Negating Net Neutrality

Communication has never been so technical. Personal communication was revolutionized with the invention of cell phones and computers, eliminating distance barriers. People in America are now highly dependent on the Internet to learn about the news, do research, and chat with friends. However, their freedom of communication is at stake: Internet service providers (ISPs) may soon have the authority to control what sites users are and are not able to see – unless the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changes the Internet’s definition from an “information service” to a “telecommunications service.” This simple technicality makes the difference between a free Internet and a monopolized web grossly concerned with profit.

.

Currently, users are free to navigate to whatever site they wish (unless, of course, they themselves choose to install a filter). Users do not have to pay more to navigate to certain sites, nor are specific web pages programmed to upload slower than others so as to discourage users from viewing the webpage. This is referred to as “net neutrality.” A threat to net neutrality arose when in 2007 Comcast was found to be intentionally blocking websites from users. The FCC fought against the blockages, but Comcast fought back and won – a Federal court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to check Comcast’s regulation liberties because the Internet is not defined as a “telecommunications service.”

.

The problem with ISPs becoming the gatekeepers on what sites users go to is that it inhibits the laissez faire interaction on the Internet that people enjoy. People already pay high prices for Internet use. The order of results on search engines such as Yahoo! or Google is determined by the money paid by the website sponsor to have their site show up first. Producers are in part controlled by their advertisers because that is a way they make money off their websites. The elimination of net neutrality is yet another form of censorship because money and ISPs determine what sites users can and cannot see.

.

Will net neutrality become a thing of the past? Only time will tell.

Prime Minister Uses Prime Technology

The other day I was scanning through some news articles about technology on Google News (great source, by the way). Amongst the 'typical' headline stories about the new iPad, one really caught my attention: "Stranded Leader Runs Country by iPad." What?? Needless to say, I kept on reading.

The article was posted on April 17 by CNN, and it described an unusual set of events for the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg. During one of his visits to the USA, a volcano erupted in Iceland that kept all the airports from running. Stoltenberg ended up stranded in New York. Sounds like a bad scenario, doesn't it? Wouldn't the fact that the Prime Minister of Norway is stuck in a foreign country not turn out too well for the people of Norway? By no means. Stoltenberg simply whipped out his high-tech iPad and ran the country from the convenience of NY. Wow. Now that's cool.

Technology never ceases to amaze me. I'm blown away by all the advancements that've been made over the past several decades and especially in the last decade alone. Technology has certainly changed the way we do things - not that I remember a time before the Internet and cell phones... but I'm told life was different then.

One thing we've been talking about in media class recently is about how technology has changed the way we conceive of communication. Instead of being constrained by location and having to communicate face-to-face (in the days without technology), we're able to communicate without concern for distance and location. No longer does it matter how far away I am from someone; whether I'm 2 miles away or 2,000 miles away, technology allows me to feel closely connected to anyone. And being able to transcend distance through technology and still communicate was essential when it came to Stoltenberg being stranded in NY and still running Norway.

So, speaking of distance not being an issue... Maybe I could end up 'stranded' on, say, a tropical island and sit in the shade of a tree by the shore and do my homework from there. (Ahhh... that's the life.)

New Phones for a New Generation

In May, Microsoft will release two new phones, the Kin One and Kin Two. However, these phones are directed explicitly to the social-networking generation. The younger demographic is expected to leap for this phone in competition with the iPhone.

The New York Times published an article about the exciting steps Microsoft has taken appeal to the 15-30 year olds-- the demographic for which they are aiming. The phones are closely synched with different social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace. They are touch screens, link with Zune music, and have high-powered cameras and video capabilities. Microsoft has been in need of a technological boost since their numbers went down in 2009. They are hoping this new younger-generation savvy phone will pick up their sales.

The most important aspect of this campaign will be advertisements. The advertising consultants at Microsoft will have their hands full trying to appeal to the younger generation. The iPhone has done a great job roping in teens and young adults with its applications and easy access to the internet. The Kin One and Two are said to be the best competition for the iPhone. My mass media class talked about the way advertisers select a certain demographic and switch all their focus to said demographic—especially using propaganda. The audience is meant to see the certain product and be inclined to buy it. Advertisers know their audience and what they want.

It will be interesting to see how the new Kins will compare to the iPhone. I know the iPhone is extremely popular with all my friends, so seeing the Microsoft equivalent will be exciting. Responding to the wants of teens and tweens across America is a brilliant strategy. We’ll have to see if they have the smarts to swing over the Apple generation to get their Kin.

-Betsy

Your T.V Is KIlling You!!!!!! Maybe? Well actually, probably not..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35646508/ns/health-behavior/

MSNBC.com contributer, Linda Carroll, contends that TV is extremely harmful. According to this article, TV makes you deader, drunker, your kids pregnant, weakens your bones, and makes you less engaging. The basic message is clear: throw out your television because it is ruining your life. Hmmmm. While this article may look foolish to many people, including a college student like myself, I have a feeling there are people out here who hold Carrolls same viewpoint. If so, there are thousands of parents reinforcing their beliefs and in turn, removing the tv's from their kids bedrooms. My hope is to address this argument objectively, but I must admit I find it a bit extreme and invalid.
This article rattles off a list of arguments, supported with "studies," that argue that your television is extremely harmful. In fact, it will kill you! For a parent, contributer, scholar, hobo, whoever, they must operate under the assumption that the media are extremely powerful and persuasive. They would align themselves with media effects scholars. These scholars argue that the media holds the power in the relationship between the media and the people. TV audiences are passive and blindly accept the messages that the media disseminates.
The opposing viewpoint is what media scholars call active audience. These active audience scholars contend that media "cannot tell people what to think or how to behave in any direct way because people are not nearly as stupid, gullible, or east to dominate as the media indoctrination perspective would have us believe (Croteau & Hoynes, 2003)." This contention is weary of the power of the media and credits audience as being intelligent and autonomous. This is also an extreme view that rejects any effect that media messages might have.
So where does this leave us? Is our Tv sets really killing us? Am I getting dumber? Is your daughter really pregnant? Is all this caused my tv. Well some people may have this belief but i would argue that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of media effects and active audience theorist. I don't think that we are passive robots waiting for orders for good of ill. I also do not believe that we are totally immune to the effects that the media could potential have. What who am I? Decide for yourself.

