Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Thursday, May 22, 2008
ipod touch
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”.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Microsoft Joins the One Laptop Per Child Project
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
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
CAPITALISM THROUGH COMMUNICATIONS AND CONSUMERISM? A LOOK AT THE NEW CUBA.
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
Monday, March 31, 2008
Comparing Taiwan and the U.S.’s media of the overall reporting perspectives on Taiwan’s presidential election
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
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
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Chinese News Regulation
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
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
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The Interpretation of Cuban Leader Changing in the US and China
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
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
Kosovo announced its independence to the whole world on February 17th, 2007. Kosovo, once an autonomous province of former
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
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
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
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?”
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Fred Thompson Airs Political Face-Slap During Youtube Debates
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
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
Recording artist mogul Prince moved to sue three popular websites which distribute pictures and video clips of him. Although these websites are technically distributing unlicensed images of him, they are doing so for no profit, and are "fan sites" which exist solely to praise and promote Prince. Naturally, there are two sides to this argument, and both sides are significantly extensive.
First, one issue to consider is a matter of ownership. Prince legally owns the rights to copyrighted photos and videos. Is this right? To argue on Prince's behalf, he invested a significant amount of effort into creating these photos. Not only did he pose or perform, but he also arranged for the cameraman to film, and orchestrated the entire production. In a sense, most of these images can be thought of as products, since they are available for purchase at Prince's official website. So, it is a natural argument that Prince should own the rights to his own
product.
However, to play devil's advocate, there needs to be something said for the rights of the fans to enjoy Prince. If I wish to make a website to celebrate Prince's life and his music, it would be quite barebones if I had to display only pictures I took, myself. Therefore, I would conclude that it is right for Prince to own the rights to his own works, however, it is wrong for Prince to have 100% control over the distribution of these works, especially in the case of not-for-profit transactions.
Moving on, another issue which can be brought up for debate is that of restricting public access to the media. Prince went so far as to sue fan websites for displaying pictures of Prince-oriented tattoos and Prince-oriented license plates. This brings up an interesting concept- if one can outlaw the unrestricted printing of one's logo, anywhere, then how is fair media reporting, possible? Conceivably, Prince could walk around wearing a giant sign of his logo, and then sue the paparazzi for taking and publishing his picture. Naturally, that is a ridiculous notion, so one must ponder exactly where to draw the line.
At this point in time, I can only suggest possible solutions for this conundrum. Perhaps it would be best to treat a logo in a similar manner in which the law treats recorded songs. In other words, restrict the direct sharing of the logo, but allow a drawing of that logo to be shared, not unlike how cover songs are considered legal to record and perfom. Though this might work, the best solution is undoubtedly a full aand regular review of the way copyright law is viewed in regards to the Internet. Naturally, it is easy to see how copyright law can be fully outdated, despite efforts to keep up with the constantly dynamic Internet.
If Prince's goal was to anger millions of fans, then he certainly succeeded. This may be a horrible career move from the gentleman who already purposefully alienated himself from his record company and his distributors. However, if Prince was attempting to show the world the faultiness of modern logo protection, and chose to do this by playing the "bad guy," then his experiment could be considered a success, as the courts are now paying ample attention to his case.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html
First, one issue to consider is a matter of ownership. Prince legally owns the rights to copyrighted photos and videos. Is this right? To argue on Prince's behalf, he invested a significant amount of effort into creating these photos. Not only did he pose or perform, but he also arranged for the cameraman to film, and orchestrated the entire production. In a sense, most of these images can be thought of as products, since they are available for purchase at Prince's official website. So, it is a natural argument that Prince should own the rights to his own
product.
However, to play devil's advocate, there needs to be something said for the rights of the fans to enjoy Prince. If I wish to make a website to celebrate Prince's life and his music, it would be quite barebones if I had to display only pictures I took, myself. Therefore, I would conclude that it is right for Prince to own the rights to his own works, however, it is wrong for Prince to have 100% control over the distribution of these works, especially in the case of not-for-profit transactions.
Moving on, another issue which can be brought up for debate is that of restricting public access to the media. Prince went so far as to sue fan websites for displaying pictures of Prince-oriented tattoos and Prince-oriented license plates. This brings up an interesting concept- if one can outlaw the unrestricted printing of one's logo, anywhere, then how is fair media reporting, possible? Conceivably, Prince could walk around wearing a giant sign of his logo, and then sue the paparazzi for taking and publishing his picture. Naturally, that is a ridiculous notion, so one must ponder exactly where to draw the line.
At this point in time, I can only suggest possible solutions for this conundrum. Perhaps it would be best to treat a logo in a similar manner in which the law treats recorded songs. In other words, restrict the direct sharing of the logo, but allow a drawing of that logo to be shared, not unlike how cover songs are considered legal to record and perfom. Though this might work, the best solution is undoubtedly a full aand regular review of the way copyright law is viewed in regards to the Internet. Naturally, it is easy to see how copyright law can be fully outdated, despite efforts to keep up with the constantly dynamic Internet.
If Prince's goal was to anger millions of fans, then he certainly succeeded. This may be a horrible career move from the gentleman who already purposefully alienated himself from his record company and his distributors. However, if Prince was attempting to show the world the faultiness of modern logo protection, and chose to do this by playing the "bad guy," then his experiment could be considered a success, as the courts are now paying ample attention to his case.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html
Monday, December 17, 2007
Are you my mother?: Weaning kids off technology’s breast milk.
Darren Waters writes an article on the “$100 laptop could sell to public” on the BBC website. Darren later attaches a blog apologizing for the “misspoken statement” made by the executive of OLPC organization (One Laptop Per Child) to sell the computer to the public. PR at OLPC said the executive misspoke and that it was only a possibility, not a guarantee, to sell the laptop to the public.
Who cares about a silly mishap with words…why aren’t we commenting on the quote made by chief connectivity officer Michalis Bletsas, that his hope is “that the laptop project would help children enrich their lives to the extent that one day they could become consumers of they will one day become consumers of the types of technologies on display in Las Vegas.”
So the goal of the OLPC organization is to produce young consumers who will eventually buy more stuff? What happened to the idea of “enriching their lives” and the educational impact on these children in developing countries? If this organization stands for expanding education in developing countries, they sure have a consumerist way of showing it.
Mr. Bletsas also comments that “it will stimulate their interest in looking further- not waiting for some teacher or adult.” Mr. Bletsas completely downplays the role of the parent, giving the child full reign with their new $176 dollar laptop. Bletsas wants them to look further, look further into what? How will they know what to look for without the direction of a teacher or role model to influence their decision making? I am arguing to give children all the answers to the quiz, but adults need to be there to provide the right scantron to take the quiz. Nor am I arguing that all parents are geniuses, but I think that the participation of parents, teachers and role models should not be undermined when it comes to technology.
These children who are “connected” will have a lot of information at their fingertips, their brains are vulnerable, alive, and bright, but it is up to us as the “adult” to guide children.
It’s not about whether children have the technology or not but it is about what they do with that technology; how do they truly use it as a resource. A child could have all the technology in the world, but if you use it on gaming and chatting, are you truly “enriching your life?” Parents of the internet addicted teens would disagree.
I’m sure Mr. Bletsas would have a difficult time using the same argument in relation to the kids at the South Korean internet addicted boot camp.
This is where the parents come in. any medium can be constructive and educational for kids, but it is how the parent shapes that learning that is important. Take TV, would Mr. Bletsas make the same comments about TV “stimulating their interest to look further”? Without the parent’s involvement and participation, we don’t know what that kid could be watching. It’s the same idea with internet, it’s about participating in their learning.
Martin Flacker writes about a boot camp in Korea for internet addicted teens in the New York Times article titled “In Korea, a Boot Camp Cure for Web Obsession.” He writes about the boot camp “Jump Up Internet Rescue School” where young teenage boys in South Korea go to beat their internet addiction. “One participant, Lee Chang-hoon, 15, began using the computer to pass the time while his parents were working and he was home alone. He said he quickly came to prefer the virtual world, where he seemed to enjoy more success and popularity than in the real one. He spent 17 hours a day online, mostly looking at Japanese comics and playing a combat role-playing game called Sudden Attack. He played all night, and skipped school two or three times a week to catch up on sleep.” The children get no sense of participation and involvement of the parents. This article begs the question: Where are the parents? There is a lack of parental responsibility going on. They are living in their parent’s home, and at no time did the parent say, “No, you don’t get to use the computer because you have been on it all day” or “I’m worried about your physical activity.”
The theme of these articles is very simple: the importance of parental involvement or lack thereof. Technology can advance at the speed of light, but technology alone is not going to enrich children’s lives, I think it still takes a village for that.
References:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/intels-approach-to-laptops-for-poor-children/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18rehab.html?pagewanted=2&bl&ei=5087&en=7857a1f63763a21e&ex=1195707600
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6246989.stm
Who cares about a silly mishap with words…why aren’t we commenting on the quote made by chief connectivity officer Michalis Bletsas, that his hope is “that the laptop project would help children enrich their lives to the extent that one day they could become consumers of they will one day become consumers of the types of technologies on display in Las Vegas.”
So the goal of the OLPC organization is to produce young consumers who will eventually buy more stuff? What happened to the idea of “enriching their lives” and the educational impact on these children in developing countries? If this organization stands for expanding education in developing countries, they sure have a consumerist way of showing it.
Mr. Bletsas also comments that “it will stimulate their interest in looking further- not waiting for some teacher or adult.” Mr. Bletsas completely downplays the role of the parent, giving the child full reign with their new $176 dollar laptop. Bletsas wants them to look further, look further into what? How will they know what to look for without the direction of a teacher or role model to influence their decision making? I am arguing to give children all the answers to the quiz, but adults need to be there to provide the right scantron to take the quiz. Nor am I arguing that all parents are geniuses, but I think that the participation of parents, teachers and role models should not be undermined when it comes to technology.
