what is news and what is good news in their mind. That’s probably why nowadays, more and more journalists and even researchers will be confused with and argued with the definition of news.

Traditional news theory argues that, when journalists are writing the news, they at least have to mention 6 elements: who, what, where, when, why and how. But nowadays, “there is a sixth W: Why should anyone care about this news?” With the development of internet, people no longer lack of the news and information. Facing with the competition with other media, journalists have to think about how to convince their audiences why they should care about the news. Thus, sensationalism becomes more and more serious. Researchers and scholars criticize all the time, but nothing has changed.

This is the reality happening in the media industry. The news’ definition is developing. The way people deal with news is changing. Debates and criticism is also happening every day. But as long as the report the journalist make can attract most of the people, then it is a piece of news, or even a piece of good news. No matter what is the content of how to report the news. Reflection and criticism always happen later. There is a wall exist between the media industry and the academic research. To me, this is already not a piece of news.

http://aboutpublicrelations.net/ucturkington.htm
http://www.fairtest.org/arn/What%20is%20News.html
http://www.ypp.net/pdfs_writersguide/unit1.pdf

Free Flow of Information Act of 2007

2007-05-12T23:14:00.000-07:00

On May 2, 2007, a bipartisan team of Congressman introduced the Free Flow Of Information Act. Representatives Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.) have brought forth the bill in the House, while Senators Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Christopher Dodd (D-Ct.) introduced the same bill in the Senate.

While 33 states and the District of Columbia have already enacted legislation protecting journalistic privileges, this would be the first federal media shield law. Similar bills have been introduced to Congress in recent years but have never made it out of committee hearings. However, recent developments such as the Valerie Plame Affair and the record setting imprisonment of blogger Josh Wolf have raised the political profile of the shield law issue.

Perhaps what is most interesting about such a law is that, in order to confer protections to journalists, the bill has to come to terms with a legal definition of what journalism is and who can be considered to be a journalist.

The language in the bill cites protections for "covered persons," defined in the bill as: "a person engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary or affiliate of such covered person." The FFIA goes on to define journalism as "the gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public." Distinguished from earlier attempts to create a federal shield law, the new incrnation of the FFIA now shifts the definition of journalism away from an individual's association with a formal news organization to the actual practice of news gathering and dissemination.

As defined, the new law would confer protections to New York Times reporters and bloggers alike. While Boucher told CNET news that they are "not attempting to extend this privilege to everyone in our society," he did explain that the law's "intent is that bloggers who are regularly involved in newsgathering and reporting, within the scope of that definition, would be entitled to the privilege."

The CNET article goes on to indicate measured support from Christine Tatum, President of the Society of Professional Journalists who said that while she would like to see the protections in the bill be as far reaching as possible, she qualifies her support for journalistic privileges with the comment that "if everybody's a journalist, nobody's a journalist."

The establishment of a truly bipartisan coalition introducing the bill and the presence of broad based support from heavyweight media organizations such as the SPJ, the Newspaper Association of America, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Ameircan Society of Newspaper Editors promises that the new version of the FFIA will be more successful this go-round.

When can we give back the clean sky to children and youth?

2007-05-12T14:13:00.000-07:00

I am not talking about the air pollution. I am talking something as serious as air pollution, or even worse than air pollution. It is the violence in cartoon and sexy scenes in the MTV.

I think I don’t need to describe how popular the violence in cartoon and sexy scenes in the MTV nowadays. Fire and blood haven’t been rare in the cartoon. Bra, underwear, bikini and flirtation won’t surprise you if you see them in the MTV. Even, I，an adult feel uncomfortable when I saw the above scenes in the cartoon and MTV, let alone the children. However, children have no choice. “Children are our further, not the present, so children can’t vote”. Every time, when they open the TV, they are infused of these violence and eroticism. If they are luckily born in a responsible family, in which parents have time and patience to watch TV with them and guide them, then they may escape from these violence and eroticism bomb. However, unfortunately, some of the parents nowadays can’t accompany their children most of the time. TV has even served as a baby-sitter or supervisor in some families. Then unfortunately, children in those families are used to face with and even been “educated” with those violence and eroticism. Children are just like a piece of white paper. If they have gotten used to these violence and eroticism, they will think, this is the original fact of the world. They won’t protest and suspect it. They will totally absorb, remember, and even utilize it.

According to the Report of the Department of Canadian Heritage, “It is not the violence itself that makes the cartoons attractive to preschoolers, but the accompanying vivid production features. With this preference for cartoons, preschoolers are being exposed to a large number of violent acts in their viewing day. ” If the violence is not the main factors to attract the kids, but the “vivid production features”, why the cartoon producers will continually add the violence elements into the cartoon? Why they can’t produce some vivid production features without any violence? I doubt that, if it is because the adults themselves like violence cartoon, so they assume that children may like it too? I don’t know. I am really confused. But it seems that the cartoon producers never really listen to children’s voice seriously. And as what I said, children have gotten used to watch spreading violence and eroticism in the cartoon and MTV, so they won’t feel surprised and doubtful. And as long as the cartoon market still can earn money in this way, and temporarily, it did not cause any big problem, then everything goes on and on. A cartoon character goes on shooting his enemy, with blood spreading everywhere. A dance still footsies in MTV, only wearing a bikini.

I know it is impossible to clear all the violence and sexual elements in the cartoons and MTV, just as it is impossible that there is no pollution in the air. Once harm has begun, it is hard to clear and stop. But what I argue is that, if we can provide children more choices and decrease the violence and sexual elements in their programs? Children are our future. They may also be the cartoon or MTV producers in the future. Once they have gotten used to these violence and eroticism when they are small, they will on longer suspect or augur it. In that case, the violence and eroticism in the cartoon and MTV will only become worse and worse. Don’t forget, the so call media rule of law is made by man. They may be changed if we want. So don’t expect the law can control the trend of violence and eroticism in the media.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050201-113031-4293r.htm
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/research_documents/reports/violence/tv_violence_child.cfm
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

Media Event of the Century!!!

2007-05-10T11:45:00.000-07:00

Dear Fellow Classmates :

Jean, Becky and I (Matthew) cordially invite you to attend the premier
presentation of their public service advertising campaigns for the San
Francisco Unified School District on Tuesday May 15th.

Founded in 1851, San Francisco Unified School District, the first public
school district established in California, educates over 60,000 students
annually in over 160 pre-school, elementary, middle and high schools with
the philosophical tenet, 'every child can learn.' In keeping with this
tenet, the SFUSD has teamed up with our students to create a campaign to
help them inform parents about the benefits of on-time enrollment.

Since it's inception in 1997, every semester, this interdisciplinary course
(BECA 647/MKTG 440), in partnership with The Institute for Civic and
Community Engagement, has given students from three different disciplines
the opportunity to work together to create effective advertising campaigns
in a real-world environment, for nonprofit organizations throughout the Bay
Area. We partner the resources and expertise of the university with the
needs of our diverse communities.

We hope you will be able to join us as each of our student teams presents
their television, radio, and print ads, and the creative briefs that
inspired them, to our clients from the San Francisco Unified School
District.

Date: Tuesday May 15, 2007
Time: 2:00-4:00
Place: Studio 1 (CA 128) <http://www.sfsu.edu/~sfsumap/>
Creative Arts Building
San Francisco State University

Facebook; More Questions than Answers

2007-05-09T16:37:00.001-07:00

"I know your hobbies, your political affiliations, your phone number, your weakness, and where you’ll be getting drunk."

It might sound like psycho babel but it's common knowledge on Facebook.

Since it’s inception in 2004, 80 percent of our undergraduate's have signed up. The Internet's always been an inherent surveillance system but what differentiates Facebook is the level of surveillance at the disposal of the average user.

The danger doesn’t end with stalkers; So long as you’re over 13, Facebook’s Terms of Service (2005) states it can “collect information about you from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and other users of the Facebook service, regardless of your use of the Web Site."

The Facebook pulse feature shows how Governments and corporations are collecting unprecedented amounts of information, such as who’s reading, 'Catcher & the Rye' and how many women are voting, 'Democrat'. Facebook admits to reserving the right “to share your information with third parties, including responsible companies with whom they have a relationship."