What You See is What You Do

Recently I was looking at articles on Indianexpress.com and I came across the article titled, “Mean World Syndrome.” In this article, a woman is looking for the pattern in people who commit violent crimes. Specifically, school shootings. They may look deep with in the person hoping to find the answers, but only finding more questions. People want to blame it on the media, the new theory is it’s the “mean world syndrome.” Kids see the violent crimes committed in video games, movies, news, everywhere in the media. They then live out the fantasy for themselves. What they see, becomes what they do.

Recently in class we have been discussing the Bobo doll experiment, conducted by Arthur Bandura in 1962. The test was to design the relationship between TV violence and child behavior. There were three groups. The first was in a playroom, with individual kids (3-5 yrs old) where they watched an adult abuse the Bobo doll. The second group of kids was divided by gender and watched a film of the same aggression of the Bobo doll. The third group of kids watched the same aggression, performed by a cartoon-like cat costume and placed in a artificial-looking setting. The control group does not watch anyone kicking crud out of Bobo. As a result of seeing the abuse done to the Bobo doll by adults, the kids pretty much did the same. Showing that what kids see, does have a direct affect on what they do.

So what does this matter? With all the cruelty going on in the world, he is not surprising that some people want answers. Although the Bobo Doll experiment we discussed in class can prove that what children see has a direct affect on what they do, there is always the exception. But, there is one thing that is certain, I am sure many people, especially the young should think about what they watch on TV, because sometimes it is challenging to keep fantasy and reality as two separate categories in our lives.

Sex in the Media

Themes of sexuality are becoming more and more common throughout the media today. In the article “Mass media influences on sexuality – Statistical data included”, by Jane Brown, the ideas and themes of sexuality and the media are becoming very prevalent in our teen society today. It is recorded that the average young person spends 6 to 7 hours every day using some form of the media. It has been proven that nearly half of all television shows portray some sort sexuality; ranging from “flirting to sexual intercourse”.

About one fifth to half of all music played contains some sort of sexual content or sexual reference. Brown goes onto talk about how the media leaves out the risks of unprotected sex (the 3 C’s) and the dangers incorporated with it. Along with the dangers, Brown talks about the programs on television that include sexual content and that only 1 out of every 10 shows contain information that mention consequences, and the need and importance of contraceptives.

This article is helpful to teenagers and young adults because it discusses the reasons to take precaution and that what we see on television is not always the same as the situations in real life. Brown makes a good point in that sex can be a very sensitive topic and how it is shown to some extent on television however it is the audience’s responsibility to take proper care for their bodies and not leave it up to what is seen on television. “But an emerging set of studies that go beyond content to address how audiences select, interpret, and apply sexual content suggests that the media may play an important role, especially for young people (Steele 1999).” As a result young adults today should make responsible decisions and treat their body as a temple. Media can be a huge persuasive factor in one’s life, however, it is necessary to be safe and to protect one’s body.

Samantha<3

Rethink Possible

Advertising. Every day we see millions of advertisements flashing around us. Okay, well, maybe not millions, but it sure seems like we are constantly bombarded with brand names telling us that we need them. However, one company is starting to take a different approach.
In an article in the New York Times, AT&T announced their new advertising campaign. AT&T is one of America’s top five advertising companies and is trying to change the way Americans see their products. The new slogan: “Rethink Possible.”
The point of this optimistic campaign is to bring the country out of the recession slumps and introduce them to a company that is forward-thinking and ready for positive change. They are building off of commercials they ran during the Olympics that saluted athletic achievement, and anyone who strives to be the best: “Here’s to Possibilities.”
Even more interestingly, AT&T is not promoting a single product—or any of their products really. They are burnishing the brand image of AT&T, convincing customers to be for their company because the company is good, alongside their products.
That is the most exciting and interesting part to me: an advertisement that is NOT SELLING A PRODUCT but a company’s reputation. Ever since my mass media class discussed advertisements, I’ve been thinking about the non-sense we are meant to believe. On network television, TELEVISION PROGRAMS ARE NOT THE IMPORTANT PRODUCT ON TV, ADVERTISEMENTS ARE. Television networks want consumers to see the advertisements more than their prime-time show. We discussed how the shows are meant to prepare us for the commercials, so we will be in a “buying mood”. With this new campaign from AT&T, television stations won’t know how to prepare their audiences.
I think this new campaign will reflect positively on AT&T. The country is looking for people (even companies) in which to find hope. I think AT&T is headed in the right direction. Their ads will not seem like regular advertisements and consumers will like that. I am excited to see what they are. I applaud AT&T for seeing a need in the consumers—an emotional and psychological need, not consuming need—and applying it to their company. Hopefully the consumers will agree.


Here’s to Possibilities, AT&T.

Betsy

Big Media, Big Violence, Big People

We not only have to worry about whether the media affects viewers emotionally, but physically as well. Pediatrician Victor Strasburger conducted studies to determine the effects that media such as TV, video games, and the Internet have on children. He has found that a large intake of media correlates with obesity and negative behavior.

.

In a study, Strasburger measured the amount of time obese children spent ingesting media by watching TV, playing video games, or surfing the net and found that they spend a minimum of two hours each day. One could conclude that the time spent is detrimental to children's physical health. (It is important to note, however, that a correlation, not a cause, of obesity was found. This means that obese children spend a lot of time with different kinds of media, but it does not necessarily mean that excessive media intake causes obesity). Even if the media do cause obesity, that is not the only problem kids face.

.

Violence in the media is one of the major problems in the media, according to Strasburger. He argues that violence is ever-present in the media, saturating children with violent media stories and causing children to become desensitized to real-life violence and crime. Horrible acts of violence that used to send shivers up children's spines now hardly fazes them, and the change in behavior does not seem to be a positive effect. The fear is that children who do not give a second thought to violence in the media will have no qualms about behaving violently.

.

Violent media are open to interpretation. Children watching TV may have a difficult time interpreting the meaning behind violence. For example, violence shown by a police officer in an effort to defend a person's life occurs in a much diferent context than does a serial killer stalking and brutally murdering helpless victims. Therefore, the risk remains that youth may interpret violent behavior as the "proper" way to act because that is what they see. Young children who see violence on TV shows may in time begin to hehave in ways that reflect what they see, a process known as social learning. Strasburger noted a woman who recalled that her nephew used to hit his mother when he was young. The child also spent many hours playing violent video games. Cause and effect, or just coincidence?

.