These children who are “connected” will have a lot of information at their fingertips, their brains are vulnerable, alive, and bright, but it is up to us as the “adult” to guide children.
It’s not about whether children have the technology or not but it is about what they do with that technology; how do they truly use it as a resource. A child could have all the technology in the world, but if you use it on gaming and chatting, are you truly “enriching your life?” Parents of the internet addicted teens would disagree.
I’m sure Mr. Bletsas would have a difficult time using the same argument in relation to the kids at the South Korean internet addicted boot camp.
This is where the parents come in. any medium can be constructive and educational for kids, but it is how the parent shapes that learning that is important. Take TV, would Mr. Bletsas make the same comments about TV “stimulating their interest to look further”? Without the parent’s involvement and participation, we don’t know what that kid could be watching. It’s the same idea with internet, it’s about participating in their learning.
Martin Flacker writes about a boot camp in Korea for internet addicted teens in the New York Times article titled “In Korea, a Boot Camp Cure for Web Obsession.” He writes about the boot camp “Jump Up Internet Rescue School” where young teenage boys in South Korea go to beat their internet addiction. “One participant, Lee Chang-hoon, 15, began using the computer to pass the time while his parents were working and he was home alone. He said he quickly came to prefer the virtual world, where he seemed to enjoy more success and popularity than in the real one. He spent 17 hours a day online, mostly looking at Japanese comics and playing a combat role-playing game called Sudden Attack. He played all night, and skipped school two or three times a week to catch up on sleep.” The children get no sense of participation and involvement of the parents. This article begs the question: Where are the parents? There is a lack of parental responsibility going on. They are living in their parent’s home, and at no time did the parent say, “No, you don’t get to use the computer because you have been on it all day” or “I’m worried about your physical activity.”
The theme of these articles is very simple: the importance of parental involvement or lack thereof. Technology can advance at the speed of light, but technology alone is not going to enrich children’s lives, I think it still takes a village for that.
References:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/intels-approach-to-laptops-for-poor-children/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18rehab.html?pagewanted=2&bl&ei=5087&en=7857a1f63763a21e&ex=1195707600
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6246989.stm
“Can I get a non fat grande novel with no whip please?!”
While some people may argue the timeline that books have, the reality is that books will not go away because of the technology we have. Books gratify a different need then a computer screen, books can be categorized as a leisure activity. While a computer screen could be argued to be a leisure activity, the elements of the computer are not the same as a book. William Powers tells “On the Media” that a book requires the reader to use their hands more, “the hands are telling the brain where you are, how much further you have to go, and so forth.” According to Powers, paper- based, or close to it, is here to stay.
People are still reading books, they are just not going through the traditional way of the library or bookstore, but they are fusing two mediums, the Internet and books, in order to be more effective and convenient.
The invention of the car comes to mind: did people stop walking when Ford came around? No, people do both, it is just another addition to the repertoire.
Sara Nelson argues her point on NPR that there are too many books. But isn't that the point of digitizing, to have a lot of information available to you? Can there be such a thing as too many books? I think so, but we have to filter out what we can to find what we need.
Jonathon band, a professor at Georgetown Univ. Law center does make a strong point that Google allows for those books that are hidden in a huge school library to make it easier to access these diamonds in the ruff for students on a search for resources and references. The sampling debate rises out of this example and makes a case where sampling can be viewed in a positive light. The sampling does not show the entire book, but just enough to either help you in your research or to go out and buy a fresh paper copy yourself. Sampling in the case of books, drives the sales of books so that the reader will want to buy it at their local Borders.
The small bookstores are few and far between, being taken over by media conglomerates. While it may seem unfair to the small bookstore owner, technology is making books more readily accessible.
Jonathon bland claims that Google’s library search will make books more relevant or relative, a book is only worth anything if it is on Google library or Oprah’s book club. Our society is at the point where we don’t take the time to search ourselves, we just take what’s popular from Google and Oprah; what these media conglomerates are telling us we should read. If we go to back to Sara Nelson’s argument on the overabundance of books, then these popular filters perpetuate the ideas in our culture, because this is the book critic we use when deciding what to read.
Some authors claim that Google should have to pay for the books that they use in their library. With this debate, we fall back into copyright, but being that the library falls under “fair use” doctrine, Lessig discusses this type of use of the Internet media. It is used as a promotional tool for that book, and if the person wants more information, they have to buy the entire book. People may not necessarily settle for an electronic copy if they are interested in the book. Books are a collection of who you are, and downloading it to your favorites is not the same as collecting the books you love.
We are a culture of speed and convenience, and the new digital book called Kindle creates a light and accessible way to read something that is “book-like.” Bob Garfield interviews the vice president of research for E-ink, Michael McCreary who says that this new E book will have a real pigment of ink and actual books. The product is called the Kindle and it is a digital book. The digital memory can hold numerous books, and the battery life can last as long as five hours.
New technology, like the Espresso Book Machine is advancing the print of books and the speed of printing. Out of print books is no longer an option with this machine that can print any book in seconds.
As our new technology continues to progress forward, books still find a way to hold on to the coat tails of technological advances.
People are still reading books, they are just not going through the traditional way of the library or bookstore, but they are fusing two mediums, the Internet and books, in order to be more effective and convenient.
The invention of the car comes to mind: did people stop walking when Ford came around? No, people do both, it is just another addition to the repertoire.
Sara Nelson argues her point on NPR that there are too many books. But isn't that the point of digitizing, to have a lot of information available to you? Can there be such a thing as too many books? I think so, but we have to filter out what we can to find what we need.
Jonathon band, a professor at Georgetown Univ. Law center does make a strong point that Google allows for those books that are hidden in a huge school library to make it easier to access these diamonds in the ruff for students on a search for resources and references. The sampling debate rises out of this example and makes a case where sampling can be viewed in a positive light. The sampling does not show the entire book, but just enough to either help you in your research or to go out and buy a fresh paper copy yourself. Sampling in the case of books, drives the sales of books so that the reader will want to buy it at their local Borders.
The small bookstores are few and far between, being taken over by media conglomerates. While it may seem unfair to the small bookstore owner, technology is making books more readily accessible.
Jonathon bland claims that Google’s library search will make books more relevant or relative, a book is only worth anything if it is on Google library or Oprah’s book club. Our society is at the point where we don’t take the time to search ourselves, we just take what’s popular from Google and Oprah; what these media conglomerates are telling us we should read. If we go to back to Sara Nelson’s argument on the overabundance of books, then these popular filters perpetuate the ideas in our culture, because this is the book critic we use when deciding what to read.
Some authors claim that Google should have to pay for the books that they use in their library. With this debate, we fall back into copyright, but being that the library falls under “fair use” doctrine, Lessig discusses this type of use of the Internet media. It is used as a promotional tool for that book, and if the person wants more information, they have to buy the entire book. People may not necessarily settle for an electronic copy if they are interested in the book. Books are a collection of who you are, and downloading it to your favorites is not the same as collecting the books you love.
We are a culture of speed and convenience, and the new digital book called Kindle creates a light and accessible way to read something that is “book-like.” Bob Garfield interviews the vice president of research for E-ink, Michael McCreary who says that this new E book will have a real pigment of ink and actual books. The product is called the Kindle and it is a digital book. The digital memory can hold numerous books, and the battery life can last as long as five hours.
New technology, like the Espresso Book Machine is advancing the print of books and the speed of printing. Out of print books is no longer an option with this machine that can print any book in seconds.
As our new technology continues to progress forward, books still find a way to hold on to the coat tails of technological advances.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Eating up all the Pie
Rupert Murdoch has once again flexed his muscles in the media by starting the Fox Business Network, the sunnier side of business news. Some critics debate over whether this network will flourish, while others think that this “Main street” style will not last past nine months.
Rupert Murdoch and the Fox business network (FBN), bring an everyday people kind of environment to the business market. FBN wants to be different from CNBC by sugar coating the financial news. It puts a positive light on what’s going on, and gives it that good ole “go capitalism!” feel. It underestimates the potential of people. What FBN does is close the gap to variety, shrinks the possibility for “the other.” The variety of outlets is smaller with big corporations taking more of the pie.
Alessandra Stanley writes an article on the “Perky debut for the Fox Business Network” (October, 16th, 2007). This network is perceived as a joke because the tone is “giddy” and upbeat. Stanley argues that although the show gives an upbeat, uncomplicated, positive side the financial market, it still shows a bias that Fox is known for, “with the underlying drumbeat of Fox News (global warming is natural and so are tax cuts).” It makes you wonder, if the style is pro business, what are they going to report about when corporations do the wrong thing? Is this truly a network for Main Street, or is it yet another network that businesses can benefit from propaganda?
Joe Nocera, writer from the New York Times, deems the Fox Business Network as unrealistic to what is going on in our economy. “In a week when Countrywide’s chief executive was discovered to be under S.E.C. investigation, when the market lost about 4 percent of its value, when evidence emerged that the housing slump was deepening, the tone at Fox Business was upbeat” (Nocera). How can Fox Business Network compete with other networks like CNN when they are not showing the pitfalls of our economy, they are glazing over everything that is not entertaining; news entertainment at its best. Nocera suggests that it is difficult to take this network seriously when the interviewer Liz Claman “turns positively giddy” during an interview with Warren Buffet (Nocera). If the authoritative or serious tone is removed, will the public still look at this network as “news”? Or is that how the FBN wants to differentiate themselves from other networks?