Exactly who are these third parties?

According to Vishal Agarwala (2006), some $12.7 million Facebook’s funding, came from Breyer; former chair of the National Venture Capital Association (NVAC). Their dealings include "nurturing data mining technologies." On the same board was Gilman Louie, who’s now CEO of In-Q-Tel; a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Is it any wonder why many countries; in the Middle East and Far East Asia, have Facebook banned and firewalled off? We forget that whilst our networked public space can serve the needs of a democracy, it also has the potential to devolve into a vehicle-more-sinister. Iran for instance has argued it is 'protecting' its citizens not suppressing their liberty.

Even if Facebook isn’t already selling user content to marketing firms and Governments, with all this hefty investment, someone somewhere has to profit. By its Terms of Service, it is (at the very least), permitting (in theory) the free-up of future use of data, no doubt keeping themselves attractive for potential acquisition.

Facebook’s terms of service tells us that “By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.”

This means you're giving Facebook the rights to your photographs, poems and blogs. Creators cannot claim ownership of their own work and so-called user-generated content is an idealist's fantasy. The fact of the matter remains, your act of personal expression is not treated as such on Facebook. Clearly, there is a distinction between private information and intellectual property and private property is 'apparently' cheap. It's strikingly unfair when you consider how Facebook Band pages' need not worry because their pictures and music are protected by copyright laws.

It’s worrying how we're so naïve. Our identity is a commodity and we're giving that, and our privacy away for free and with ease. Kids trust these sites or maybe because they're removed from face-to-face contact, 'certain' users’ inhibitions ratchet down. Either way, kids are bragging about their underage drinking, marijuana smoking, debauchery and disclosing those of their friends’ antics too. Facebookers can involve non-Facebookers by simply ‘tagging’ them; creating a sort of non-consentor temporary profile, all of which may be used against them in court, since it is after all, to common knowledge, a quasi-public domain.

The level of transparency may be exciting to some but to others it can be really frightening. Recent episodes of Law and Order and NCIS show detectives tapping into Facebook equivalents to draw personality profiles, check alibis and catch their young perps.

This is not to say that beyond the feeding frenzy, Facebook can’t be a catalyst for positive action. In fact, the positives are brought to light more often than the negatives.

Starting next month, political candidates will be able to advertise on the site. Politicians have gravitated towards the site for its nine million registered users and most major candidates already have a Facebook account rallying for their nomination battle.

Some say Facebook is an excellent way to reach out to young voters. Certainly, it has become Facebook fashionable to post political affiliations and join Candidates' 'groups' but it remains to be seen how many will vote.

http://www.Facebook.com
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E6DA173CF930A15751C1A9649C8B63
http://www.albumoftheday.com/facebook

Ethical Reporting; Humanity or Detachment?

2007-05-09T16:36:00.001-07:00

In recent years, subjectivity and partisanship in reporting have come under sharp attack—most vigorously from opponents of either Fox News or AL-Jazeera. News hounds moan there isn’t even a pretence to objectivity anymore. They argue that in order for media outlets to rebuild public trust and bring confidence back, journalists must keep impartiality, actively remaining objective at all times.

However, there is a grey line to this too. When Hurricane Katrina happened, the initial hysteria and coverage originated with reporters. They were present before FIMA. They were the first to assess and transmit the extent of misery and desperation taking hold on the ground. Who can forget images of residents forced onto rooftops to seek help from passing helicopters? And who were those poor people frantically waving to? (Especially in those early days when Government help still appeared to be absent)? Did people expect the news crew to remain idle even still? or would they have preferred reporters participate and immerse themselves in the story by helping to airlift people out of there?

Here lies the quandary. In an age where media resources and technologies match that of the Government’s, when is it appropriate for a journalist to offer victims of crisis, aid whilst reporting their story? Does it matter that Katrina took place in the form of a domestic tragedy instead of one taking place abroad? Would for instance, a show of humanity still take priority in Iraq?

This is a heated topic amongst professionals as well. Those opposed to any form of involvement argue it compromises their objectivity, undeniably, a chief journalistic ethic. As a result, a pious journalist may feel compelled that in order to remain objective, he must, at all times remain detached, disinterested in outcome and dedicated wholeheartedly to documenting and relaying the truth. His dilemma appears to be that if he helps someone to safety, even by offering them a drink of water, he is altering the course of the news; the facts as he knows them. Ultimately, any form of intervention alters outcome, so whether a journalist likes it or not, their craft will affect public policy and life too.

No reporter wants to appear amidst a conflict of interest, nor should objectivity be painted with such black, white ardor. For starters, one is wrongly assuming objectivity to be an available human trait. To take such a view clouts a journalist with terrible and repeated moral dilemmas. Besides, should the absence of detachment necessarily mean the presence of improper attachment? Just because an Italian journalist lends his cell phone to an American soldier pleading to borrow it for just one moment to call his family, does not mean the reporter helping him is siding with U.S. policy or liable to give us biased coverage. Such a reporter can be as noble as any other. It is just that he is taking a humanistic approach. Consider the alternative, choosing to deny the US soldier of a cellphone shows such dispassion and contempt for human suffering, that such a reporter could definitely be warranted with loathing towards US troops and US involvement in Iraq. Arguably it is such a reporter, whose journalistic endeavor should be watched closely and with greater suspicion.

A reporter's show of hummanity and comapssion should not decredit from his work and render him less objective for its own sake. In fact, let us look at Hurricane Katrina, where disregarding the community's needs and tragic circumstances would have definitely made a journalist appear animus of the very people he was trying to cover. It would have been uncalled for, dehumanizing the account. To my mind, an announced bias is readily more realistic, palatable and constructive to public information than some highly unrealistic declaration to no bias at all.

Ultimately, the role of a journalistic endeavor should be catered to public interest. Encouraging participation in community politics and engaging people to claim their stake in public life. This all requires reporting to be clear-eyed about the facts yet at the same detached enough to show concern for the outcome of events taking place too.

As it happens, during Hurricane Katrina, journalists who came to the aid of ailing victims were heralded as heroes. They weren’t frowned upon. Perhaps, it would be a different matter had it not been a domestic/patriotic issue. News organizations are unforgiving of un-met deadlines. Failures are costly. In another circumstance, a journalist might risk losing his own livelihood should he/she appear ‘confused’ about professional priorities.
As if to add insult to injury, assistance given is therefore more often than not, entrepreneurially grandstanded and sold to the Public’; as if to satisfy shareholders, not to establish the reporter has demonstrated and adopted a subjective stance towards the matter at hand.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/simpson.html
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3999
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=5594
http://www.peacecenter.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/simpson.html

Distrust

2007-05-08T21:07:00.000-07:00

A Gallup poll shows half of Americans distrust “mass media news organizations to report fully, accurately and fairly”. A survey done in ten countries shows that, “over one in four people (28%) across 10 countries either strongly agrees (13%) or somewhat agrees (15%) with the statement--- in the past year I have ‘stopped using a specific media source because it lost my trust’. This is particularly the case in Brazil (44%), Egypt (40%), South Korea (39%), and the US (32%). Russians (10%) are least likely to say this, as are Germans (15%), and Indonesians (17%). Citizens of the UK (29%), India (28%), and Nigeria (27%) define the average position across the 10 countries.” “According to a ten-country opinion poll for the BBC, Reuters, and The Media Center, more people trust the media more than their governments, especially in developing countries”

According to the above survey and poll, people have begun to lose their trust to media, no matter in the developing countries or developed countries. But the survey also pointed out that, “more people trust the media than their governments, especially in developing countries”, then I would like to express my opinion in this point.

China is surely a developing country, though it has fast development these years, which therefore results into a serious of problems, such as government official corruption, media system incompletion. And these two factors have been enough to lead to people’s distrust to media and government. Though this survey didn’t cover China, but I do believer China has the same problem with those development countries.

