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
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Facebook;
More Questions than Answers
"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
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?
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
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Distrust
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
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!
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
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
Monday, May 7, 2007
Oh no, the planet's getting warmer, thank god for air conditioning!
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
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?
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