What is interesting to me is the point of view that each article takes on Rupert Murdoch starting Fox Business Network. The article from the Associated Press took more quotes from Fox associates than Nocera or Stanley’s article, and this changed the overall perception of the FBN; it put an optimistic outlook on the new Network. When we look at the articles by Nocera and Stanley, the debut of the Fox Business network is perceived as “giddy and simplistic.” The theme behind the AP article is that in time, the Fox Business Network will become more like CNBC because they will want to go after a more “profitable demographic” for advertisers. Kevin Magee, executive vice president of Fox News, said “our goal is essentially to broaden the pie that watches business news.” How ironic that he used the same pie metaphor that I used in the beginning of this paper. Magee is not broadening the pie but actually shrinking the pie that people, or the viewers, can eat.
Reference Websites
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/business/media/20nocera.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/business/media/16watch.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=login
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/15/business/main3366877_page2.shtml
Rupert Murdoch and the Fox business network (FBN), bring an everyday people kind of environment to the business market. FBN wants to be different from CNBC by sugar coating the financial news. It puts a positive light on what’s going on, and gives it that good ole “go capitalism!” feel. It underestimates the potential of people. What FBN does is close the gap to variety, shrinks the possibility for “the other.” The variety of outlets is smaller with big corporations taking more of the pie.
Alessandra Stanley writes an article on the “Perky debut for the Fox Business Network” (October, 16th, 2007). This network is perceived as a joke because the tone is “giddy” and upbeat. Stanley argues that although the show gives an upbeat, uncomplicated, positive side the financial market, it still shows a bias that Fox is known for, “with the underlying drumbeat of Fox News (global warming is natural and so are tax cuts).” It makes you wonder, if the style is pro business, what are they going to report about when corporations do the wrong thing? Is this truly a network for Main Street, or is it yet another network that businesses can benefit from propaganda?
Joe Nocera, writer from the New York Times, deems the Fox Business Network as unrealistic to what is going on in our economy. “In a week when Countrywide’s chief executive was discovered to be under S.E.C. investigation, when the market lost about 4 percent of its value, when evidence emerged that the housing slump was deepening, the tone at Fox Business was upbeat” (Nocera). How can Fox Business Network compete with other networks like CNN when they are not showing the pitfalls of our economy, they are glazing over everything that is not entertaining; news entertainment at its best. Nocera suggests that it is difficult to take this network seriously when the interviewer Liz Claman “turns positively giddy” during an interview with Warren Buffet (Nocera). If the authoritative or serious tone is removed, will the public still look at this network as “news”? Or is that how the FBN wants to differentiate themselves from other networks?
What is interesting to me is the point of view that each article takes on Rupert Murdoch starting Fox Business Network. The article from the Associated Press took more quotes from Fox associates than Nocera or Stanley’s article, and this changed the overall perception of the FBN; it put an optimistic outlook on the new Network. When we look at the articles by Nocera and Stanley, the debut of the Fox Business network is perceived as “giddy and simplistic.” The theme behind the AP article is that in time, the Fox Business Network will become more like CNBC because they will want to go after a more “profitable demographic” for advertisers. Kevin Magee, executive vice president of Fox News, said “our goal is essentially to broaden the pie that watches business news.” How ironic that he used the same pie metaphor that I used in the beginning of this paper. Magee is not broadening the pie but actually shrinking the pie that people, or the viewers, can eat.
Reference Websites
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/business/media/20nocera.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/business/media/16watch.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=login
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/15/business/main3366877_page2.shtml
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Big Brother, will you make my decisions for me?
The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a media consolidation review rule bill on their desks now. It all began in June of 2003 when the FCC passed changes granting more relaxed rules regarding media ownership. These rules were overturned a year later in 2004, but the rules are under revision currently. Senators Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott are working a bill to directly dealing with this issue (1). They would need to get this bill in before the December revision committees to halt any action by the FCC. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has pushed for a timetable regarding this issue and it is now set for December 18th (2). The proposed changes would only allow big media companies to own even more media outlets in the same communities. We all know expansive the Clear Channel and Viacom empires have become. This new ruling would allow media conglomerates to own radio, TV, newspaper and cable TV stations in one area, essentially providing a monopoly on the media in the area (3). This could be argued that the big companies would have even more power to dictate culture, public opinion and even the course of political information. Is it ethical to have a few companies dictating our media? This is a question the BECA Department attempts to answer. Power. Money. Opinion. All these go into the decision.
FreePress states the myth of deregulation, “Relaxing or eliminating media ownership rules is characterized as ‘deregulation” (3). “The implication is that the choice is between government regulation or free market regulation, based upon competition” (3). In truth, this practice leads to less competition as argued by Robert McChesney. “In some respects, the global media market more closely resembles a cartel than it does the competitive marketplace found in economic textbooks” (4). McChesney mainly concentrates on the global market being controlled by 7 huge corporations. His writing does explore the problems indicative of the United States media market. His argument is perfectly in tune with his title, rich media make for poor democracies. His argument against deregulation is strong. Can market forces control media? He states that deregulation causes less competition and more concentration within local markets. He gives the example of the consequences of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Clear Channel became a very powerful entity with no competition after this ‘deregulation.’
Compaine on the other hand believes that ‘a few big companies’ are not taking over the media. He also concludes that U.S. companies don’t dominate the global media, that corporate ownership is not killing hard-hitting journalism and that global media does not drown out local content (5). Compaine believes with the history of takeovers, mergers, and acquisitions hinder big companies from taking over a majority of the market. He gives an example of Clear Channel buying up local stations but making sure that local flavor is always aired to continue interest in local music.
So, do big companies like Clear Channel, clearly the company with the biggest advantage after the 1996 Telecomm Act, shrink playlists, recycle same material and ruin the democracy of radio? It can be argued yes, but as always there is a different side.
These new regulation rules will only further the control of the same companies that benefited from the 96 Act. Less government intervention and policing on ownership will only allow big companies to edge out the little local guys. The color or the "Americana" that is signified by the mom/pop joints from Route 66 to the local public access and radio stations that give us 'objective programming.' I use this term loosely.
FreePress.net is urging citizens to get involved by demanding that the FCC listen to citizens and hold official hearings in people’s respective states. If this happens, people need to involve themselves and make their opinion known. Whether they are for further deregulation or for making the rules stricter, make this known to the FCC. The FCC falls victim to public relations nightmares, political red tape and non-objective bias, but with more information and public opinion, the best decision can be made.
Regulators need to hear on clear message: Protect what we have and make sure we can democratically build on it. The PUBLIC media needs to remain so. Public media is part of the public sphere that should be considered everyone’s property and everyone’s decision should matter how it evolves.
(1) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6492609.html
(2) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6492368.html
(3) http://www.freepress.net/rules/page.php?n=fcc
(4) McChesney, R. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. University of Illinois Press. 1999.
(5) Compaine, B. Global Media. Foreign Policy, November/December 2002.
(6) A link to the 2003 ruling. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=56&aid=36005
(7)
FreePress states the myth of deregulation, “Relaxing or eliminating media ownership rules is characterized as ‘deregulation” (3). “The implication is that the choice is between government regulation or free market regulation, based upon competition” (3). In truth, this practice leads to less competition as argued by Robert McChesney. “In some respects, the global media market more closely resembles a cartel than it does the competitive marketplace found in economic textbooks” (4). McChesney mainly concentrates on the global market being controlled by 7 huge corporations. His writing does explore the problems indicative of the United States media market. His argument is perfectly in tune with his title, rich media make for poor democracies. His argument against deregulation is strong. Can market forces control media? He states that deregulation causes less competition and more concentration within local markets. He gives the example of the consequences of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Clear Channel became a very powerful entity with no competition after this ‘deregulation.’
Compaine on the other hand believes that ‘a few big companies’ are not taking over the media. He also concludes that U.S. companies don’t dominate the global media, that corporate ownership is not killing hard-hitting journalism and that global media does not drown out local content (5). Compaine believes with the history of takeovers, mergers, and acquisitions hinder big companies from taking over a majority of the market. He gives an example of Clear Channel buying up local stations but making sure that local flavor is always aired to continue interest in local music.
So, do big companies like Clear Channel, clearly the company with the biggest advantage after the 1996 Telecomm Act, shrink playlists, recycle same material and ruin the democracy of radio? It can be argued yes, but as always there is a different side.
These new regulation rules will only further the control of the same companies that benefited from the 96 Act. Less government intervention and policing on ownership will only allow big companies to edge out the little local guys. The color or the "Americana" that is signified by the mom/pop joints from Route 66 to the local public access and radio stations that give us 'objective programming.' I use this term loosely.
FreePress.net is urging citizens to get involved by demanding that the FCC listen to citizens and hold official hearings in people’s respective states. If this happens, people need to involve themselves and make their opinion known. Whether they are for further deregulation or for making the rules stricter, make this known to the FCC. The FCC falls victim to public relations nightmares, political red tape and non-objective bias, but with more information and public opinion, the best decision can be made.
Regulators need to hear on clear message: Protect what we have and make sure we can democratically build on it. The PUBLIC media needs to remain so. Public media is part of the public sphere that should be considered everyone’s property and everyone’s decision should matter how it evolves.
(1) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6492609.html
(2) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6492368.html
(3) http://www.freepress.net/rules/page.php?n=fcc
(4) McChesney, R. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. University of Illinois Press. 1999.
(5) Compaine, B. Global Media. Foreign Policy, November/December 2002.