People trust the media more than the government doesn’t mean the media in China is trustful. It is just because people have no choices. In some distance, they may think that the government even is worse than the media. Media will at least try to tell them some facts in order to attract more attention, though the facts may not be real,. But the government will never tell the truth. Officials’ so-call truth is always positive and active. Such as in Sanxi province in China, there are often some mineworkers died from the collapse of the mine hole due to the unqualified mine building. The government will never broadcast the correct death number. The officials always want to hide the truth until being discovered by some journalists who tried every way to get the first hand information. The SARS news was even hided by the government for 4 months……Experiencing too much, the Chinese people began to be suspicious of what the Chinese government published.

Though comparing to the government, the media may gain a little more trust from people, but this trust is so little that, people choose to only believe those authoritative media, or they will make the decision after comparing several reports. Their distrust to media also shows in aspect of the case that, when they are invited to receive an interview about what was happening to them, their most frequent answer is that, even if I express my idea in front of the camera, do you journalists dare to broadcast it? Even if you broadcast my interview, do you think it can help to solve this problem? Can you guarantee you won’t distort what I said?

As a journalist for two years, I understand their disappointment, worries and distrust. How can we complain them? In our department meeting, every one or two weeks, we will be informed a notice that some journalist is punished due to reporting the false news. When people hope we can broadcast the unfair matters happening to them, no matter how serious the matter is, as long as we receive an order to stop following this news, all of the journalists have to keep silent……

So, the distrust from citizens is not only the media’s fault. Of course, the media has to suffer the main responsibility. But the government, political system, and commercial market also lead to this distrust. That is also why we are so difficult to eliminate or decrease the distrust from the audiences or readers.

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcreut.html
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/why_people_dist.html
http://www.adrants.com/2005/09/half-of-americans-distrust-mass-media-new.php

BITCH!

2007-05-08T18:55:00.000-07:00

There.

I said it.

If you are offended then you had better stop reading now, because I am not willing to restrict my speech in order to try not to offend. This would be futile in any case, since I am certain that anything I can say, no matter how seemingly inoffensive, will offend someone. Go ahead, try to think of something you can say that will not offend anyone.

So perhaps I should restrict my speech so that I will not offend what the Supreme Court refers to as a “reasonable person,” which is itself a sort of legal definition used in order to not directly address a problem. I don’t think I know what a reasonable person is, and that is what is useful about this definition, it is meaningless. I know a lot of people who watch South Park, which is at one time or another offensive to just about everyone, so I have to wonder, are these reasonable persons? The point I am trying to make is that you can’t say something that won’t offend someone, and saying something that will not offend a reasonable person means limiting what you have to say to what is meaningless.

I am willing to play the game of not using certain words around certain people, so when I am around children I will, for the sake of the parents, not say those words you are not supposed to say around children. And what a strange game that is, because the children learn these words anyway, and restricting these words gives them power. I will also restrict my speech when I am around my younger sister, because for her the most offensive thing someone can do is to take The Lords name in vain. But this is a choice she has made, based on her religious beliefs, and if she were Muslim she would hold those beliefs just as tightly, that’s the way she is. The problem with both of these examples is that because I have restricted my speech, the range of topics we can discuss fully has been seriously diminished, and even though there are probably not many subjects I can discuss in depth with the children I encounter, I can definitely communicate more clearly with children whose parents do not place these restrictions on me.

And so it goes with all people, I think. To restrict what can be said makes the already difficult task of communicating all that more difficult, if not futile. So why do I feel it is important to be able to say “Bitch?” Because under certain circumstances, that is exactly the correct word, and no combination of words will ever be a sufficient substitute. And if the word “Bitch” bothers you, then you can, as I suggested, stop reading and go on to reading something else.

I also believe that there should be no restrictions of what can be said in music. If a song is offensive, don’t buy it, and if it is on the radio, change the station. Offensive language is, if I may, real. There is no way to express certain messages in art without using what is real. And besides, what is offensive today will look tame in a couple of decades. Is anyone offended by The Sex Pistols anymore?

As for Don Imus, I don’t think his speech should be restricted either. He may have used speech that some consider offensive, but he is just another big-mouthed bully with a radio show, and an audience that likes that kind of thing, I guess.

What I personally find highly offensive are pundits and politicians talking about regime change, which is a euphemism for war, death, and general suffering for the population of the changed regime. Iraq has lived through one of our regime changes, now Iran and Syria are candidates. However offensive I find this, I would not advocate banning this speech.

Imus Fired
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml

Sharpton demands record labels ban certain words
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rap3may03,1,6177544.story?coll=la-headlines-business

William Kristol calls for regime change in Iran and Syria
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/433fwbvs.asp?pg=2

Oh no, the planet's getting warmer, thank god for air conditioning!

2007-05-07T15:11:00.000-07:00

By: N. Long

For the first time in the year 2007, I find myself turning on the air conditioner in my room. It's Sunday, May 6th, and the temperature in my hometown of Millbrae has reached a whooping 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Ok, so it's not that hot, but the crappy insulation in my room, combined with the mid-afternoon sun, made me feel like I was in a sauna. So I cranked up the AC, causing whatever damage to the environment that air conditioners cause, sat back, and contemplated the idea that Al Gore might be right about global warming.

On March 13, a New York Times article, quoting from many global warming skeptics, attacked Al Gore's representation of global warming. A few days latter, Fox News correspondents, quoting the Times article, continued the assault on Gore. The specific nature of the attack is not important, so much as the attack itself. When discussing the issue of global warming, the media has consistently attempted to provide both sides of the story. As responsible journalist, anchors, reporters, and commentators alike have attempted to create "balance" in their reporting. However, in their enthusiasm to be fair and accurate, have journalist actually created a bias?

Jules and Maxwell Boykoff of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a media watchdog organization, argue that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming, telling both sides of the story can actually be "informational bias." While the large majority of environmental scientist along with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agree that "global warming is a serious problem that must be addressed immediately," a "small group of global warming skeptics" have their views greatly amplified by the news media. Given the large number of scientist and officials that agree on the effects of global warming, it might be upsetting for them to see a small group get just as much airtime. Nevertheless, so long as that small group exists, their side of the story must be told.

The United States is a democracy. And in a democracy, the vote of the majority rules. However, both sides of a story must be heard. Even if one side is seemingly illegitimate and without merit, it has a right to speak. Then, and only then, can a vote take place. It is true that the majority of scientist believe that the Earth's temperature is rising. All but one peer-reviewed scholarly publication on the subject of global warming has supported this belief. However, so long as there is one publication on the other side, there exists a debate. And as responsible journalist, anchors, reporters and commentators have a duty to tell both sides of the story.

Today was the first truly hot day of the year in Millbrae, but as the AC started to kick in, and I felt my body cool, I thought to myself, why should I care? Which brings up another problem with the global warming agenda. According to the leading global warming scientists, by the year 2100, the temperature of the Earth "could rise by as much as 10.4 degrees," which could cause sea levels to "rise by as much as 35 inches." First of all, by the year 2100, I'll dead. I don't plan on having children, so I don't really care what happens that far into the future. Secondly, when scientists use the phrase "by as much as," it usually means that they are talking worst-case scenario. Remember the millennium bug? Scientists were spot on about that one. The bottom line for me, and probably a few other people as well, is this. I will work to stop global warming if it benefits me, or has no effect on me. In 2003, I was still an undergraduate and just beginning in real estate. I needed a new care and didn't have much money. I looked into buying a Toyota Prius, thinking I could help the environment and save money on gasoline at the same time. Turns out, the Prius would have cost several thousand more than the Toyota Corolla, which I ended up buying. The average savings on gasoline would almost certainly never nullify the difference in initial price. The features on the two cars were virtually the same, so basically, I would have to pay to help the environment. Not gonna happen. Al Gore can preach all he wants, but so long as it is more cost effective to buy the Corolla, most people are going to but the Corolla. Don't believe me? Check the stats. As for the temperature in my room, all I can say is, thank god for air conditioning.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200703260011

http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/dh_media_warm.htm

Media has become a killer?

2007-05-07T11:14:00.000-07:00

Actually, this is a tragic story. But now it has become a piece of entertainment news spreaded among China, served as an tool for media to attract more audiences and a ridiculous matter for people to talk about, though death and harm has been caused. Until now, the media still enjoy following the development of this matter, never realizing they have become a killer, in some distance.