Although the media boast that they encourage prosocial behavior (an example being that a TV program shows people sharing, cooperating, developing self-control, helping, etc.), it is evident that the media also encourage poor behavior (i.e. violent behavior) - and it may have a negative effect on children's weight. Strasburger's solution? He says that children should not have TVs in their rooms and suggests that they cut down on the time spent ingesting media. Not only this - he says that media producers such as Hollywood also have a responsibility to monitor what they put in their shows. It's not just about money, he argues, it's also about public health.

Advertising: We've Got an App for That...

This weekend was to-be-sure a memorable one for thousands: everyone who is now a proud parent of an Apple iPad. Released on Saturday, the iPad is the latest and greatest in technology. Many waited anxiously for their advance-order iPads to arrive in the mail and doubtless they've been in admiration of it ever since. It serves the purpose of an iPod, computer, TV, Kindle, and game store (not to mention the countless apps you can download). A lot of people really, really wanted one - including the character Phil Dunphy on Modern Family.

Last week's episode of the hit TV series on ABC was, for all intents and purposes, a glorified commercial for the iPad. The plot centered on Phil Dunphy's longing to get an iPad for his birthday (I won't say any details so I don't spoil the episode). For those 30 minutes, the audience was entertained - while their thoughts were being geared toward how awesome the iPad is.

TV shows in general have become more and more known for using product placement (although in most cases it's not nearly as blatant as Modern Family's use of the iPad). An article from the Canadian Globe and Mail on April 6th addresses the fact that "like it or not, we’re entering a golden age of TV product placement." Along with Modern Family, the article lists several other popular shows that have used product placement recently: 30 Rock, Chuck, The Office, 24, and the Jay Leno Show. Product placement is a very effective means of advertising on TV in a time when TiVo and DVR give viewers the option to skip commercials (I myself watched this latest episode of Modern Family via TiVo). Because the TV industry needs money from advertisers in order to fund their programs, they've got to find a way to keep the advertisers happy (which, translated, means "keep the audience buying"). Hence, a switch in advertising tactics to a heavier emphasis on product placement.

In the case of the Modern Family episode, a potential problem arises: Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, is also a large shareholder in Disney, the owner of ABC. So did he have something to do with the guest appearance of the iPad on one of the most-viewed shows on the network? Some people think that this kind of product placement - that is both instigated by and directly benefits an investor or producer - would be going too far. However, Steve Jobs apparently had nothing to do with it. According to the same article from Globe and Mail, the producers of Modern Family decided to include the iPad in the plot on their own.

Whatever the case, we can't deny the fact that advertising is turning over a new leaf. Where in the past there was more distinction between programming and advertising, there are fewer clear-cut lines today. Rather than having the show interrupted by separate intervals of commercials, the "commercials" are appearing mixed right in with the show. As the article from Globe and Mail puts it, "the lines separating art and commerce will only continue to blur as brand names increasingly pop up on your favourite shows." Clearly, then, advertising - just as much as anything else - is changing to fit with the times.

ESPN expands their dynasty

Last night at mid-night, ESPN launched a new website, ESPNNewYork.com. New York Times writer, Richard Sandomir, reports on ESPN “going local,” and “conquering the United States,” on its multitude of media platforms. ESPN first came to Chicago, then Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, and now, as of last night, New York. Sandomir describes how New York is an already crowed local market with multiple newspapers and profitable T.V and radio stations. But ESPN could care less. They are storming into the New York sports market and they are bringing big name writers with them. These writers include Ian O’Connor from The Record of Bergen County; Wallace Matthews from Newsday to cover the Yankees; and Adam Rubin from The Daily News to cover the Mets. Jane McManus, formerly of the downsized Journal News in New York’s northern suburbs, is the N.F.L. blogger. And two former Newsday columnists, Johnette Howard and Shaun Powell, who were laid off in a 2008, will be regular contributors.
With this on slot of new and talented writers, ESPN is likely to be a driving force in sports news in New York. But ESPN says that their goal is to add to the sports marketplace in each city, not hurt the outlets that are already there. “The last thing I want to do is to drive a stake into the heart of an incredibly important industry,” said King, a former newspaperman. “We’re making sure ESPN is doing everything possible to be where the fans are.”
And doing everything possible to be where the fans are is precisely what ESPN is doing. Sandomir uses words like empire, dynasty, conquering, and manifest destiny in association with ESPN. They are clearly a powerful company and are growing constantly. They offer products in the markets of radio, television, cable television, the Internet, and magazines. ESPN is a prime example of how media ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated. Media scholars, Croteau and Hoynes, contend that one of the clearest trends in media ownership is its increasing concentration in fewer and fewer hands. ESPN is one of these few hands that is controlling a multitude of different media markets. The result is yet to be determined but I would imagine fewer and fewer smaller hands will have a voice. This is what is happening in New York with the launch of ESPN’s news website yesterday. Smaller, local sports Newspapers, websites, radio shows, and television programs will be likely pushed aside to make room for the this “dynasty.”
Some people may be wondering; so what? Who Cares? ESPN does a great job at reporting sports news and broadcast great shows for a variety of different people. I would agree 100%. In fact, I was actually the one who wrote that last sentence and I believe it. The danger is that with the increase in media concentration of ownership, comes the decrease in the multiple voices being heard. In New York, only time will tell whether ESPN is true to their word when they say they aren’t trying to drive out other competitors. If they remain just as competitor then there is no problem at all. It is when they become top dog and all other sources are thrown to the wayside. It is crucial that we get our news, even sports news, from a variety of different sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/sports/golf/31espn.html?ref=media

Lotion Puts A New Touch On Volleyball

Today I came across an article that really caught my attention on the New York Times website titled Beach Volleyball to Float in Oceans of Lotions. Apparently the Association of Volleyball Professionals is getting a new title sponsor for its tour. It’s no longer shoes, volleyballs, or cars, but rather lotion. Nivea line of skin-care products for women and men, sold by Beiersdorf, is going to have the new title. On top of a secret financial deal, Nivea will also be the official product for those who play in the league. This sponsorship makes sense since there is “a lot of skin showing” at the tournament. Nivea is also excited that AVP promotes the healthy lifestyle which adds appeal towards the sponsorship. AVP is also changing its colors to match that of Nivea blue and white instead of their previous colors yellow and black. The contract between AVP and Nivea is for many years to come, although how many years that entails was also left undisclosed to the media.