(6) A link to the 2003 ruling. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=56&aid=36005
(7)
Friday, September 28, 2007
Billboards and TV take away civil liberties
As I was listening to NPR the other night, an interesting tidbit came on the radio; “Billboards in Bogota, Columbia will not only have advertisements, but will start posting photos and names of known sex offenders” (NPR, Wednesday September 26th, 2007). Bogota is a city of 7 million people (1) with 17,000 reported cases of sexual abuse to minors last year alone (2). The City Council in Bogota approved this measure earlier in the year hoping to protect citizens from sexual predators. Councilwoman Gilma Jimenez stated that over 200,000 kids a year are sexually abused with only a small amount being investigated (1). This is where the numbers get confusing, but think about the 17,000 reported in other article. The billboards will give the sex offender’s names, their photo, the men’s crimes and the age of their victim. 40 billboards will go up around the city located on highways and busy roadways (3). Recently, the consequence sof sexual predation have become more strict as the government raised punishment from 12 years to 25 years. This was only the start. This new law also calls for the prisoners images to be broadcast on television. Obviously, the prisoner’s lawyers are having a field day with the possibility of violation of the men’s constitutional rights.
Proponents say this will help the society, while adversaries say this is social injustice.
Should sexual offenders be ‘victimized’ or given additional punishment after their jail sentence?
In the United States two recent laws have been passed. California recently passed Jessica’s Law, which prevents sexual offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks or beaches. Furthermore, Megan’s Law was passed to allow communities to be able to access a database via the Internet that informs the public of the whereabouts of sexual offenders in their community (4). I briefly looked up my community. In my county alone, there are 1635 registrants with 1,169 known addresses of sexual offenders. In my zip code there are 75 registrants with 51 full addresses. The first law has been debated as unconstitutional due to its retroactive actions regarding previous offenders. The latter law has been accepted and widely used among families with young children.
The state of Iowa Supreme Court recently deemed the former law unconstitutional due to its retroactive nature (5). The news editorial this originates argues that sexual offenders have civil liberties also. It begs the question, ‘If they have served their jail time, do they deserve to be continually punished upon release from their incarceration?’ It recognizes the law as ‘commendable’ for its task of protecting the children, but also recognizes that it’s the government’s job to protect the citizens. The editorial continues on stating that as long as other sentences withstand constitutional scrutiny, they should or could be utilized. I agree with this editorial even with my own prejudices against these types of criminals. One must empathize with these offenders, they have served their initial jail time, should they be hounded and punished further?
In the United States, ankle bracelets and close scrutiny of parole officers have been utilized as post-jail treatments, along with registering with the local law enforcement. So far, this process seems sufficient or at the least adequate. Bogota’s newspapers and other organizations are calling for similar actions to be taken in the capital. Their stance against the billboards recognized the civil liberties of the prisoners. The latest news involves prisoners staging peaceful protests against this new law in Bogota (2).
Does this law in Columbia give due process? Does it allow the prisoner’s their constitutional rights after release from prison? One must recognize that people go to prison to ‘heal.’ Prison is not only a punishment, but a place to, theoretically, heal a prisoner so that they can function in society again.
Should media be used to ‘educate or inform’ the public about local deviants? I believe accessing the whereabouts of sexual predators via the Internet is powerful and informative. Beyond this, how does the government stay involved, but respect civil liberties. The government can’t follow these offenders everyday making sure that their walks, drives or transports don’t take them near schools, beaches, parks or the like. We must trust in the ‘reform’ system of the jails to ‘heal’ these offenders. These offenders lose so much going to prison and afterwards, we, or the Columbians should not enact retroactive laws for previous offenders. I also believe that pasting the photos of these offenders puts the power of regulation in the hands of gangs, irate citizens and anyone seeking revenge or action against the offenders. Public knowledge should be granted, but it should be accessed, not pushed onto the general public. The television spots and the billboards push these offender’s discrepancies onto the public, which could incite more violence and retribution. The media in Columbia should stay neutral and not allow the government to regulate or dictate what is aired via its outlets.
The media should be utilized to educate and inform, but the government’s blatant disregard to citizen’s well-being is being overshadowed in this instance. These pictures and information will reach the masses and when the masses are given power, that power is easily corruptible. I hope that the prisoners do not see retribution taken against them by gangs or fellow citizens.
1. http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4054924
2. http://www.iol.za.org/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=122&art_id=nw20070509221120165C420017
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7015707.stm
4. http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/homepage.aspx?lang=ENGLISH
5. http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/2004/02/16/Opinion/Editorial.Sex.Offenders.Have.Civil.Liberties.Too-1098792.shtml
NPR radio
Proponents say this will help the society, while adversaries say this is social injustice.
Should sexual offenders be ‘victimized’ or given additional punishment after their jail sentence?
In the United States two recent laws have been passed. California recently passed Jessica’s Law, which prevents sexual offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks or beaches. Furthermore, Megan’s Law was passed to allow communities to be able to access a database via the Internet that informs the public of the whereabouts of sexual offenders in their community (4). I briefly looked up my community. In my county alone, there are 1635 registrants with 1,169 known addresses of sexual offenders. In my zip code there are 75 registrants with 51 full addresses. The first law has been debated as unconstitutional due to its retroactive actions regarding previous offenders. The latter law has been accepted and widely used among families with young children.
The state of Iowa Supreme Court recently deemed the former law unconstitutional due to its retroactive nature (5). The news editorial this originates argues that sexual offenders have civil liberties also. It begs the question, ‘If they have served their jail time, do they deserve to be continually punished upon release from their incarceration?’ It recognizes the law as ‘commendable’ for its task of protecting the children, but also recognizes that it’s the government’s job to protect the citizens. The editorial continues on stating that as long as other sentences withstand constitutional scrutiny, they should or could be utilized. I agree with this editorial even with my own prejudices against these types of criminals. One must empathize with these offenders, they have served their initial jail time, should they be hounded and punished further?
In the United States, ankle bracelets and close scrutiny of parole officers have been utilized as post-jail treatments, along with registering with the local law enforcement. So far, this process seems sufficient or at the least adequate. Bogota’s newspapers and other organizations are calling for similar actions to be taken in the capital. Their stance against the billboards recognized the civil liberties of the prisoners. The latest news involves prisoners staging peaceful protests against this new law in Bogota (2).
Does this law in Columbia give due process? Does it allow the prisoner’s their constitutional rights after release from prison? One must recognize that people go to prison to ‘heal.’ Prison is not only a punishment, but a place to, theoretically, heal a prisoner so that they can function in society again.
Should media be used to ‘educate or inform’ the public about local deviants? I believe accessing the whereabouts of sexual predators via the Internet is powerful and informative. Beyond this, how does the government stay involved, but respect civil liberties. The government can’t follow these offenders everyday making sure that their walks, drives or transports don’t take them near schools, beaches, parks or the like. We must trust in the ‘reform’ system of the jails to ‘heal’ these offenders. These offenders lose so much going to prison and afterwards, we, or the Columbians should not enact retroactive laws for previous offenders. I also believe that pasting the photos of these offenders puts the power of regulation in the hands of gangs, irate citizens and anyone seeking revenge or action against the offenders. Public knowledge should be granted, but it should be accessed, not pushed onto the general public. The television spots and the billboards push these offender’s discrepancies onto the public, which could incite more violence and retribution. The media in Columbia should stay neutral and not allow the government to regulate or dictate what is aired via its outlets.
The media should be utilized to educate and inform, but the government’s blatant disregard to citizen’s well-being is being overshadowed in this instance. These pictures and information will reach the masses and when the masses are given power, that power is easily corruptible. I hope that the prisoners do not see retribution taken against them by gangs or fellow citizens.
1. http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4054924
2. http://www.iol.za.org/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=122&art_id=nw20070509221120165C420017
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7015707.stm
4. http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/homepage.aspx?lang=ENGLISH
5. http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/2004/02/16/Opinion/Editorial.Sex.Offenders.Have.Civil.Liberties.Too-1098792.shtml
NPR radio
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Free Speech or F*** Speech
Controversy? Read on and contemplate.
Socrates fought for it during his trial in Athens. The Magna Carta was signed to promote it in England. Milton published ‘Areopagitica’ to argue restriction against it. The First Amendment guarantees it.
Free Speech. Simply put this could be the greatest power we as Americans, humans and citizens of the world have in our arsenal. What happens when this power is lost? What happens when our civil liberties are taken away?
This past week, a University of Florida student attended Senator John Kerry’s forum. Kerry spoke and afterwards took questions from the audience. During the questioning period, Andrew Meyer, the UF student, got up and asked a few questions. Some of the questions Meyer asked include; “What do you think about voter suppression in the 2004 Presidential race?” “Why didn’t you appeal the 2004 Presidential vote count?” “Were you a member of the Skull and Bones fraternity with President George W. Bush?” “Why hasn’t a move been made to impeach Bush?” The microphone Meyer was using cutoff and police officers came to escort him out of the forum. After raising his voice and having several police officers grabbing him, Meyer was tased. Please see video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag
Both of these videos give two different views of the incident. Obviously some students agreed with this gentleman’s questions and rational, and others disagreed; proven by their clapping at his being escorted out of the forum. The student was subsequently arrested, jailed overnight and charged with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace.
These are great, interesting, valid, depth-seeking questions. They are also controversial, or can be seen as controversial by many people. Kerry even acknowledged the questions and began answering the questions as the student was being tasered in the back of the auditorium. This, in my opinion, only recognizes these questions as valid and not a distraction.
No matter the background of this student, which has come into questions, a bigger issue of civil liberties becomes present.
In response to this occurrence, students on university campuses across the nation have been reacting. In a column in Colorado State University’s paper, The Collegian, students reacted with differing opinions, (http://www.collegian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=69ff4709-2ad4-4309-845f-5ebc419b240f).