This story began from13 years ago. One day, a 16 year-old girl met the famous Hongkong movie star Andy Lau in her dream, then she could not help being stuck on him and swore to met him in real life. In order to meet her dream, she stopped her study and stayed at home, only watching Andy Lau’s music video and listening his songs all day long. However, her crazy decision gained strong support from her parents, who spoiled their only child so much. Though his father Mr Yang is only a teacher in a middle school, earning little money from his job. He borrowed the usury and even sold his house to support his daughter’s trip to Hongkong to meet Andy Lao. Originally, this is only a story about a parent over-spoiling their daughter and choosing an unreasonable way. But since the media involved and broadcasted this matter, it became a tragedy step by step。

In March 2006, Lanzhou Morning Newspaper firstly discovered and published Yang’s story. Then CCTV and other media all began to broadcast Yang’s experiences. In order to convince Mr Yang to cooperate with them in the interview, the journalists even promised him that, they would construct the consensus pressure to force Anty Lau to meet Yang. Because the encouragement and the promise of the media, Yang’s family was recharged of hope and strength. They naively believe that, the media will help them to meet their dream.

Less then half a week, all the Chinese know that there is a crazy fan called Yang Lijuan. However, Audy Lau seemed immune of such media consensus. He declared that, he would not meet Yang because he thought her behavior is improper. Andy Lau’s response made Yang’s family fall into disappointment. Later, some media found that this news has no more value in use then giving up pursing it. However, Yang’s father insisted that, their passion would move Andy Lau one day and he still remembered what the journalists said--- the consensus would make Andy Lau compromised.

In March 2007, Yang’s family borrowed the usury and began the trip to Hongkong again, holding the dream that they may meet Andy Lau in his birthday party held by fans’ party. This time, Andy Lau did have met Yang and took a picture with her. But Yang was not satisfied. She required Andy Lau to give her at lease half an hour to explain that she is not like what people said—crazy, spoiled and unreasonable. However, Audy Lau refused Yang’s request again and drove away. Yang’s father tried to stop the car, but failed. .

One day later, Yang’s father jumped into the sea, only leaving a letter, in which he scolded Andy Lau for being cold-blooded and impolite to them, requiring Audy Lau should meet his daughter in order to meet his last dream. Yang’s death caused the media’s attention again. This time, they not only printed Yang’s story in the first page, but also assigned the journalists to be with Yang’s family all day long, reporting what they did, what they thought. The media even provided money and place for Yang and her mother to stay in Hongkong, continuing the dream of meeting Andy Lau.

Yang suddenly became a star, surrounded with all the journalists from everywhere, though she has lost her father. She didn’t need to worry about the money, because there must be some media who will support her. She began to be used to deal with and utilize the media. And the media, they also enjoyed following Yang, to see how she will tangle with Andy Lau, how she will realize her dream. However, in most of the reports about Yang, media only mentioned her as a crazy fan, who has psychology problem. They interviewed Yang’s neighbors, teachers, to know more about Yang’s fanatical behavior. They ascribed this tragedy to Yang’s parents’ dotage. But no media is really target at helping Yang, waking her up. Most of the journalists wish she can conduct more crazy behavior, thus they have more news. They supported Yang to find Andy Lau, though they knew that it would only make Yang involve into a deeper pit.

Now, this tragedy seems have become a farce. Yang still repeats her dream in front of the media again and again. Media still reports how Yang are striving for meeting Andy Lao. Yang’s sadness for her father’s death seems to only last for a short time. Now she is more interested in staying in Hongkong, waiting for meeting her idol. But Andy Lau has decisively declared that, he won’t see Yang again.

In my point of view, the media has been a killer or an accomplice no matter in Yang’s father’s death or Yang’s fanatical behavior being conducted now. If media did not promise and mislead Yang’s father in the beginning that, the consensus can surely help Yang to meet her dream, if their reports did not focus on Yang’s fantastic story, but target on how to lure Yang and her parents to face the reality, to have a normal life, or to cure her psychology problem if she has, if after Yang’s father’s suicide, the media did not incite Yang to go on her dream, Yang’s father might not believe that more people pay attention to this matter, more possibly they can see Andy Lau, and he might not kill himself to lure more attention. Yang and her mother also won’t stay in Hongkong to pursue her so-call dream in life, forgetting that her father took his own life only for meeting her dream as well. But life has no take- two. Tragedy and harm has been arosed.

I don’t know when it is the end of the story. But when media scold that it is the society’s fault or enjoy receiving high attention to this matter, seldom of them will reflect on what they have done. From the beginning to now, the media are the real director and producer of this tragedy or even this farce. Yang is only a tool or a puppet of this tragedy. Yang’s father is also a victim of this matter. The winner is the media. Of course, the media itself won’t admit that. But if this goes on and on, if another tragedy will be caused? I don’t know and I dare not to think about.

http://www.danwei.org/internet/andy_lau_fans_father_kills_him.php
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20070416_1.htm
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-4-18/54275.html

#5. "Sorry" - Virginia Tech.

2007-05-05T08:52:00.000-07:00

As the news of Virginia Tech came into the public sphere there were calls for restraint in reporting (1: 2). Some called for avoiding, "racial identifiers unless there is a compelling or germane reason" (1). Others decided to avoid completely using the murderer's name (2) to avoid giving him any publicity. Earl Maucker of The South Florida Sun - Sentinel said that the news has to be, "evaluated on its merit and its level of public interest" (7) and therefore, this story was newsworthy. The story took on the issue of gun control, (3) and the topic of sensationalism and repitition was also discussed (4). The subject of the coverage having the possible effect of encouraging copycats was discussed (8). And the issue of, "the pursuit of the 'facts' has forced the human aspects of the tragedy to the back seat," was taken on in the CJR Daily (6).

In the media classes I attended since the massacre, the main question asked was, "Should the media have aired the murderer's video and photographs?" Paul Mc Leary wrote on the CJR Daily that, "we've been reduced to squabbling over whether or not to show images of the killer" (5). If the material was not aired, he says, the media would have been criticized for too little and instead they are being criticized for too much (5). In comparing to the 9/11 coverage, Mc Leary says that the coverage of the 9/11 footage may have had a cathartic value (5). The implication is that the coverage of the murderers footage may also have a cathartic value.

I believe that all answers to the question are valid. Any reasonable human being can see that there are many answers to (any) question depending on who is being asked the question. So, in an attempt to grasp some understanding of the complexity of issues involved in the media coverage of Virginia Tech I will try to answer the question from 6 different perspectives: Murderer, Yours Truly, Network/Producer, Family of Victims, Family of Murderer and
Murderer-from-beyond-the-grave.

The question is, "Should the media have aired the murderer's video and photographs?"

1. Murderer (on April 16th, 07): "Yes, absolutely. I want to get my message out. People need to
know what I've been through."

2. Yours Truly: "The video and photographs should have been aired in the late evening and with warnings of its airing. Parents should have had the opportunity to keep their children from seeing this footage and people should have had a choice to not view it. Victims families
may have chosen to not view it. The constant repitition of the footage was not at all
necessary. Periodical updates in the late evening would suffice for ongoing coverage."

3. Producer/Network: "Yes, absolutely. We had to show this news-worthy footage to the
public. If we didn't, other networks would have and we would have lost ratings. The
footage was sensational and sensation sells."

4. Family of Victims: "The footage was repeated over and over again and this became painful.
However, we did want to see who this murderer was but less would have satisfied that
purpose. We could have viewed it in private. He doesn't deserve the publicity that he
seeked."

5. Family of Murderer: "I wish it would go away. I wish he had not produced the media footage. If it helps the families of the victims then it's o.k. I cannot believe what has happened. I just wish I could turn back the clock and stop it all from happening."

6. Murderer-from-beyond-the-grave: "I am sorry. I can't believe what I did. If I could take
it all back, I would. I am so sorry. I feel that my words are so empty because they cannot
change what I have done. I feel powerless. All I can say is I am sorry. Please believe me.
I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

(1). http://www.aaja.org/news/aajanews/2007_04_16_01/

(2). http://www.dailycollegian.com

(3). http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/media_coverage_of_virginia_tec.php

(4). http://media.www.roundupnews.com/media/storage/paper474/news/2007/04/26/Opinion/S...