Previously in class we have discussed advertising in the Media. Advertisements play a vital role. This sponsorship that AVP set up with Nivea is a wise decision. Volleyball players as previously stated do show a lot of skin, especially when it comes to beach volleyball. To advertise Nivea, is an example of product placement. Many times volleyball players live a healthy life as well. They have to be in shape for their sport. This too sets off positive advertisements for AVP volleyball as well as for Nivea. As consumers watch they will see the products they need to buy in order to obtain the skin that the players will be showing. It goes back to Goffman’s theory; Advertisements depict for us not necessarily how we actually behave as men and women but how we think men and women behave or eve look. We see what the men and women look like, how healthy they are and we will want to buy Nivea as well. It is the both positive, yet negative trickery of advertisement.

So maybe you do watch volleyball, maybe you do not. I, myself, am a volleyball player and therefore will be turning the channel to watch the AVP tournament. I will find myself being the told that Nivea will help me look like volleyball players I am watching, but this is what advertising is meant to do. However, no matter how many advertisements you see, consumers do have one huge power they possess. Consumers have the right to choose. Whether we actually buy the products or not is ultimately up to us. So weather I end up buying Nivea and joining the trend of “Oceans of Lotion”, will be up to me.

Apple iPad vs. Amazon Kindle

Once again Apple has created another technological device to add to its list of iPods, iphones, and itouches. The iPad is just the latest of Apple’s long list of technological devices to be found on the market today. The iPad is already caused much controversy and competition prior to its April 3rd release date. One of the iPad’s fiercest competitors is Amazon’s Kindle. The Kindle is a handheld device that is designed mainly for reading. The Kindle is a black and white screen and starts around $259, compared to the iPad which has a colored screen and runs about $499. Besides the obvious differences in price and color quality, what are the real differences between the iPad and the Kindle?

The iPad contains an LED-backlit touch screen that contains incredible high resolution and picture quality. The screen is about 9.7 inches in length and width and uses technology similar to that of the iphone. The weight of the iPad is only about 1.5 pounds and its size is equal to that of a small magazine. It is extremely portable and easy to handle and carry around. The iPad has excellent battery life that can last up to 10 hours of exploring the internet, watching movies, or various other activities. Wireless internet with 3G capabilities is just one of the many perks to the iPad. The iPad includes an A4 chip which makes it better for games, movies, and saving pictures. These are just a couple of the perks and capabilities to the brand new iPad.

The Amazon Kindle is a much more simplified version of the iPad with fewer capabilities and less features. The main purpose behind the Kindle is for reading books electronically as well as newspapers, magazines, and other online journals. Similar to the iPad, the Kindle is very light in weight, only weighing 10.3 ounces and is 7.5 inches by 5.3 inches. The Kindle has a high resolution 6 inch screen that makes reading very easy and enjoyable. In addition, the Kindle has a built in dictionary as well as wireless capabilities and an extended battery life. The Kindle also includes a keyboard which creates easy access for searching and typing.

In Rachel Metz’s article “iPad could be Kindle’s first big threat in e-books”, she compares the differences between Apple’s new iPad and Amazon’s older Kindle. Metz describes the iPad as being the Kindle’s biggest threat due to its ability to read electronic books as many other different functions. Metz believes that the iPad may force the Kindle “out of existence” and soon replace it as the next tool used for reading books electronically. As Metz points out there are several setbacks to the iPad that may keep buyers away for the time being. For example, the average price for books for the Kindle is around $9.99 compared to $14.99 for the iPad. The Kindle also has a longer battery life and can download books from anywhere, something that the iPad is not capable of doing. Ultimately it will come down to the buyer who must decide whether the extra $250 dollars is really worth it.

After reading through Metz’s article and doing some research on both the Kindle and the iPad I have come to some conclusions. First, I don’t believe that the iPad is worth the extra $250 dollars just for the extra applications or more advanced touch screen. If a person simply wants to read electronic books then the Kindle is clearly the better choice. It has a longer batter life, lighter, and is a lot cheaper then the iPad. There are many things a person can do on a laptop, itouch, or even iphone that one can do on an iPad. It seems like a better investment to buy the Kindle then the iPad. In addition to the reasons stated above, the iPad is a brand new device with many kinks still to be worked out. That is why I believe that the Kindle is the better and more economical choice for the person looking for an electronic book reader.

Samantha <3

Reality Isn't Reality After All

18-year-old Alicia Gustaffaro is asking for $100 million from ABC-Disney as recompense for psychological damages from participating with her family in the show Wife Swap. Wife Swap is a reality TV show where two families (different often in social class and general manner of conducting life) literally switch wives for a short period of time, and both families are observed to see how they handle the situation. As can be assumed, there is much chaos and discomfort as the families try to cope with such a drastic change and the difference of personalities. Gustaffaro's family participated in the show in 2008, when Gustaffaro was 15. She complains that the show gave her lines to say which made her seem immature and bratty. She claims to suffer from "post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks, depression and suicidal thoughts." She says that her reputation is damaged beyond repair because of the show, and she is treated poorly by her peers, who apparently believe that her character on the show reflected her character in real life. She was previously an honor student involved in many extra-curricular activities, but after the show she finished her junior and senior years of high school in a separate school program.

.

Such trauma Gustaffaro suffered was from a "reality" show. Not only did the show affect the viewers who, as a result, treated Gustaffaro poorly regardless of what they knew of her before. the show's effect was felt on the other end by Gustaffaro, who through making the show and feeling the aftermath suffered psychological damage and a damaged reputation.

.

Although claims are made saying that shows such as Wife Swap influence and change people's opinions about characters and reality, others will counter such claims by arguing that such shows are not actually representative of reality and should not be regarded as such. The argument is furthered by saying that the media does not force viewers to think in a certain way, but, through agenda setting, the media simply tells people what to think about. In this case, the show wants people to become interested in and be entertained by the humor that comes from two families switching wives for a time. It is (or should be) common knowledge that this is not representative of reality although the show is termed a "reality show." Therefore, viewers have the agency to think of what they see as fictional and entertaining.

.

However, people are not entirely immune to the possible effects the media may have on them. In this case, Wife Swap is evidence of the "hypodermic/silver bullet model" which states that the media directly and pointedly promote a message to viewers. True, political messages were not represented in the show, but Gustaffaro says that the producers intentionally made her character worse than it realistically was, framing her as bratty, rude, and ungrateful, a disposition that her peers attributed to her after the show aired.

.