Then, on Friday September 21, the editorial page of the same paper had a heading with the following, ‘Taser This… F*** Bush’. It spoke about the loss of civil liberties and the right to free speech. The editor did not publish this account maliciously, but instead in an action to incite opinions and conversations about free speech. Now, the editor is embroiled in controversy with the CSU presidential office. The paper has lost $30,000 in advertising money along with putting McSwane’s job on the line.
The editor has written a response to this uproar and the CSU president’s reaction (4). He did this by writing a controversial heading. This challenges our ethos. It challenges the daily standard. This challenges the traditional sense of newspaper reportage. It has been looked at with mixed emotions also.
“The editorial was bound to raise hackles, said Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists, who advises newspapers on ethical issues. The best of editorials are evocative and provocative, but shocking readers in itself is not necessarily good journalism, nor is the use of shock-therapy editorial language the wisest expression of free speech." (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6972545?source=rss).
Free speech is the only way how reporters, and us as citizens can agree, disagree, fight and challenge the government, authorities, and anyone’s opinions. Free speech is a healthy expression for us and essential to the media, especially media considering themselves public service media.
I digress, in free speech incidents closer to this area, one can look at what was happening to the University of California-Berkeley in the 1960s. Students became embroiled in controversy there over the subject of a park – People’s Park – and how the situation was being handled amongst the University administration and the student body. Residents of San Francisco fight for free speech everyday. This past spring, citizens performed a ‘die-in’ in the streets of downtown San Francisco. This demonstration was met with mixed reviews, with several citizens being arrested because of blocking traffic and disturbing the peace.
Now, did cops take away the civil liberties of this student at John Kerry’s forum? Did the editor of The Collegian act irrationally and with malcontent when publishing his editorial page in response to the tasering incident? The latter question is easier to answer. Obviously, the editor was not out to maliciously hurt George W. Bush, I have seen transients and panhandlers with more appropriate cardboard signs for this justification. I do believe that the strong language utilized by McSwane’s editorial page was a bit off the mark. One can incite conversation and inform the public without startling them to the point of irrationality. Some strategic asterisks or cartoons can be used instead of printing a word that has become taboo in our society. (http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2007/09/22/colorado-state-university-student-newspaper-under-fire-for-taser-thisfuck-bush-editorial/).
Now, an alternative of challenging free speech with telling Bush off, would be to produce a story directly involved and in response to the tasing of Meyer the UF student. Why not print a story with the headline, “Tase this…F*** the tasing cops!” Wouldn’t that have hit home a bit more than to attack Bush? Don’t get me wrong, I am not protecting Bush, I am sure I have been known to join the choir in doing some Bush-bashing, but the larger picture here is free speech and civil liberty suppression regarding a law enforcement act against a citizen at a public forum.
Backtracking to the civil liberty in question to UF student Meyer. If after watching the videos of Meyer, you feel that cops used excessive force and were wrong in escorting Meyer out, then my guess is you feel that his civil liberties were taken away. On the other hand, if you feel that he was being disruptive in public and being a nuisance to his fellow citizens, then the cops were acting accordingly.
Personally, I think Meyer went to far when wasn’t concise and direct with his questioning. His postulating was too much. Furthermore his mentioning of Clinton’s fellatio incident was not suited and not relevant to what he was intending to get answered.
Meyer could have made a better point if he asked his specific questions quickly, directly and then held up a sign that stated his beliefs. (just an idea)
In saying that, I also think that the cops using tasers on the student were misdirected. With 4 or more police officers around him, my question is why couldn’t they cuff him and lead him out without using excessive force.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20835952/
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/kerry_taser.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297126,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI
http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Taser.Incident.Ignites.Debate-2983312.shtml
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6972545?source=rss
http://www.collegian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=69ff4709-2ad4-4309-845f-5ebc419b240f
http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Letter.From.Collegian.Editor.In.Chief.Regarding.Bush.Statement-2984663.shtml
Socrates fought for it during his trial in Athens. The Magna Carta was signed to promote it in England. Milton published ‘Areopagitica’ to argue restriction against it. The First Amendment guarantees it.
Free Speech. Simply put this could be the greatest power we as Americans, humans and citizens of the world have in our arsenal. What happens when this power is lost? What happens when our civil liberties are taken away?
This past week, a University of Florida student attended Senator John Kerry’s forum. Kerry spoke and afterwards took questions from the audience. During the questioning period, Andrew Meyer, the UF student, got up and asked a few questions. Some of the questions Meyer asked include; “What do you think about voter suppression in the 2004 Presidential race?” “Why didn’t you appeal the 2004 Presidential vote count?” “Were you a member of the Skull and Bones fraternity with President George W. Bush?” “Why hasn’t a move been made to impeach Bush?” The microphone Meyer was using cutoff and police officers came to escort him out of the forum. After raising his voice and having several police officers grabbing him, Meyer was tased. Please see video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag
Both of these videos give two different views of the incident. Obviously some students agreed with this gentleman’s questions and rational, and others disagreed; proven by their clapping at his being escorted out of the forum. The student was subsequently arrested, jailed overnight and charged with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace.
These are great, interesting, valid, depth-seeking questions. They are also controversial, or can be seen as controversial by many people. Kerry even acknowledged the questions and began answering the questions as the student was being tasered in the back of the auditorium. This, in my opinion, only recognizes these questions as valid and not a distraction.
No matter the background of this student, which has come into questions, a bigger issue of civil liberties becomes present.
In response to this occurrence, students on university campuses across the nation have been reacting. In a column in Colorado State University’s paper, The Collegian, students reacted with differing opinions, (http://www.collegian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=69ff4709-2ad4-4309-845f-5ebc419b240f).
Then, on Friday September 21, the editorial page of the same paper had a heading with the following, ‘Taser This… F*** Bush’. It spoke about the loss of civil liberties and the right to free speech. The editor did not publish this account maliciously, but instead in an action to incite opinions and conversations about free speech. Now, the editor is embroiled in controversy with the CSU presidential office. The paper has lost $30,000 in advertising money along with putting McSwane’s job on the line.
The editor has written a response to this uproar and the CSU president’s reaction (4). He did this by writing a controversial heading. This challenges our ethos. It challenges the daily standard. This challenges the traditional sense of newspaper reportage. It has been looked at with mixed emotions also.
“The editorial was bound to raise hackles, said Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists, who advises newspapers on ethical issues. The best of editorials are evocative and provocative, but shocking readers in itself is not necessarily good journalism, nor is the use of shock-therapy editorial language the wisest expression of free speech." (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6972545?source=rss).
Free speech is the only way how reporters, and us as citizens can agree, disagree, fight and challenge the government, authorities, and anyone’s opinions. Free speech is a healthy expression for us and essential to the media, especially media considering themselves public service media.
I digress, in free speech incidents closer to this area, one can look at what was happening to the University of California-Berkeley in the 1960s. Students became embroiled in controversy there over the subject of a park – People’s Park – and how the situation was being handled amongst the University administration and the student body. Residents of San Francisco fight for free speech everyday. This past spring, citizens performed a ‘die-in’ in the streets of downtown San Francisco. This demonstration was met with mixed reviews, with several citizens being arrested because of blocking traffic and disturbing the peace.
Now, did cops take away the civil liberties of this student at John Kerry’s forum? Did the editor of The Collegian act irrationally and with malcontent when publishing his editorial page in response to the tasering incident? The latter question is easier to answer. Obviously, the editor was not out to maliciously hurt George W. Bush, I have seen transients and panhandlers with more appropriate cardboard signs for this justification. I do believe that the strong language utilized by McSwane’s editorial page was a bit off the mark. One can incite conversation and inform the public without startling them to the point of irrationality. Some strategic asterisks or cartoons can be used instead of printing a word that has become taboo in our society. (http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2007/09/22/colorado-state-university-student-newspaper-under-fire-for-taser-thisfuck-bush-editorial/).
Now, an alternative of challenging free speech with telling Bush off, would be to produce a story directly involved and in response to the tasing of Meyer the UF student. Why not print a story with the headline, “Tase this…F*** the tasing cops!” Wouldn’t that have hit home a bit more than to attack Bush? Don’t get me wrong, I am not protecting Bush, I am sure I have been known to join the choir in doing some Bush-bashing, but the larger picture here is free speech and civil liberty suppression regarding a law enforcement act against a citizen at a public forum.
Backtracking to the civil liberty in question to UF student Meyer. If after watching the videos of Meyer, you feel that cops used excessive force and were wrong in escorting Meyer out, then my guess is you feel that his civil liberties were taken away. On the other hand, if you feel that he was being disruptive in public and being a nuisance to his fellow citizens, then the cops were acting accordingly.
Personally, I think Meyer went to far when wasn’t concise and direct with his questioning. His postulating was too much. Furthermore his mentioning of Clinton’s fellatio incident was not suited and not relevant to what he was intending to get answered.
Meyer could have made a better point if he asked his specific questions quickly, directly and then held up a sign that stated his beliefs. (just an idea)
In saying that, I also think that the cops using tasers on the student were misdirected. With 4 or more police officers around him, my question is why couldn’t they cuff him and lead him out without using excessive force.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20835952/
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/kerry_taser.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297126,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI
http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Taser.Incident.Ignites.Debate-2983312.shtml
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6972545?source=rss
http://www.collegian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=69ff4709-2ad4-4309-845f-5ebc419b240f
http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Letter.From.Collegian.Editor.In.Chief.Regarding.Bush.Statement-2984663.shtml
Friday, September 21, 2007
Slippery Ethics Issues - Open Ended Response
Ken Burns recently produced a $13 million, 7 part, 15 hour, and epic documentary on WWII. The series will start airing on PBS, especially our local KQED station this Sunday night. Burns’ rushed to tell this story, as 1,000 WWII veterans are dying a day. (1) This urgency was one of the leading reasons Burns felt this story needed to be told. Burns’ always intimate, personal stories are successful because they tell a big story with a lot of heart, and endearment. Even with Burns’ mentioning he did not intend to make an all-inclusive story, he is being met with resistance to his film (3). Burns’ retroactively co-produced with Hector Gallan, a prominent Latino filmmaker, 30 minutes of extra footage concentrating on the Latino contributions and achievements during WWII. Latinos initially contacted Burns sponsors, PBS, and through legislation insisting on their addition to ‘The War’ (4). Latinos are planning protests outside of 4 PBS stations in California on Sunday and further protests will happen in Washington D.C. and Boston. These issues was discussed this morning on Forum with Michael Krasny, with substitute hose Dave Iverson. The questions posed in the show are the same thoughts I had during Burns’ speeches at his premiere, and at SFSU campus on September 14th. This will be discussed after some background (5).