(5). http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/nbcs_damned_if_it_does_and_dam.php

(6). http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/post_21.php

(7). http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?dex=1&sid=1&srchmode=1&vinst=P...

(8). http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/04/19/virginia-tech-and-social-media-some-questions-for-ne...

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

2007-05-02T17:17:00.001-07:00

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

If you don't know about this number, go check it out.

I love the press.

2007-05-01T11:38:00.000-07:00

Being a news junkie has its pitfalls, sure, but it also means that I’m often the first to notice the hypocrisies of the press. I mostly rely on SFGate, the San Francisco Chronicle’s website for my news because it tends to be a nice blend of national and international news stories, provided by the ever diligent Associated Press news feed and local stories and columnists writing about issues that affect my life in a more direct way. Although the recent tanker truck explosion doesn’t affect me too much, except for affecting traffic where I live, I’ve been following the story pretty closely.

On Monday, the day after the accident, the Chronicle posted a story about the driver’s escape from the burning truck and his journey to the hospital. A little bit of background on the driver was given, and buried deep within the article was some information about his church ties. Apparently, the man volunteers for a Christian ministry. And as for his survival, "If he walked away, it's only because the Lord was with him," says his friend, the Reverend. All of this is at the very end of an article that, while on the SFGate page, was far from featured.

Today’s homepage tells a different story. The featured article – front page news, if you will – is a photo of the man with headlines blaring about his criminal past. As it turns out, the gentleman has a bit of a history:

“James Mosqueda's criminal record in Sacramento County includes a 1993 conviction for misdemeanor possession of a syringe, for which he was sentenced to 60 days; a 1994 conviction for felony possession of stolen property that resulted in a 180-day sentence; and the 1996 conviction for felony heroin possession, said Lana Wyant, a Sacramento County prosecutor and spokeswoman.”

Apparently, he was legally cleared to get a commercial drivers’ license and even to transport hazardous materials. It even sounds like the guy’s reformed, what with helping others struggling with addiction. Nonetheless, the talking heads have already started screaming about changing the laws. Where were they when the man was just a Christian volunteer? Before his history came out, nobody seemed to care. And really, changing the laws won’t prevent this sort of accident from happening again: even the most rigorously licensed drivers speed sometimes. Even though the man’s convictions are not relevant to this case – his licensing was completely lawful, as soon as it made front page news, the reactions began.

But if this doesn’t affect you, don’t panic. World news has not been pre-empted for this. For example, Anna Nicole Smith was in the news yesterday; apparently she made some film that’s now being released. This was important enough for CNN to have a featured article about it. Surprisingly the film was not produced by a Time Warner subsidiary. That’s yesterday’s news, you say? Don’t fret, the drama over her baby and babydaddy is prominently featured on all of today’s newsfeeds.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/30/MNGBEPI1371.DTL

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/01/MNGQUPIKI01.DTL

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/23/film.annanicole.lastrole.ap/index.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/01/entertainment/e100933D74.DTL

Naughty Little Nation States

2007-04-30T18:33:00.000-07:00

Beware China and Russia, the U.S. government has it's eye on you. And you too, Argentina, Chile, Egypt, India, Israel, Lebanon, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Venezuela. You are on notice. No longer will your piratic (the act of being a pirate) ways be tolerated. On Monday the White House put your bootlegging butts on our official piracy watch list.

Each year the White House is required to report to Congress concerning "problems American companies are facing around the world with copyright piracy, which they contend is costing them billions of dollars in lost sales annually." In the annual report, known as Special Report 301, the administration threw the smack down, saying "China has a special stake in upgrading its protection of intellectual property rights, given that its companies will be threatened by rampant copyright piracy as they increase their own innovation." Ohh, snap, China. Your piratical (I'm going to keep using it until it becomes an official O.E.D. certified word) actions are going to come back in bite you in the butt.

Bush & Co. then went on to pimp smack Thailand, stating they had "deteriorating protection for patents and copyrights." That's right, Thailand, how dare you feel the moral imperative to produce low-cost generic versions of AIDS medication. Not when my boys Phizer need to get paid.

Of course, Rohit Malpani, some crazy fool from Oxfam (this bunch of pie-eyed optimists who want to "find lasting solutions to poverty and injustice") stepped up and claimed that El Heffe Bush's report ignored "important international agreements signed by the U.S. government ... which clearly state that developing countries have the right to place public health and the public interest over intellectual property rules." Rules, schmooles. As poet laureates The Wu Tang Clan said "Cash Rules Everything Around Me." I'm pretty sure the extended cut of their hit song went on to include that the need for cash clearly necessitates ignoring ratified international treaties. And just in case that wasn't enough my homies the RIAA and the MPAA stepped up to defend what is the heart and soul of America, the lust for cash money.

Now I know that some of you half-educated fools may be thinking "Wait a hot minute, MatPat, didn't the U.S. routinely violate international copyright and patent rules to protect the nascent industrial foundation that America's current success was built on?"

Well, yeah, if you want to get technical about it, the U.S. definitely ignored all copy and patent rights until it financial suited us to obey them. But the thing you have to understand is that it's all different now.

"How so" you ask. Well clearly if my great-great grand pappy needed to get all piratical (admit it, the word is growing on you) and rip off dirty English dog Charles Dickens to make sure his Boston-based printing house was going to turn a buck, then that was ok. Now when Borris D. Russian or his friend Johnny Ukraine take my copy of "Baby Geniuses 2: Super Babies", crank out 10,000 bootleg copies and don't cut me in for a slice, that's when we have a problem.

I know you're probably getting all bleeding heart and thinking that most of the countries on the piracy watch list are all in various stages of transitioning to a market-based economy and that their nascent market-based industries need material that can guarantee them a profit, yet they often can't afford the absurdly high licensing fees that U.S. companies want to charge. Well tough...

Vinny Venezuela and Tammy Thai will just have to do without our excellently entertaining Baby Geniuses or life-saving Malaria medication.

I also know that some of you radical leftists (I got my eye on you Mr. White) may be suggesting that the U.S. should obey international law, craft new legislation that simplifies intellectual property rights to create a more manageable and equitable system that prioritizes life-saving and life-changing technology as well as the free and fast flow of culture for the betterment of the world citizenry, I got just one thing to say to that "Cash Rules Everything Around Me, C.R.E.A.M.,(get the money), dolla dolla bill y'all."

And if I had a second thing to say, it'd be that you'll have to pry my cash out of my cold, dead, cosmetically altered and well manicured due to my excessive royalty-funded-playboy-lifestyle, hands.

And if there was one last thing I had to say about it, if we don't protect copyrights then we're in danger of losing potentially-award-winning filmmakers like Fritz Sciascia. (of course maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing ever).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070430/ap_on_go_ot/copyright_piracy
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0704/S00538.htm
http://www.leedstoday.net/ViewArticle.aspx?sectionid=39&articleid=2840243
http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=134329
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/wu_tang/enter_wu/cream.wtg.txt

Wow, I sure predicted that!

2007-04-26T18:52:00.001-07:00

Jack Valenti died!

Every day becomes the Super Bowl – Let's rate commercials!

2007-04-22T22:37:00.000-07:00

With just one month left until what will no doubt be the most complicated upfront in the advertising world: commercial ratings, major players on each side of the table assembled and showed where they stand on this topic.

"I like commercial ratings. They make us look good," said ABC's sales chief, Mike Shaw.

"Commercial ratings are the beginning of a major overhaul in how we measure television content," said David Marans, exec VP of IAG Research.

"Let's build this brand called the upfront... there are things you can get in the upfront that you can't get anywhere else," said Home Depot CEO Roger Adams.

It seems like everybody is excited about the final arrival of this belated rating metric, because apparently the resources, know-how, technology and advertiser interest have been available for years.

"Program ratings are a dinosaur," Kellogg ad exec Andy Jung said, “they were useful for networks to determine what shows are hits but didn't help advertisers determine whether their commercials were working.” Group M Chief Investment Officer Rino Scanzoni, agreed that commercial ratings will become a big force this year and said an average of the commercial ratings, which as opposed to the traditional program ratings that have been the basis of media negotiations for decades, would be a sensible first step; after that, a gradual move to minute-by-minute and eventually second-by-second ratings will allow an advertiser to find out exactly how their spot did.