This is yet another example of the detrimental effects of the media. Having said this, viewers must be aware that reality TV is not actually reality TV. the characters and messages portrayed do not necessarily represent actuality. Gustaffaro said that she was treated differently by her peers. This show that these youth rely more on fictional media to tell them about reality than they do on their personal observances and experiences.

.

Such influence can be referred to as the "mainstreaming effect." This means that people who watch TV on a regular basis may begin to believe that the things portrayed in the shows are accurately representative of reality. In this case, the youth who treated Gustaffaro poorly probably did so because they were influenced by the show to the point that they believed her personality on an off the show were unchanging. According to ustaffaro, this perception of ther character is obviously unwarranted and unrealistic. This goes to show that if people want to know about reality, they should experience it for themselves, not rely on fiction to tell them what it is.

Who's got the rights?

We've all heard about the Google-China conflict over the past few months. Should governments regulate internet content? In America, the First Amendment allows for freedom of speech and of the press-- so we can read and say what we choose. But should all governments conform to the rights of the United States? Google claims that governments that filter the Internet are infringing on international trade and human rights.

The New York Times online recently published an article that is dealing with increasing tension between Google and China for freedom on the Internet. Alan Davidson, the public policy director for Google, told a joint congressional panel that the United States should "consider withholding development aid for countries that restrict certain Web sites." Not only is regulation of Internet restricting human rights, it is also decreasing the profit these Internet sites would make from foreign countries and their citizens. Davidson is claiming that the fight is not only with China-- it is with any government that forces internet regulation.

Now, more websites are closing their ties with China. Go Daddy Group is going to halt registration in China because they are concerned for the privacy of their users. A member of the general council of Go Daddy Group said they began questioning the privacy of their customers when Chinese officials requested photo identification and signatures of all the Chinese members. The more companies that receive these requests, the more likely the internet companies available to the Chinese will diminish.

My Communications class just finished talking about government regulation of mass media. Many Americans think there should be some regulation of content, but nothing that would infringe on the privacy of its users. As discussed above, the First Amendment allows for freedom of speech and the press. This gives Americans the right to have almost unlimited freedom when it comes to these actions. The government does, however, regulate certain aspects of mass media. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates content for television, movies, and radio broadcast to the American public. There are not many (if any) laws regulating the content on the Internet-- as long as it is not illegal (child porn, etc.).

So should companies be pulling out of countries like China in order to protest their strict Internet regulations? I'm not convinced. Although I fully believe in natural rights for humans, can these really be left to the United States to make the decision over what these rights entail? Yes, each company has the right to do as they please, but should the government get involved? I think the second the government gets involved, they are killing their own argument. Can we make a law against countries that have too many laws?

Hopefully the Chinese government will see that their regulation will end up hurting their economy and citizens because most Internet domains will pull out. Until they do, I don't think we can force our freedoms on the government (although I wish we could). All humans have certain natural rights and I eagerly await the day that all can enjoy these rights.

Violent Beginnings

In the wake of the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings, people struggled to find answers as to the causes of such horrific acts of violence. Because, if the causes could be identified, then perhaps something could be changed to prevent other tragedies. One re-occuring theory has been that the prevalence of media violence influences people towards violent actions. Is this really the case? What are the effects of media violence, especially on children and teens who are the most susceptible?

An article from ABC News earlier this month cites some recent studies done on the relationship between media violence and viewer aggression (among other effects of media). The media industry is an important influencing factor for children and teens because, on average, this age group spends at least 6 hours (25% or more) of every day using media products. That time in front of the TV adds up. By the time a child reaches adulthood, she will have seen about 200,000 violent acts! That's more than 10,000 violent acts a year. But does watching this violence have any direct influence on aggressive and violent acts?

Studies have shown that there is in fact a relationship between violence and aggression. Children who have aggressive tendencies tend to watch TV with more violence. The trouble, though, is the same as the "chicken and the egg" question: which comes first? Is it that children become more aggressive by watching media violence OR is it that aggressive children are attracted to shows with more violence? Another thing to consider is the fact that children are imitators: they tend to repeat what they see. The well-known Bobo doll experiment indicates this. Children watched an adult beat up a giant clown toy and then modeled their behavior after the example. Imitation is especially prone when there is some kind of reward for the violent or aggressive act; the opposite is also true, that if there's a punishment shown children are less likely to imitate the act. Lastly, the type of violence is important to consider, too. Is it a violent act that illustrates a point, such as 'good triumphing over evil,' or is it merely gratuitous?

So, to sum things up a bit, violence in the media is prevalent, and it certainly has effects on people, particularly children. With that being said, we can't 'prove' that media violence 'causes' people to be more violent. In other words, media violence may or may not have contributed to tragic shootings. But, it's certainly important for us to realize the fact that media are influential for children's socialization. Since children spend 1/4 of the day with media products, we should be aware of the content they're watching - which does include a lot of violent acts. And we certainly need to be aware of how the media could shape 'violent beginnings' in someone's life.

Text From Last Night; meager beginnings to success and fame

The new website “Text From Last Night” (TFLN) has created much excitement, but also controversy in the media world. Lauren Leto and Ben Bator both dropped out of law school at Wayne State University last year to create their website that would later famously become known as “Text From Last Night”. This small website has quickly become a huge success and receives around 4.5 million hits per day. So what is “Text From Last Night”? The purpose of the website is enable users to post amusing, embarrassing, or outrageous text messages that received. The original purpose of the website was for Leto and Bator to be able and keep in contact with their friends who had graduated from Michigan State University. However, it quickly became apparent that the website had the potential to be a huge success.

In Stephanie Goldberg’s article, “Web site’s funny texts lead to app, TV show” she discusses the rise of “Text From Last Night” and compares it to other websites with similar functions. One of the more popular websites compared in the article is FML. This website was created in France in 2008, but soon switched to English. Just like “Text From Last Night”, FML exploded and became a world wide phenomenon. The article reveals how Leto and Bator went from being law student drop outs to creating one of the most popular websites on the internet. In the interview between Goldberg and Bator and Leto, it became apparent that their intentions were to keep it small, but after the book contract the whole website took off.

After reading through this article I feel like my understanding of “Text From Last Night” has become increased and I have a better grasp on its origins. I found the interview to be very helpful in creating a more personal perspective on the creation of the website. The thing I find most striking is how quickly the website took off and became so popular in such a short amount of time. The article was very informative in explaining to the reader more information about the website. Specifically it mentioned that tee shirts, a book, I Phone application, and a television show are all things either being created or already available to fans. After reading the article I feel challenged to go out and create my own web site. Hey, maybe some day it will be the next “Text From Last Night”.