As pervious WWII films have concentrated on strategy, commander’s opinions and heroes, Burns’ story focusing on the stories he does best, personal stories. (1). Young viewers, whose previous knowledge of WWII undoubtedly come from sources such as Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Flags of our Fathers, and other dramatic representations of ‘the greatest war,’ will be able to find truth, heart, vital information and a true educational experience in watching the war. Burns’ The War is an aural assault but could possibly be his greatest achievement (2). The movie’s graphic scenes are intense scenes to digest, but all a part of the necessary story. “‘The War’ invigorates history – in an honest fashion” (2). Burns has always been a historical buff with a creative streak enabling him to tell epic stories such as Jazz, Baseball, Unforgivable Blackness, The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson, Mark Twain, Civil War, The West and more (6). Burns is an artist, a documentarian, and a mainstay of Public Broadcasting for over 20 years. Not many people would say that Burns is a racist, biased, individual, but one cannot deny that themes of race and discrimination permeate his productions (6, Charlie McCollum). Viewers can take a look at the story of Jack Johnson, an African American boxer that was given little chance at professional boxing because of his race. Now, historically he is revered as one of the best boxers of all time. ‘Baseball’ touched upon the discrimination issues during the 1900s, ‘Jazz’ explored racial profiling, and now ‘The War’ not only discusses how diversity was huge in California after the war, but has now been amended to include the Latino contribution to WWII.
On NPR’s Forum with guest host Dave Iverson, guests Armando Rendon, the chair of the Northern California Defend the Honor Campaign, Hector Gallan, producer and filmmaker, Charlie McCollum San Jose Mercury journalist, and Linda O Bryan, Northern California PBS management, all discussed the Burns’ issue of initially excluding Latinos from ‘The War.” Burns declined his invitation to speak with the program, and I recognize his withdrawal from this issue as he has been dealing with it for over a year now.
Prior to discussing the Forum radio show, viewers need to know a few things.
1. Burns did not intend to make an all-inclusive documentary. 2. ‘The War’ was done for over a year when Burns was contacted by PBS national and his sponsors about including Latinos in his series. Burns amended his film by adding 30 minutes of footage at the end of episodes 1, 5, and 6. I was lucky enough to see the premier of episode 1 at the Letterman Digital Arts Center in the Presidio. 3. As a documentarian, Burns does not have to be objective like a journalist, his art is important, but as a documentarian, he has to recognize that there may be a bigger story. 4. The Hispanic Caucus used leverage in legislation to get recognition for this issue. As of present, I do not have information regarding what sort of conversations between any legislators and the national PBS offices have had in the past concerning this issue. 5. Protests being held in California and other PBS affiliates, a comic strip are being utilized to express Latino influence during WWII and take a stance of education on this issue (4). 6. PBS, especially KQED have now produced a series of Latino involvement in WWII that will air after ‘The War.’ They will also be continuing to produce radio, TV and Internet documentation to archive the contributions of Latinos in WWII. This is in direct response to Defend the Honor Campaign and other protests against what has happened.
The questions posed on Forum, and ones that I have been thinking about were these:
What are the dangers of interests groups changing an artist’s vision?
Should legislation get involved when it comes to Public Broadcasting and equal rights?
The guests on forum expressed the following thoughts:
Armando Rendon, chair of the Northern California Defend the Honor Campaign (5)
He is still concerned that Burns failed to recognize Latinos in WWII contributions. He wants to question not only the integrity of Burns’ filmmaking but all filmmakers. He wants to remind people that you can’t ignore the Latino history. Rendon recognized Burns’ wanted to celebrate American’s diversity with this film, but in order to do that, he wants to include the Latino population. Rendon has states that PBS has a tremendous responsibility to be diverse and they dropped the ball with Ken Burns. Rendon believes if any precedence is being set here, it is that people are independently editorializes their artwork.
Hector Galan, an independent documentary filmmaker and co-producer of ‘The War’ and its portrayal of Latinos expounded the following: (5)
As an artist, he stated that he would not want to be part of what Ken Burns is having to go through. He feels the series is great. It is filled with Latinos images, but we do not hear their voices. He even recognized his father on a ship. He recognizes that Ken Burns did not purposely exclude Latinos, but he feels that Latinos are off the radar for people on the East Coast including PBS. He equates this with why Latinos were added initially. Galan enjoyed working with Burns on the amended pieces and feels the quality of the footage was parallel to the previous footage. Still not 100% satisfied because it is still an add-on or appendage. The show ‘ends’ or fades to black and then the addition comes on screen. Afterward credits roll. Galan feels this situation sets precedence because it defends the honor of Latino filmmakers. He did not have a true opinion on how do you, as an artist; respond to the pressure from interest groups on your sponsors. He does feel that with Ken Burns’s success, that he should be more conscious of opening up his vision. Although he didn’t intend this to be a definitive piece, the story arcs cover many grounds and added another 30 minutes was needed. (5)
Reporter Charlie McCollum had the following to say: (5)
He feels that this incident sets a precedent for interest groups and their rights. He recognizes that the voices of Hispanics are simply not heard, but he worries about the pressure put upon filmmakers. McCollum states that documentarians are not journalists, they are artists that have visions and want to tell stories. (5)
Linda O Bryan, CPB management had the following to say: (5)
This situation has created a debate that needed to be discussed, but worries about the precedent it is setting due to the political issues that may arise. How is this going to deal with Public Broadcasting legislation? She does not know what sort of ‘creative freedoms’ will be compromised with such a precedent of change. KQED’s goal and PBS’ is to stay independent, diverse and produce quality programming. KQED will continue producing material that concentrates on Latino and Asian contributions to the war while archiving all this information on the Web and on Radio. (5)
I have personally seen the first episode and seen Burns speak about his series, his goals and respond to criticism, I commend him for his integrity to make the film, which is possibly the greatest film he has produced, and I commend him for co-producing the extra footage and adding it onto his current film. I understand that he took a lot of pressure from interests groups, national PBS, and the general public to amend his work. He did it in the best way he saw possible, by adding the footage on, without destroying the integrity of the piece he has already produced.
My own personal thoughts are that no legislation or interest groups rights should hinder, manipulate, change, or amend an artist’s vision on his/her project. I do recognize from past experiences working with public broadcasting, that certain criteria need to be followed and certain goals need to be met. From personal experience I have been part of producing series that fed to the masses, and targeting the general public without being perceived as discriminatory. I have had to change piece of a show due to graphic and or critical footage, but I understood the rational behind changing the piece. That situation differed from Burns’s situation. I believe PBS folded in its integrity on this issue. Essentially making Ken Burns add footage and story to his film to diversify the message amends their own independent mindset. I agree with the stations producing their own material in addition to showing Burns’ piece. KQED is producing ‘Soldados,’ ‘Nisei Soldiers’ and ‘The War: Bay Area Stories.’ (2) All these can be perceived as supplemental material to Burns’ piece, but also in response to the Latino protests regarding their exclusion from Burns’ piece. Burns set out to make a story of four towns and their relation to the War and the families in those towns. He did not set out to make a piece about difference races’ involvement with the War. That is a completely different story.
Interests groups have a right to their opinion; they are a strong, integral part of this society’s masses. Their responses of protests and demonstrations are understandable, but I believe there are more constructive ways to getting their message across. The cartoonist expressing his feelings behind his cartoon, Galan producing Latino pieces form Texas, and the possibility of making their own Latino WWII pieces are all great ideas and financially viable productive and constructive options.
If interests groups get too involved with manipulating artists’ visions, we will be left with no independent thought, and no chance of people being able to express themselves without hindering someone else. I recommend that people produce their own docs in response to anyone else’s.
I also believe that legislation should not get involved by amending free speech rights, or manipulating PBS, which get funding from the public, to put pressure on their independent producers. Legislation that requires independent producers to follow criteria for diversification is Orwellian and dictatorial. If this happens, I believe less and less independent production will occur and we will be left with no voice. If a society is left without opposing voices and differing opinions, we will be robots achieving a goal none of us has set for ourselves.
Media’s responsibility is to inform, educate and create conversations. This piece alone will do that, but should issues overshadow the quality of the piece? That is a bigger issue.
This is a sticky issue with no resolve, but one needs to recognize that Burns has created a masterpiece and this issues of ‘excluding’ Latinos was not on purpose, it was just not his initial vision.
Any recommendation or comments are sincerely requested.
(1) http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-09-20-the-war_N.htm
(2) http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/21/DD1SSA04H.DTL
(3) Burns personal communication, SFSU University Friday, September 14th, and Movie Premiere, Letterman Digital Arts Center, Friday, September 14th.
(4) http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5145953.html
(5) Forum with Michael Krasny
(6) http://www.florentinefilms.com/ffpages/FFIntro-frameset.html
Other interesting Web sites.