People who are concerned about the (lacking of) creativity of current TV ads, also believe the system the industry will get is a measurement that could “breathe life into the stagnating business of TV advertising”.

Proper commercial ratings -- the type that rate each individual spot, have the potential to reinvigorate creativity. Just as the TV buyer can call the seller after he or she receives the overnight ratings to discuss why a program isn't pulling the promised numbers, commercial ratings will give marketers a real insight into whether people actually want to watch their commercials. Marketers and their agencies will be able to see the exact drop off in viewers and compare that across different types of creative.

Commercial ratings are also seen as something beneficial the outsiders of TV ad sales and measurement, say ordinary audiences. We all would agree that nowadays there’re way too many commercials messages spewing forth and the most overt polluter causing the clutter is net work TV.

However, regardless of how well technology lets people avoid ads, consumers don't necessarily avoid ads they like -- and, as proved by YouTube and the Super Bowl, they'll actually seek them out. The problem is, consumers have been seeing far too many ads they don't like for far too long. Much like environmental pollution, commercial pollution proliferates because the economic incentives are flawed. The ugly truth is that the networks will gladly take the money and that unlikable ads can still sell product, especially if given sufficiently heavy weights.

Some say the new TV commercial ratings system may finally offer a partial solution.

It'll give networks a much stronger incentive to fix their business model and start charging variable rates to advertisers based on how much people like their ads. Better still, as a consumer-engagement tactic, consumers could vote on how well they like ads, "American Idol" style, knowing their votes will reward ads they like and punish the ones they find annoying.

Nevertheless, one major flaw in any theory about providing incentives for more likable ads is that even the most engaging ads may not overcome consumers' basic displeasure with ads interrupting what they're watching, said Charles Rutman, CEO of Havas' MPG. On one hand, the fact that Super Bowl ads were among the most-watched online videos the week after the game this year indicates that conventional TV ads can still find an audience, even when the audience can flee. On the other, TiVo data suggest most people fast-forward through whole commercial pods when they can, without discriminating much among the commercials.

In all, let's looking forward to the debut of the new commercial rating system and possible changes it may bring to the net-work TV programming as well as the advertising productions. Hopefully one day commercials will no longer be seen as "pollution", every day becomes Super Bowl.

Links:

Ad ratings to gain at upfront

Clutter Pollution Solution: Make 'Em Pay for Bad Ads

Commercial Ratings Could Spark a Creative Revolution

Is Imus' Firing Ethical?

2007-04-21T13:39:00.000-07:00

Don Imus should not have been fired the way that he was fired.

"San Bernardino-based KCAA-AM is planning to run the "Best of Imus"" (4) starting with the now infamous show that excited the national media. "Imus" drew an audience of 2 - 3.5 million and drew in approximately $44,000,000 in advertising revenue (1 and 3). In the aftermath of the show, Imus apologized for being "insensitive" (5). His apology was not enough to save him from firing but there is speculation that he may resurface on satellite radio (2 and 3). One has to ask why this happened now when, "for more than 30 years," (4) Imus' show was, "dogged by allegations of racism, homophobia, misogyny and other crimes against common sense" (4).

After Imus' offensive comments on April 16th, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others called for his firing (3). "The firestorm of complaints and protests from civil rights activists became so deafening that advertisers started to listen. Proctor and Gamble, General Motors, Sprint, Nextel, and American Express pulled their commercials from Imus in the Morning and CBS Radio had no other option but to dump Don Imus" (3).

CBS Radio had another option - to not dump Don Imus.

The reason the media say that there was no other option is related to the desire to make money from the show and pander to advertisers. The Imus show had a two part format. One part was shock-jock style and the other part was serious interviews with journalists or politicians. Guests on the Imus show included Tim Russert (Meet the Press), Jeff Greenfield (CNN Senior Analyst), Frank Rich (NYT Columnist), Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune Columnist), David Brooks (NYT Columnist) and Bob Schieffer (CBS Newsman) (1). Mike Wallace is on the record as saying that Imus' show was a forum for reaching necessary audiences, important people and for advancing recognition in influential circles (1). To some this would suggest the importance of the Imus show.

Based on this, the firing of Don Imus was not an ethical decision - It was a cash driven decision. If there are any ethics to be discovered in this whole story it is the conviction with which the civil rights activists stuck to their belief that what Don Imus said was wrong and that he should be punished. Why this was not a successful endeavor in the past, I don't know, but persistence has paid off in this case - after 30 years. Imus did not manage to dodge the "allegations of racism..."(4) this time.

The sickening part of the affair is the ease with which CBS can assert its belief in the extremity of Imus' comments on this occassion after employing him (and his material) for more than 30 years. MSNBC (A GE unit(2)) apologized and fired Imus from his 10 year simulcast (2). One must wonder if they noticed what was going on at Imus' show for the last 10 and 30 years!

I suggest that the Don Imus Show, CBS and MSNBC should have stayed the course. Instead of bowing to the power of advertisers' cash they should have continued airing the Imus Show without any revenue. All of the civil rights activists and the basketball team and others could have been invited to meet/discuss/criticize Don Imus, CBS and MSNBC on the air. Imagine how much discussion and progressive ideas might be aired without any advertising breaks!
I dare to suggest that the civil rights activists who (presumably) influenced the powerful advertisers to abandon ship, would have agreed to the continuation of the Imus Show in this suggested format. Don Imus might have actually come out good (perhaps changed), not to mention CBS and MSNBC. (Surely they can afford to lose some advertising revenue for the betterment of society while gaining popularity). There could be room for discussion about allowing advertisers back into the format at the right time. "In fact, none of the advertisers who jumped the Imus in the Morning Ship ruled out coming back after the storm had blown over" (3).

So I say that Don Imus' firing was not ethical. He should have been "sentenced" to continuing his show in the outlined format and his superiors at CBS and MSNBC should have been "sentenced" to compulsory appearances on the show.

1. http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/04/13/01?

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/business/13imus.html?ex=1192075200&en=

3. http://www.actressarchives.com/news.php?id=5131

4. http://sodahead.com/poll/1463/?promo=IMUSBACK&gclid=CKPjjp7S1IsCFSAcYAodM

5. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036713

Junk-Food-Ads, Time to Stop!

2007-04-14T11:22:00.000-07:00

Complains and critiques about the prevailing junk-food advertising on TV have increased over years. One of the most serious problems those commercials have caused is a rise of child obesity. Food and drink with a high sugar, salt and fat content is more often advertised on TV than healthier food and beverage, which is believed to influence the eating habits of a great number of children and adolescents and lead to many of their health problems..

A report found kids are exposed to about 18,000 ads a year on average and that slightly more than a third, or 34 percent of those ads, are for candy and snack foods. Another 28 percent were for cereal and 10 percent were for fast food. A smaller portion of the ads were for dairy products and fruit juices.

As adults who care about healthy diets, we may be “immune” to the triple cheese burgers or strawberry flavored soda shown again and again on the television. However, our kids, especially those between nine to fifteen years old, are usually so overwhelmed by the junk food advertising that would only want to eat and drink what they’ve seen on TV. Nowadays, when parents are getting busier in work, kids are often given lunch money which they are very likely to spend on “super-sized” fast food, sodas and snacks.

The latest numbers from the federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscore the growing problem of childhood obesity in the United States show that nearly 14 percent of 2- to 5-year-olds were obese in 2004, the latest figures available, up from 5 percent in 1980. The figure was 17.4 percent for teens, up from 5 percent.

There has been effort put in fighting against the junk-food-ad on TV. The Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood have pressed the federal government for stricter regulations and cheered on individuals who filed lawsuits against particular companies for their high-fat food. In UK, Ofcom's new regulations came into force in which companies would no longer be able to advertise food and drink with a high sugar, salt or fat content during shows aimed at four to nine- year-olds.

Why are there so many junk-food-ads cramming our TV screens while very few ads about healthy nutritious food can be seen? Suppose that only “junk” food which is considered unhealthy by nature needs advertising because otherwise nobody will buy it; then can we conclusion that if we ban all the junk-food-ads (granting that we are able to define what is “junk” food), people will not be “influenced” by those ads or “attracted” to those products, so their shopping baskets will be automatically full of un-advertised (unknown) healthy and nutritious stuffs from now on.