Samantha <3

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/03/17/texts.from.last.night/index.html?hpt=C2">

New Face to Kotex

The 90-year-old feminine care brand, Kotex, Is saying, "out with the old clique tampon ads" Kotex is fed up with the conspicuously euphemistic menstrual product ads and are ready to stop playing games and start telling the truth. Along with the release of their new product, U by Kotex, Kotex is launching a whole new series of ads. This ad campaign is designed to poke fun at the average yoga instructor, white horse riding, dancing girl that is the center of most tampon ads. Mr. Meurer, of Kotex stated, “We’re changing our brand equity to stand for truth and transparency and progressive vaginal care.” The hope of Kotex is to show women that they are sick of the ambiguous tampon-talk, and they are read to get down to business and have a conversation that matters.
This advertising campaign is refreshingly counter-cultural to most ads and ad campaigns. Kotex is basically saying with these ads that,"we're sick of making stupid commercials in order to sell our product. In fact, our commercials have nothing to do with the issue we are addressing." They are a company that is starting to go beyond selling a product and is standing up for something. They think it is about time to stop beating around the bush and say what everyone already knows. Media scholars contend that a bulk of networks get revenue from T.V advertising. Likewise, these advertisements are put in place to sell a product. They both rely on each others interests and most of the time the interests of the general public get put aside. Kotex, in their new ad campaign, is saying," screw the networks, lets think of the American people, girls in particular." I think this is highly commendable and it would be nice if this trend caught on.
So you might be saying, why should I care? Especially guys out there. Yeah, I don't even buy tampons. Well lets hope not! The point is this, rarely do advertising companies develop an ad campaign with the best interest of the people in mind. They normally make campaigns with the best interest of peoples wallet in mind and the wallets of the company. Kotex is stepping out on a limb and making a statement. WE DON"T CARE WHAT PEOPLE THINK! Lets all stop these ambiguous claims and get to the heart of the matter. Sure tampons are gross and having your period sucks, so why the white yoga pants, fake smile, and dancing shoes? This isn't the way women feel on their period. You know were full of B.S, we know were full of B.S, so why don't we just cut the B.S and start telling the truth. I commend Kotex for this and hopefully they are the first of many companies to feature truthful, non-bull ads.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/business/media/16adco.html?ref=media

Amazon vs. Apple...A Battle for the Writes

With the expansion of technology come the battles to control the future. Recently I came across an article titled, “Amazon Threatens Publishers as Apple Looms” on the New York Times Website. It is about the fight between Amazon and Apple. Both are fighting for the rights to e-books. Since the arrival of the ipad Apple now has their hands in the pricing of e-books. Apple wants to require that “publishers not permit other retailers to sell any e-books for less than what is listed in the iBookstore” (the program that will be offered on the ipad). Amazon makes their money by selling books in bulk from publishers, then selling them at their own prices. However now, both Apple and Amazon want to control the pricing of the books offered by publishers. The conclusion that seemed to appear is apple will stay with the four large publishing companies and Amazon will keep contracts with the small. But this may not stay the way in the future as Apple hopes to expand to include the small companies.

Recently in class, we have been discussing freedom of speech and freedom of the press. How the government is regulating the press more and more today. I couldn’t help but think of what our founding fathers would think when they heard about the argument between companies fighting over e-book rights. I do not think they thought of how much the press would really expand. In the textbook by Croteau and William Hoynes it discusses the concentration of ownership of book publishers. They are becoming more and more concentrated. If this continues to be that case, how do Apple and Amazon expect to keep control of many companies if there are only a few powerful ones?

So where does this lead the consumer? Well for one, I know I along with many buy textbooks off of Amazon, because of their great prices. However, they are threatening to not allow anyone to buy from their site until they reach a common agreement with publishers. But, it also helps out Apple lovers out there, because Apple is setting up relations with book publishers. I’m sure we can all expect to see a price differential in the e-books we buy, until an agreement is made between Apple, Amazon and book publishers. With three powerful companies trying to make an agreement that everyone is happy, may be harder then it seems, but hopefully it comes sooner rather than later.

Porn Sites of a New Domain

It is now highly probable that the long-debated domain name for pornography sites will soon be put into place. ICM Registry applied to have all porn sites contain the suffix “.xxx” as part of their URL. This proposal has been rejected by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) three times since 2000. ICM Registry believed that there was no reason for their application to be rejected, as they had fit the criteria required to create new domain names. In response to the rejection, ICM Registry challenged ICANN in court through the Independent Review Process. The decision was reached just two weeks ago that ICM Registry does, in fact, have the right to have their domain name established. ICANN and ICM Registry are meeting in Nairobi, Kenya to discuss the contract and eventually begin to create the domain.

ICANN said that their initial rejection of the .xxx domain name was made because the company did not want to be forced into content regulation. This is a reasonable concern for those who want to keep obscenities to a minimum. Media regulation is known to help one party but hurt another. This is proof of that point because while the .xxx domain name will help those looking for porn to easily find it, it consequently makes it easier for youth and others to find it more easily. It is also possible that this name will become mandatory, not just optional.

There has been controversy about whether ICANN should even be controlling the domain name process. Some fear that if the .xxx name were to be put into place, it would legitimize and promote porn sites. Although this may help parents know exactly what sites to block, critics say that porn sites would keep their original .com URL in addition to their new .xxx name as a way to increase the possibility of viewers coming to their site. It will also make porn sites more accessible – an unfortunate disadvantage to those who wish to stay away from such temptation.

No More Cable!

With growth in technology, high stream internet, and the price of cable bills, millions of Americans are turning from cable boxes to the internet for their television fix. As a college student, I am very aware of the beautiful convenience of online-streams. In fact, later tonight I am going to watch a live college basketball game, free of charge, in the comfort of my dorm room (Rock Chalk Jayhawk!). But why the sudden shift and how do media outlets and producers feel about this cable exile?

An article in The New York Times stressed the recent decline of cable consumers that have made the switch to now being online television consumers. There are now a multitude of ways to get online news, television shows, sporting events, and even commercials. Sundance McClure, a Web developer from Lakeside, Calif., gave up cable as his bill was approaching $100 a month. Now, he watches hours of television on his PlayOn, a software download that cost him $40. His PlayOn streams internet content onto his Xbox360, which he connects to his television. This one-time $40 purchase allows him to watch almost any television show he desires.