On the Net: Baldo: http://baldocomics.com/
Defend the Honor: http://www.defendthehonor.org
The War: http://www.pbs.org/thewar/
As pervious WWII films have concentrated on strategy, commander’s opinions and heroes, Burns’ story focusing on the stories he does best, personal stories. (1). Young viewers, whose previous knowledge of WWII undoubtedly come from sources such as Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Flags of our Fathers, and other dramatic representations of ‘the greatest war,’ will be able to find truth, heart, vital information and a true educational experience in watching the war. Burns’ The War is an aural assault but could possibly be his greatest achievement (2). The movie’s graphic scenes are intense scenes to digest, but all a part of the necessary story. “‘The War’ invigorates history – in an honest fashion” (2). Burns has always been a historical buff with a creative streak enabling him to tell epic stories such as Jazz, Baseball, Unforgivable Blackness, The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson, Mark Twain, Civil War, The West and more (6). Burns is an artist, a documentarian, and a mainstay of Public Broadcasting for over 20 years. Not many people would say that Burns is a racist, biased, individual, but one cannot deny that themes of race and discrimination permeate his productions (6, Charlie McCollum). Viewers can take a look at the story of Jack Johnson, an African American boxer that was given little chance at professional boxing because of his race. Now, historically he is revered as one of the best boxers of all time. ‘Baseball’ touched upon the discrimination issues during the 1900s, ‘Jazz’ explored racial profiling, and now ‘The War’ not only discusses how diversity was huge in California after the war, but has now been amended to include the Latino contribution to WWII.
On NPR’s Forum with guest host Dave Iverson, guests Armando Rendon, the chair of the Northern California Defend the Honor Campaign, Hector Gallan, producer and filmmaker, Charlie McCollum San Jose Mercury journalist, and Linda O Bryan, Northern California PBS management, all discussed the Burns’ issue of initially excluding Latinos from ‘The War.” Burns declined his invitation to speak with the program, and I recognize his withdrawal from this issue as he has been dealing with it for over a year now.
Prior to discussing the Forum radio show, viewers need to know a few things.
1. Burns did not intend to make an all-inclusive documentary. 2. ‘The War’ was done for over a year when Burns was contacted by PBS national and his sponsors about including Latinos in his series. Burns amended his film by adding 30 minutes of footage at the end of episodes 1, 5, and 6. I was lucky enough to see the premier of episode 1 at the Letterman Digital Arts Center in the Presidio. 3. As a documentarian, Burns does not have to be objective like a journalist, his art is important, but as a documentarian, he has to recognize that there may be a bigger story. 4. The Hispanic Caucus used leverage in legislation to get recognition for this issue. As of present, I do not have information regarding what sort of conversations between any legislators and the national PBS offices have had in the past concerning this issue. 5. Protests being held in California and other PBS affiliates, a comic strip are being utilized to express Latino influence during WWII and take a stance of education on this issue (4). 6. PBS, especially KQED have now produced a series of Latino involvement in WWII that will air after ‘The War.’ They will also be continuing to produce radio, TV and Internet documentation to archive the contributions of Latinos in WWII. This is in direct response to Defend the Honor Campaign and other protests against what has happened.
The questions posed on Forum, and ones that I have been thinking about were these:
What are the dangers of interests groups changing an artist’s vision?
Should legislation get involved when it comes to Public Broadcasting and equal rights?
The guests on forum expressed the following thoughts:
Armando Rendon, chair of the Northern California Defend the Honor Campaign (5)
He is still concerned that Burns failed to recognize Latinos in WWII contributions. He wants to question not only the integrity of Burns’ filmmaking but all filmmakers. He wants to remind people that you can’t ignore the Latino history. Rendon recognized Burns’ wanted to celebrate American’s diversity with this film, but in order to do that, he wants to include the Latino population. Rendon has states that PBS has a tremendous responsibility to be diverse and they dropped the ball with Ken Burns. Rendon believes if any precedence is being set here, it is that people are independently editorializes their artwork.
Hector Galan, an independent documentary filmmaker and co-producer of ‘The War’ and its portrayal of Latinos expounded the following: (5)
As an artist, he stated that he would not want to be part of what Ken Burns is having to go through. He feels the series is great. It is filled with Latinos images, but we do not hear their voices. He even recognized his father on a ship. He recognizes that Ken Burns did not purposely exclude Latinos, but he feels that Latinos are off the radar for people on the East Coast including PBS. He equates this with why Latinos were added initially. Galan enjoyed working with Burns on the amended pieces and feels the quality of the footage was parallel to the previous footage. Still not 100% satisfied because it is still an add-on or appendage. The show ‘ends’ or fades to black and then the addition comes on screen. Afterward credits roll. Galan feels this situation sets precedence because it defends the honor of Latino filmmakers. He did not have a true opinion on how do you, as an artist; respond to the pressure from interest groups on your sponsors. He does feel that with Ken Burns’s success, that he should be more conscious of opening up his vision. Although he didn’t intend this to be a definitive piece, the story arcs cover many grounds and added another 30 minutes was needed. (5)
Reporter Charlie McCollum had the following to say: (5)
He feels that this incident sets a precedent for interest groups and their rights. He recognizes that the voices of Hispanics are simply not heard, but he worries about the pressure put upon filmmakers. McCollum states that documentarians are not journalists, they are artists that have visions and want to tell stories. (5)
Linda O Bryan, CPB management had the following to say: (5)
This situation has created a debate that needed to be discussed, but worries about the precedent it is setting due to the political issues that may arise. How is this going to deal with Public Broadcasting legislation? She does not know what sort of ‘creative freedoms’ will be compromised with such a precedent of change. KQED’s goal and PBS’ is to stay independent, diverse and produce quality programming. KQED will continue producing material that concentrates on Latino and Asian contributions to the war while archiving all this information on the Web and on Radio. (5)
I have personally seen the first episode and seen Burns speak about his series, his goals and respond to criticism, I commend him for his integrity to make the film, which is possibly the greatest film he has produced, and I commend him for co-producing the extra footage and adding it onto his current film. I understand that he took a lot of pressure from interests groups, national PBS, and the general public to amend his work. He did it in the best way he saw possible, by adding the footage on, without destroying the integrity of the piece he has already produced.
My own personal thoughts are that no legislation or interest groups rights should hinder, manipulate, change, or amend an artist’s vision on his/her project. I do recognize from past experiences working with public broadcasting, that certain criteria need to be followed and certain goals need to be met. From personal experience I have been part of producing series that fed to the masses, and targeting the general public without being perceived as discriminatory. I have had to change piece of a show due to graphic and or critical footage, but I understood the rational behind changing the piece. That situation differed from Burns’s situation. I believe PBS folded in its integrity on this issue. Essentially making Ken Burns add footage and story to his film to diversify the message amends their own independent mindset. I agree with the stations producing their own material in addition to showing Burns’ piece. KQED is producing ‘Soldados,’ ‘Nisei Soldiers’ and ‘The War: Bay Area Stories.’ (2) All these can be perceived as supplemental material to Burns’ piece, but also in response to the Latino protests regarding their exclusion from Burns’ piece. Burns set out to make a story of four towns and their relation to the War and the families in those towns. He did not set out to make a piece about difference races’ involvement with the War. That is a completely different story.
Interests groups have a right to their opinion; they are a strong, integral part of this society’s masses. Their responses of protests and demonstrations are understandable, but I believe there are more constructive ways to getting their message across. The cartoonist expressing his feelings behind his cartoon, Galan producing Latino pieces form Texas, and the possibility of making their own Latino WWII pieces are all great ideas and financially viable productive and constructive options.
If interests groups get too involved with manipulating artists’ visions, we will be left with no independent thought, and no chance of people being able to express themselves without hindering someone else. I recommend that people produce their own docs in response to anyone else’s.
I also believe that legislation should not get involved by amending free speech rights, or manipulating PBS, which get funding from the public, to put pressure on their independent producers. Legislation that requires independent producers to follow criteria for diversification is Orwellian and dictatorial. If this happens, I believe less and less independent production will occur and we will be left with no voice. If a society is left without opposing voices and differing opinions, we will be robots achieving a goal none of us has set for ourselves.
Media’s responsibility is to inform, educate and create conversations. This piece alone will do that, but should issues overshadow the quality of the piece? That is a bigger issue.
This is a sticky issue with no resolve, but one needs to recognize that Burns has created a masterpiece and this issues of ‘excluding’ Latinos was not on purpose, it was just not his initial vision.
Any recommendation or comments are sincerely requested.
(1) http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-09-20-the-war_N.htm
(2) http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/21/DD1SSA04H.DTL
(3) Burns personal communication, SFSU University Friday, September 14th, and Movie Premiere, Letterman Digital Arts Center, Friday, September 14th.
(4) http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5145953.html
(5) Forum with Michael Krasny
(6) http://www.florentinefilms.com/ffpages/FFIntro-frameset.html
Other interesting Web sites.
On the Net: Baldo: http://baldocomics.com/
Defend the Honor: http://www.defendthehonor.org
The War: http://www.pbs.org/thewar/
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Washington DC is actually located in Hollywood, CA
The politicians, their aides, lobbyists and others Inside the Beltway do not want the general public to know this. Or do they?
On the Media, a weekly radio show produced by WNYC, New York Public Radio, explored the fundamental impacts that Oprah’s ‘endorsement’ of Barack Obama might have on this next presidential election. 8 and half million people view Oprah Winfrey’s television program and 2 million people buy her magazine. (1, 5) Oprah has repeatedly given Barack kind words in public, but the most powerful may have been this past week’s party held at her California home for Barack. "I haven't been actively engaged before because there hasn't been anything to be actively engaged in. But I am engaged now to make Barack Obama the next president of the United States," The party drew celebrities, politicians, and the elite raising over 3 million for Barack’s campaign.