Of course the hypothesis above is problematic and everybody knows it is not happening in the real life. One reason why an undeniablely great proportion of the population in this country are fond of those so-called junk food and inclined to feed themselves and their kids with those high fat/sugar food and drinks, is that they are already “brainwashed” by those famous brands and images and their stomach as well as minds are already used to them. Furthermore, children are even less rational than adults when they choose what to eat and drink; if they are hooked by McDonald’s Big Mac, they are not going to have a salad instead just because they do not see the golden “M” on TV anymore. So I would say that we need to ban (at least restrict)the junk-food-ads on television, but at the same time we need to have more healthy and nutritious food/drink advertised and exposed to the public in order to compensate the “damage” that junk-food has made. We will have to encourage the healthy food brands to come to media and promote healthier eating habits and life styles in the society. And hopefully this will put pressure on the food industry, especially fast food industry, to improve the quality of their products rather than just adjust marketing strategies.

LONDON (AdAge.com) -- The recent U.K. ban on TV junk-food ads aimed at children younger than 16 will be extended to magazines, the internet, newspapers, billboards and cinema.

Junk-Food-Ad, time to stop!

Links:

http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/The-Role-Of-Media-in-Childhood-Obesity.pdf

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=junk-food-advertising-ban--not-strict-enough-&method=full&objectid=18845788&siteid=50082-name_page.html

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/27/news/companies/kaiserchildren_tvads/index.htm?postversion=2007032810

The Greatest Story Ever Sold?

2007-04-10T14:48:00.000-07:00

In recent years, Iran and its relations with the West has captivated governments, citizens, and the media worldwide since, in an era of US-lead overseas military ventures, the world asked: where does the US want to pick its next fight?

Iran's uranium enrichment efforts, which the US and British governments fear signifies the initial stage of a nuclear weapons program, has been the main draw. The US alleges that Iran sponsors international terrorism, notably assisting insurgents in Iraq and Hamas in Lebanon, and regards with fear the non-acknowledgment of the State of Israel expressed in alleged comments made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Less publicly, the US has strategic reasons for fearing an Iranian nuclear power, which would alter the balance of power in the Middle East, potentially encourage other neighboring countries to develop nuclear capabilities, and further weaken US power in the region. Such fears culminated on 31st July 2006 in a resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council demanding that Iran immediately suspend its nuclear activities. In spite of this, despite citing no evidence to support his claims, on 9th April 2007, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Iran now has the capabilities to produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale.

Against this backdrop, a tense diplomatic episode recently flared up between Britain and Iran over the capture by the latter on 23rd March of fifteen British sailors, who had been undertaking a routine inspection in the Persian Gulf. Until the sailors' eventual release on 5th April, events magnified fears of an escalation. Some reports in the media alleged that the sailors could face charges of espionage if Iran found that the sailors had been caught in Iranian (not Iraqi, as the UK Royal Navy claimed) waters and were smuggling cars into Iraq. The treatment of the sailors by Iran was also questioned, especially after video footage aired on Iranian television showing crewman Nathan Summers saying "I would like to apologize for entering your waters without any permission ... I deeply apologize", held by many Western observers to be a forced confession. However, the tension immediately relaxed upon the sailors' release, thirteen days later. Following the release, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "We bear you [Iran] no ill will”. The episode was over.

Or so most thought. Now, a fierce media debate has arisen. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) had decided to allow the sailors involved in the incident to sell their stories to the press, deciding that “exceptional circumstances” has permitted the Ministry to lift its usual ban on such payments. Seaman Faye Turney appeared on ITV1's high-profile Trevor MacDonald television program and also sold her story to the Murdoch-owned Sun newspaper for a six-figure (in British pounds) sum. Now, strategic concerns aside, a passionate debate has arisen over whether or not it is ethical for participants in such an episode to financially profit from their experiences. Opposition politicians questioned the MoD's decision, calling it undignified; Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague announced he would be bringing the issue to be questioned by the House of Commons. Meanwhile, Mike Aston, whose son was killed by a mob in Iraq in 2003, told the BBC “It beggars belief... [T]o actually go round and sell their story I think is tacky and sordid”. Admiral Sir Alan West, former head of the Royal Navy, said “I would have refused [to allow the stories to be sold to the media]”. Meanwhile, the MoD responded by saying “It is a fact that the media have been making direct contact with the families and offering them significant sums of money - this is not something that the Navy and the MoD have any control over”.

The issue is far from simple. Even the MoD, whose decision sparked the controversy, has now placed a temporary ban on all military personnel, including those involved in the Iran affair, selling their stories to the media until a review of the issue has been completed. So, what conclusions can be arrived at? Seeing as selling one's story to the press is common practice, under what conditions, if any, should such practice be prohibited? Once financial compensation becomes a motivating issue for bringing facts or experiences to the media, does this raise too big a danger of such messages being distorted by the financial incentive to deliver?

In a perfect world, human sources of information, whose sole interest would be in benefiting the public, would have no hurdles in freely passing their knowledge to the media. However, in practice, compensation is often in the public good. Sources might not care about the public benefit and might need an incentive to talk to the media. This would be especially true when hurdles, such as public or peer embarrassment, might otherwise seem too large to overcome. There may also be situations where releasing certain information might result in great financial cost, something which payment would compensate. Sources might also use financial rewards to benefit charity or other worthy causes related to the relevant story. In the case of the British sailors, some of the sailors have stated that any money gained from selling their story will go to a charity benefiting military personnel.

Any situation involving both media and money, however, needs careful scrutiny. Allowing compensation in all cases could create motivation for exaggerating, or even inventing, one's story to facilitate a greater payout. Being seen to be motivated by money, and not some 'higher' cause, to speak to the press might also tarnish the reputation of a group or organization to which the source belongs. Moreover, financial reward might incentivize a source to act antisocially, causing harm to one's family, peers, or organization. On the media's side, competition for sources through bidding wars might create unfair access to information that should be available to any press outlet. If such an outlet were to continually benefit from outpricing its competitors, such competitors might be forced to exit the market, resulting in a steady decline into monopoly, thus removing the original benefits of market-based media. Bidding wars might also facilitate other entities becoming involved by, for example, giving a large sum of money to a newspaper to pay for information beneficial to the paying entity.

Rather than attempting to eliminate financial payouts to sources of information, a virtually impossible task and one that is not necessarily desirable, the media industry watchdogs might consider a more comprehensive set of guidelines that outline certain situations where compensation would be inappropriate. For example, should somebody receive payment if they represent an organization in the story they are telling and to whom should the money go: the organization or the individual? The idea of a pricing cap could also be a viable idea, especially in ensuring that sources receive compensation for their efforts but that media outlets cannot engage in bidding wars to drive competitors from the market.

The MoD's 180-degree turns in the Iran affair indicate that right now, at least in Britain, such rules have not been fully agreed upon. However, with enough potential pitfalls for financial compensation to interfere with fairness and accuracy, the issue must receive regulatory attention as soon as possible.

-----------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/world/middleeast/23cnd-basra.html?ex=1332302400&en=3e01dccd64a98831&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19353&Cr=iran&Cr1=
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6538957.stm?ls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6537103.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6538921.stm

Networks Without Pity

2007-04-09T09:56:00.000-07:00

For the last few years user-generated content has been the hot buzz in the industry. But what exactly is user-generated content, how does it differ from traditional content, and what ethics bind producer and broadcaster?

YouTube is often hailed as the benchmark for user-generated content. After Google's acquisition of YouTube for 1.65 billion in Google stock, pundits pointed to YouTube as an example of how one could successfully monetize user-generated content, this is despite the fact that YouTube gains much of its popularity by rebroadcasting clips of traditionally produced content. It's also been overlooked that Google paid for the company with shares of it's own stock not liquid funds. So as long as Google stays profitable (which is a crap shoot since only one of their products, AdSense, has proven to generate income) then the bought-out YouTubers will be able to dump their stock for actual funds, but should Google tank for any number of reasons then YouTube will have been bought for the equivalent of a couple of buttons and a pocketful of lint. And thus the only "profitable" version of user-generated content will have been busted.