How does this affect the television agencies? Aren’t they concerned for their dissipating viewers and will this affect how they make money? Maureen Huff, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable, says they are not concerned. The fad of television streams online is “not new.” Although cable bills are going up, the number of television users seems to be increasing. In the last three quarters of 2009, the multichannel video industry added 1.7 million new subscribers.

Many of the cord cutters (viewers turning from cable to internet) see themselves as “taking power away from cable companies”; they are doing this to help their families. Lauren Reinhold of Lawrence, Kan., cancelled her cable subscription to reduce the advertisements her children saw. Since television is the most prominent (and easy) way to see advertisements, Reinhold believes internet-streams will help regulate those seen by her children.

This sounds like a good idea, but what will happen if cable television gets shut down due to the internet? For one, the advertising industry will probably be hit hard. It is easier to regulate consumers—and their interests—on TV, and much harder online. If cable networks decline in popularity, advertising industries will have to widely expand their networks of use. However, this will endanger the views of parents like Reinhold.

In Mass Media class, we talked about how the advertising industry affects us in all sorts of places. We also discussed how the internet has altered the way consumers view commercials. There is no guarantee that audiences will actually see the commercial, since we are able to pause, mute, or click to a new window website. TiVo brought about some similar challenges for the advertising industry. Advertisers have already shifted to thirty second commercials and adapt to the changing industry. I have no doubt that the advertisers will find a way to make money and grab consumer’s attentions even in this new internet-savvy world; according to our text, they always have.

Personally, I like the idea of saving money and time with internet-streams. Americans are used to sitting on the couch for hours, watching nonsense and flipping through channels. Watching television online is harder and takes more effort from the viewer. It also allows the viewer to watch their desired show at a convenient time. As a college student on a campus where cable is not available, I am thankful for the Internet so can catch up on my shows—The Office and 24. Most importantly, though, I am able to cheer on my Kansas Jayhawks without leaving my room, as I skip commercials and check my email at the same time. And probably the most exciting part is that I can save money and still enjoy all the shows others are paying almost $100 to enjoy as well.

Betsy

The News Face of Facebook

Wall posts and status updates have changed the way we communicate information. Facebook has, on so many fronts, affected the way we communicate. Instead of giving your old friend a call to catch up and see how he's doing, you can just post on his wall. Or instead of waiting to talk to your best friend about if she indeed has a new boyfriend, you can just check out her profile and read the relationship status. One of the great appeals of Facebook is that all of the latest news from your friends is handy at your finger tips.
.
Some may think that the 'news' side of Facebook doesn't go beyond the realm of high school gossip. But the truth is that Facebook has become a source (albeit, maybe not the best one) for local, national, and even global news stories. Just as one example, after the earthquakes hit Haiti, there were constant posts and updates via Facebook about the crisis. In the wake of the event, among people's thoughts and concerns were news updates and ways to get involved by donating time or money. In fact, it was through a friend's Facebook post that I found out about the occurrence of the second devastating quake.
.
Facebook as a 'new' news source has caught the attention of the journalistic news media industry, including CNN. An article from The Guardian on March 10th indicates that Facebook is seen as competition, in the sense that CNN and Facebook are both places where people derive news information. And the fear is that more and more people are going to the latter without bothering to go to the former. Jon Klein, president of CNN, expressed concern that a good portion of the millions of Facebook users are now turning to it for news to some extent rather than merely traditional news outlets. "People are depending on their friends as news sources," he says. CNN has a commitment to, in Klein's words, be "the most trusted news source." But sites like Facebook are jeopardizing the mantra of CNN and others to deliver "straight news" by leading many people to take status updates at their word.
.
Facebook is an interesting phenomenon because (as is obvious) it connects us to the goings-on of our friends. It allows us to find out at any time and from anywhere about what sociologists Harvey Molotch and Marilyn Lester call 'private events.' But, because the world of Facebook is vast and ever-growing, it's no longer simply an outlet for sharing private events (if it ever was soley that). It's also becoming an acceptable source for, on some level, news about 'public events.' News, whether true or not, can spread like wild fire through Facebook's network. It's also interesting to note that Facebook can be a source for generating interest about events - whether it's furthering existing public events or creating new ones. And, in as much as Facebook is a home of news promoters, it's also home to millions of news consumers. That, according to Klein, is where the danger lies.
.
In their article about "News as Purposive Behavior," Molotch and Lester also discuss the fact that the news media shape our perception of reality by changing how we view the events that make up that reality: the way we remember the events and even if we remember them at all. NEws journalism also shapes our view of reality by telling us what stories are important. If it's not in the news, then we tend not to think about it.
.
The bottom line is that we need to make sure that we're getting news from reliable sources. Try to find news sources that you can trust. And be extra careful when reading the 'headlines' on Facebook.

Who is watching you?

This week's article hits close to home, since it is occurring right here in the Philadelphia area. It appeared on the Philadelphia News Website at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/85021742.html. It is an on-going story that has been attracting a lot of media attention. Recently, Lower Merion School districts have been facing an on-going federal lawsuit. Parents of sophomore Blake Robbins claim "the district improperly used a security program on the student's school-provided laptop to spy on the boy in his Penn Valley home." There is now a new turn in recent event in the civil lawsuit. In order for Lower Merion school administrators to discuss the laptop controversy to students and parents, they will have to receive the lawyer's blessing. Not only from their own lawyers, but the prosecution as well. This includes discussion towards concerned parents and students. Although this limitation is common among class-action litigation, it is very rare for a school district to be restricted in a nationwide controversy.

Recently in class we have been discussing the first amendment as well as advancements in technologies and how they affect us. The amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The new restriction is almost challenging the right to freedom of speech. The school district is now unable to keep concerned parents and students informed, unless given prior approval. This lawsuit also brought to light the improvement of technology. We have discussed how the advancement of cell phone technology has led to a "sexting" issue. Also, how social networks such as Twitter and Facebook has changed the way we communicate. Now, there seems to be a question weather school-provided laptops, containing a "spying" program could threaten privacy rights. This lawsuit is continuing to build as it hits national news and brings up questions of privacy among the young population.

This article really hit home for me. I own a laptop, as I am sure many of you do, that has a built in camera. I am familiar with the little light that comes on when I am making a movie or skyping with a friend. It turns on when I hit start, and off when I close out of my program I am using. But imagine if the little green light turns on when you do not command it to. People could be watching and that is a scary thought. Just think who is watching the next time the light turns on, on your computer.