According to Steve Ross, a USC Professor interviewed for On the Media, Barack has become ever more powerful because of the backing of Oprah. He believes that Barack has found a person that can galvanize the voting public. He also mentioned, “If Oprah can get 1 percent of the net voting population that does not vote, and thinking about the last two elections and how close they were, those votes could swing the vote.’ (1)
This has not been the first celebrity filled gala that Barack has seen. This past February, a gala thrown by Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffery Katzenberg and attended by George Clooney raised over $1 million. Barack is being courted and he is doing the courting in this political back and forth game. (3)
This celebrity and politician relationship is nothing new, but one can be sure that with TV and the multitude of magazines present, we as a public is being inundated with it more.
In 1912 Mabel Normand, a silent movie star, backed a Socialist. Louis B. Mayer, a production company owner eventually becoming part of MGM, hosted politicians frequently, setting up photo ops and meet and greets with the politicians favorite actors. One night, John F. Kennedy visited Harry Belafonte, a famous singer. JFK received Belafonte’s endorsement after JFK agreed to meet with Dr. Martin Luther King. (1)
Ronald Reagan was an actor prior to his governorship and presidential responsibilities. Our present California governor was a body builder and actor in some weird previous life. Charlton Heston endorsed Nixon. I am up for further research but if this didn’t deal with the NRA and its rights, I have no clue why Heston would say, “Nixon is a great guy.” The jury is definitely still out on that one.
In today’s world, it seems that more and more celebrities are getting involved in politics. George Clooney, Sean Penn, the Dixie Chicks, Dave Matthews, Neil Young, and now Oprah.
Politicians have always sought out the beautiful, glamorous, and publicly popular Hollywood celebrities. In today’s media world, how we are perceived in the media is a strong influence on voters, young and old alike.
Hun Yul Lee mentioned a great example of the power of the media. Sean Penn is chastised in the media, but is highly involved and participates in the democracy of the US. Who wouldn’t want Sean Penn to be chain smoking and saving you off a rooftop in N’Awlins after the hurricane? What about socialism and visiting Chavez in Venezuela? Isn’t that about relationships, communication and participation? Well, participation and knowledge are two key points of democracy and Sean Penn has them down. It is unfortunate that Penn is perceived as the bad guy. Speculation of his falling out with the media may be his reclusive nature towards the paparazzi, his attitude towards them, or even his low amount of cigarettes for the day.
In a study about voting habits for young or emerging adults, musicians and celebrities were given top billing on how influential they are concerning politics. Doesn’t everyone want to vote for whom Bono endorses? Wait – he’s Irish. What about voting for whom Diddy (Sean P. Diddy Combs) endorses. Speaking of Diddy, not only is he a musician, a producer, a media and business mogul, but also a politically active citizen who writes books. Whether he wrote this next passage for the book Crossroads: The Future of American Politics while wearing his ‘Vote or Die T-shirt’ is still up in the air, I am expecting an email soon. ‘The problems is that there’s no one to vote for. Republicans and Democrats speak a good game – when asked about what they’re doing to appeal to young people they’ll spit chapter and verse about their record on education and social services – but in reality, politicians have given up on the kids. And so, in return, kids have given up on them… (2)
This is a powerful statement from a celebrity that has been seen hob-knobbing with politicians before.
Do celebrities make politicians sexy? Appealing? Well, if the old saying, “ You are who your friends are” is true, then celebrities and politicians are of one mold.
No one can deny the allure of relationships with people of the power elite – whether they are politicians or celebrities. Elites tend to commiserate with those being socially alike. The tendency towards financially alike gets included in the social realm in a capitalist society.
A few other things, I do not think we can fault politicians for looking pretty with the celebrities. They are trying to associate themselves with people that are popular for their abilities, looks and association with the perception of the general public. However shallow it may be, they are getting involved themselves.
I also do not think we can fault the celebrities for getting involved in politics. In a democracy one has a duty to participate, to be socially and politically active. If the celebrities are doing this through glamorous parties and massive amounts of donations, then so be it. They are participating. It is up to the general public to look through the smoke and mirrors of Hollywood and DC politics to see the facts and the platforms represented.
(1)
http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2007/09/07
(2)
Eisner, Jane; Taking Back the Vote, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, pg 47.
(3)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/movies/awardsseason/06holly.html?ex=1328418000&en=bf9affa61c90fe04&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
(4)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003871130_oprah06.html
(5)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/549017,CST-NWS-sweet09.article
(6)
http://cbs2chicago.com/nationalpolitics/politicsnational_story_244114256.html
On the Media, a weekly radio show produced by WNYC, New York Public Radio, explored the fundamental impacts that Oprah’s ‘endorsement’ of Barack Obama might have on this next presidential election. 8 and half million people view Oprah Winfrey’s television program and 2 million people buy her magazine. (1, 5) Oprah has repeatedly given Barack kind words in public, but the most powerful may have been this past week’s party held at her California home for Barack. "I haven't been actively engaged before because there hasn't been anything to be actively engaged in. But I am engaged now to make Barack Obama the next president of the United States," The party drew celebrities, politicians, and the elite raising over 3 million for Barack’s campaign.
According to Steve Ross, a USC Professor interviewed for On the Media, Barack has become ever more powerful because of the backing of Oprah. He believes that Barack has found a person that can galvanize the voting public. He also mentioned, “If Oprah can get 1 percent of the net voting population that does not vote, and thinking about the last two elections and how close they were, those votes could swing the vote.’ (1)
This has not been the first celebrity filled gala that Barack has seen. This past February, a gala thrown by Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffery Katzenberg and attended by George Clooney raised over $1 million. Barack is being courted and he is doing the courting in this political back and forth game. (3)
This celebrity and politician relationship is nothing new, but one can be sure that with TV and the multitude of magazines present, we as a public is being inundated with it more.
In 1912 Mabel Normand, a silent movie star, backed a Socialist. Louis B. Mayer, a production company owner eventually becoming part of MGM, hosted politicians frequently, setting up photo ops and meet and greets with the politicians favorite actors. One night, John F. Kennedy visited Harry Belafonte, a famous singer. JFK received Belafonte’s endorsement after JFK agreed to meet with Dr. Martin Luther King. (1)
Ronald Reagan was an actor prior to his governorship and presidential responsibilities. Our present California governor was a body builder and actor in some weird previous life. Charlton Heston endorsed Nixon. I am up for further research but if this didn’t deal with the NRA and its rights, I have no clue why Heston would say, “Nixon is a great guy.” The jury is definitely still out on that one.
In today’s world, it seems that more and more celebrities are getting involved in politics. George Clooney, Sean Penn, the Dixie Chicks, Dave Matthews, Neil Young, and now Oprah.
Politicians have always sought out the beautiful, glamorous, and publicly popular Hollywood celebrities. In today’s media world, how we are perceived in the media is a strong influence on voters, young and old alike.
Hun Yul Lee mentioned a great example of the power of the media. Sean Penn is chastised in the media, but is highly involved and participates in the democracy of the US. Who wouldn’t want Sean Penn to be chain smoking and saving you off a rooftop in N’Awlins after the hurricane? What about socialism and visiting Chavez in Venezuela? Isn’t that about relationships, communication and participation? Well, participation and knowledge are two key points of democracy and Sean Penn has them down. It is unfortunate that Penn is perceived as the bad guy. Speculation of his falling out with the media may be his reclusive nature towards the paparazzi, his attitude towards them, or even his low amount of cigarettes for the day.
In a study about voting habits for young or emerging adults, musicians and celebrities were given top billing on how influential they are concerning politics. Doesn’t everyone want to vote for whom Bono endorses? Wait – he’s Irish. What about voting for whom Diddy (Sean P. Diddy Combs) endorses. Speaking of Diddy, not only is he a musician, a producer, a media and business mogul, but also a politically active citizen who writes books. Whether he wrote this next passage for the book Crossroads: The Future of American Politics while wearing his ‘Vote or Die T-shirt’ is still up in the air, I am expecting an email soon. ‘The problems is that there’s no one to vote for. Republicans and Democrats speak a good game – when asked about what they’re doing to appeal to young people they’ll spit chapter and verse about their record on education and social services – but in reality, politicians have given up on the kids. And so, in return, kids have given up on them… (2)
This is a powerful statement from a celebrity that has been seen hob-knobbing with politicians before.
Do celebrities make politicians sexy? Appealing? Well, if the old saying, “ You are who your friends are” is true, then celebrities and politicians are of one mold.
No one can deny the allure of relationships with people of the power elite – whether they are politicians or celebrities. Elites tend to commiserate with those being socially alike. The tendency towards financially alike gets included in the social realm in a capitalist society.
A few other things, I do not think we can fault politicians for looking pretty with the celebrities. They are trying to associate themselves with people that are popular for their abilities, looks and association with the perception of the general public. However shallow it may be, they are getting involved themselves.
I also do not think we can fault the celebrities for getting involved in politics. In a democracy one has a duty to participate, to be socially and politically active. If the celebrities are doing this through glamorous parties and massive amounts of donations, then so be it. They are participating. It is up to the general public to look through the smoke and mirrors of Hollywood and DC politics to see the facts and the platforms represented.
(1)
http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2007/09/07
(2)
Eisner, Jane; Taking Back the Vote, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, pg 47.
(3)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/movies/awardsseason/06holly.html?ex=1328418000&en=bf9affa61c90fe04&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
(4)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003871130_oprah06.html
(5)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/549017,CST-NWS-sweet09.article
(6)
http://cbs2chicago.com/nationalpolitics/politicsnational_story_244114256.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