What exactly though is "user-generated content"? It seems fairly logical and easy to say that any amateur produced content would fall under this heading, but when does someone move from amateur to professional? On CurrentTv users can post content that, if highly praised by their peers and the site sponsors, can earn them up to fifty-thousand dollars. Would someone who earns this amount automatically be classified as a professional or as a lucky windfall reciepient?

One of the biggest issues is obviously how this content is monetized. Is it ethical for successful networks such as VH1 to make a profit off the work of unpaid users? Currently VH1 runs AcceptableTV, a show where five staff generated shorts and one user-generated short are shown each week. Clearly involving the user-generated aspect is great synergy for VH1, it simultaneously allows them to scout for new talent, fill a programing void, reduce costs, and advertise to a viewer base that is personally attached to a show that might air their content.

Some would argue that as long as viewers are willingly submitting their content than there is no real issue if the corporation decides to pocket all net income, but to carry that argument to an extreme would be to say that an employer can decide to treat an employee in a manner they so desire and it's perfectly acceptable for the employee to be under-paid and abused as long as the employee continues to remain an employee. Of course our society has enacted employee's rights legislation to prevent this abuse. Similarly shouldn't there be a users' bill of rights? Maybe, maybe not. But clearly most users would feel that they should be compensated if a lucrative corporation was going to further profit off of their hard work.

This issue has recently come to a head in Bravo's acquisition of the website Television Without Pity. Previously TWoP's reviewers had been paid the scant wages of $100 per write-up for their reviews. This was largely because TWoP was a start-up where most employees were largely working for what is euphemistacally termed "the love of the game." Once acquired by Bravo the writers were shoced to see that Bravo intended to keep the meager payscale in tact. The writers balked at this stating "It's one thing to make very little money when you're working for a startup, but there's no reason we should be paid these rates when we're at-will employees of a big corporation." (Bravo is part of media giant NBC Universal)." Is Bravo ethically bound to provide it's new employees with a better payscale? What's the incentive for Bravo? Theoretically there are always more writers who will do the job just for the elusive chance to break into the industry. Throughout entertainment the industry largely subsides on the backs of unpaid interns and low-wage PAs.

Surely if I want to make a video and share it with friends through a website the website has a right to use my material to recoup the cost of running the site. But if my material starts to earn a profit for that website above and beyond the cost of hosting my video shouldn't I receive a portion of those earnings? Maybe, but what about the risk the site is taking by hosting hundreds of unprofitable videos.

Broadcasters can always hide behind the shield of the financial risk they endure. Basically if users want to earn better treatment and representation the only choice would be to band together in union solidarity. Thus they'd be able to demand equitable profit sharring for their labors. Of course there will always be people at the bottom willing to step in and do a job for less

USER-GENERATED CONTENT CREATORS OF THE WORLD -- UNITE!!!

or not...

Of course there will always be people at the bottom willing to step in and do a job for less (or nothing). That way Chevy and other brands can stay hip with their youth-targeted user-generated ads while also saving money by not paying unionized copywriters, directors, crew, and editors a living wage. Ultimately though there are thousands of businesses that profit from user-generated content whether it's YouTube videos, Amazon's customer reviews, and even Blogger, which is all to happy to allow users to embed AdSense in their blogs.

**Thank you to all the wonderful and uncompensated users who generated the visual products used to enhance my content found through a simple Google Image search for "Monkey Fight."

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/04/big-media-companies-like-are.php
http://www.currenttv.com/faq#pods
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/9197.asp
http://mindblogging.typepad.com/whataconcept/user_generated_content/index.html
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=111806

Ahoy, thar be mp3s ahead!

2007-04-02T18:53:00.000-07:00

The ethics of downloading music online have been hotly debated since such a thing was a feasible option. Gone are the halcyon days of Napster when any song or album you wanted could be had with a simple search and a click. Gone are the slightly less ideal post-Napster days when a throng of imitators still allowed one to trade music in exchange for a few popup ads at best and a virus infestation at worst. The more music was being downloaded and the more the record companies threw a fit, the less fun we all had on the internet. Now, we pay for our music downloads; most people use the near-monopolistic iTunes while a few people use other services such as the new and dubiously improved Napster. Buying CDs is nearly out of the question as the price of an average new release nears $20. Naturally, there are a few music pirates left out there, but to divulge our…I mean their sources would be unwise. (Editor’s note: I download to try, when I like something, I do put my money where my mouth is. Usually.)

Things are about to change again. While legitimately downloaded music tracks are a relative bargain at a dollar or so a song, the technical limitations are quite a burden. For example, if you don’t use an iPod you can’t download songs from iTunes which is the biggest online music store, period. For my own musical entertainment, I use a petrified Dell Digital Jukebox and I couldn’t be happier with it, however the avenues for getting legitimate music are limited. Not anymore! Apple and EMI have struck a deal wherein EMI songs will be slightly more expensive on iTunes but will be much more easily shared, effectively removing the DRM (digital rights management) technology which is currently responsible for the technical limitations. To compensate for the price increase, the track quality will also improve. I predict that other major labels will soon follow suit, naturally choosing to sign up with iTunes first and possibly putting the final nail in the coffin of other online music vendors. Nonetheless, this is a step in the right direction.

Digital Rights Management really took a sour turn when Sony began releasing CDs with an invasive anti-piracy software that installed itself when all you wanted to do was listen to a track or two. There didn’t have to be any sharing or downloading afoot, Sony took the preemptive step to install this software in a manner that hackers use to spread viruses. People who bought these Sony CDs couldn’t even put them on their own iPods, as the anti-piracy software blocked the compatibility. The number of copies one could make of the disc was limited, but at what cost? And what happened if you didn’t want the software?

One user “found that traditional methods of uninstalling the program would not work, and that attempts at removing it corrupted the files needed to operate his computer's CD player, rendering it useless.”

The maker of the software is now making patches available that make it possible to remove the offending program, but people’s privacy has already been violated.

Are these efforts working? In a word: no. The New York Times reports, “Peer-to-peer networks yielded five billion downloads in 2006, whereas 509 million songs were downloaded from iTunes-style services.”

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/02/BUGR3P05BC5.DTL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/AR2005110202362.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/technology/02drill.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1175565103-yOOVmCnWk5Uu3v5TKOJzHQ

(If I got some of the technical stuff about iPods and iTunes wrong, please let me know. I use neither.)

would the real "Big Brother" please stand up?

2007-03-23T16:12:00.000-07:00

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

Sex Sells!

2007-03-15T14:53:00.000-07:00

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

Leave Cartoons Alone!

2007-03-13T11:08:00.000-07:00

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

Democracy—cragged but never given up

2007-03-13T00:37:00.000-07:00

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

Big Brother: We are watching you

2007-03-11T13:47:00.000-07:00

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.

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

(you won't bother to check. They could be anything. They could be porn)

Thank you for NOT smoking!

2007-03-09T21:37:00.000-08:00

Anti-smoking activists are unleashing a major grass-roots campaign on the motion-picture industry and TV broadcasters to keep smoking out of the reach of children. Claiming that Hollywood recruits approximately 390,000 kids a year to start smoking—and provides nearly $4 billion a year in free plugs for tobacco—the “Screen Out” program calls for an R rating on movies with smoking, unless the content “clearly and unambiguously reflects the dangers and consequences of tobacco use or is necessary to represent smoking of a real historical figure”; requires producers to certify that there were no paid-for tobacco plugs in the film; demands that anti-smoking PSAs precede any film depicting tobacco use; and would no longer allow tobacco-brand identification.

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, Hollywood 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

Hail to the King of the Air waves

2007-03-08T20:12:00.000-08:00

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

Pigtails and Porn

2007-03-03T15:40:00.000-08:00

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

TV getting too violent?

2007-02-26T23:10:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-25T14:10:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-22T11:57:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-16T15:02:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-15T16:27:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-11T17:21:00.000-08:00

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?

2007-02-10T08:27:00.000-08:00

"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

2007-02-07T00:45:00.000-08:00

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?

2007-02-06T10:30:00.000-08:00

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