Are you Bot or not? Svedka's new ad campaign...

Svedka Vodka is launching a new ad campaign in which they will be featuring a female robot from the future who loves vodka. This fembot joins the ranks of ad characters including Mr. Clean, the Gieco lizard, the Pillsbury doughboy, and the Michelin man. The initial TV commercial, will double as a video clip online and is part of Svedkas new "R.U. Bot or Not?" campaign. The campaign is going to appear through mid-April, return in September, and run through most of October. The, "R.U. Bot or Not," campaign's budget is estimated at more than $20 million. This campaign includes television, print, online, and outdoor ads. These ads are being aired on Bravo, Comedy Central, E!, and FX. The Svedka is hoping that by airing these ads, that they will continue to boast sales to this already growing company.

But Svedka is not the only one to benefit from these ad campaigns. Media companies rely on these big budget ad campaigns to bring in a revenue. According to media scholars Croteau and Hoynes, "In broadcast media, advertising is the only substantial source of revenue." Furthermore, they contend that it is not surprising that the magazines we read are littered with full-page glossy ads and the articles are miniscule and buried amongst these ads. Likewise, TV ads often seem more clever then the shows they are surrounding. It is after-all the advertisements that pay the bills in the media business.

So what does this all mean? So what? Well I think it is important to understand the power that advertisement companies, such as Svedka, have when it comes to media. TV and magazines are, after-all, a business and they are in to make a profit. This profit does not come from the shows but rather from the advertisement companies. If the shows and networks are making their revenue from advertisements then they are in some way obligated to please these advertisers. I think it is important to understand this concept because often time the public thinks that programs should be aired according to their needs and wants. I am not saying that the viewers needs are totally ignored but it is important to realize that we are not the only ones networks are trying to please.

Can watching too much television be bad for youth?

Yes, watching too much television does carry with it many negative side effects. According to Judith Graham, in her article, “How Television Viewing Affects Children” Graham lists several reasons for why too much television is a bad thing. “Studies show that too much television viewing can have adverse affects, such as violent and aggressive behavior, poor school performance, obesity, early sexual activity, and drug or alcohol use”, explains Graham (How Television). For younger children who watch too much television it can affect the development of their motor skills (move, smell, touch, explore, ect.). It is important for children to focus on playing, reading, homework, and interacting with other children their age to ensure healthy development towards adulthood.

In addition to the negative effects stated above, the issue of obesity is the most common in children. Watching television decreases the amount of time a child is able to spend outside getting physical activity. According to the Family Education Network, “eating too much junk food and watching too much television are two major causes for obesity” (How Television). Not only is the amount of television harmful to children, but the things that children watch on television can also affect them. The amount of violence portrayed in television is very alarming and quite disturbing. “Children are imitators and those who watch violent shows are more likely to display aggressive behavior”, explains Graham (How Television). The American Psychological Association Help Center gives three harmful side effects of viewing violence: learning aggressive behavior, becoming desensitized to violence, and creating a fear of being victimized (How Television).

While there are many negative affects to television, there are several positive aspects of television. There has been research that has proven that television done in moderation and with acceptable content in can be beneficial to school age children (How Television). Some shows such as Blue’s Clues, Big Bear in the Big House, and Big Bag can promote educational values and social interaction. The Research Center for Families and Children states that, “television, if properly used in moderation, can stimulate a child’s education and creativity” (How Television).

While there seems to be many positive and negative affects to watching television, the negative affects seem to out weight the positive affects. For a child to successfully transition into adulthood it is important for them to engage with other children and in activities that promote the use of their motor skills. In my opinion the positive affects mentioned in the article can be obtained other ways besides watching television. By reading a book or a magazine a child can learn educational values such as enhancing their vocabulary and improving their grammar. Social interaction is listed as one of benefits of watching television, which I would tend to disagree with. I don’t understand how a child can have social interaction while sitting in front of the television. Social interaction involves communicating with other people and not just sitting in front of a television watching people interact. For these reasons I feel that watching too much television has very few if any benefits and for this reason needs to be monitored.


Samantha <3

Media, Money, and Justice

Is there too high a price to pay for justice? Is it up to us to unveil systems of injustice? Can justice be given to someone who has been subject to injustice—to the point of death?

An article in the New York Times discussed how Hearst media company is filing a law suit against the Texas governor’s office over access to clemency reports of a possibly fatal mistake. In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for allegedly lighting fire to his house and killing his three children. However, a newspaper article by David Grann was run in The New Yorker with claims that Willingham might be innocent. Why would a major company spend high dollar to gain access to these records? They want full First Amendment Rights participation along with, most importantly, seeking to end injustice in the court system.
Companies like Hearst are finding ways to cut the costs and get access to the records. The companies are hiring in-house lawyers—lawyers that work pro-bono or at a much cheaper rate. These lawyers are interested in getting the government to give the people information. According to the article, the government has had more “secrecy in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”
So, what’s the big deal? We discussed this article in my mass media class since we are discussing the economic side of media. We’re finding that most mass media companies are reducing their budgets drastically—and filling an immense lawsuit would be out of the question. In our classroom discussion, though, I started remembering an earlier topic of discussion: ideology. But not ideology of what is in the media, but ideology in general. If the media is working for the people, they must be willing to always do what is just. I am impressed with Hearst for continuing this lawsuit because despite their desire for success, they are seeking justice. Everything is about money in the media industry, so this is a story of epic proportion: sacrificing money for an ideal, for justice.
This isn’t just something for media industries to consider. I am a Christian, thus I am continually seeking ways to bring justice to areas of injustice; I think we could learn something from Hearst. Shouldn’t Christians be willing, even glad to give up their monetary resources if it means bringing justice?
Take for instance, the clothing industry. Americans flock to the cheapest prices and look not on the tag for the products maker. So average-Jane American walks into a store and finds the perfect top to go with her skirt. She fails to see that So-and-So company (I don’t want to use real company names.. but if you want them, I can give them to you) made this top in Taiwan. Average-Jane does not go home (or get on her i-Phone) to look at whether So-and-So company pays their workers a fair wage, she only cares about cheap prices. So Average- Jane buys that top without giving a second thought to the person that made it for her.
The rich overlooking the poor.
What if Christians found (or created!) companies that paid their workers a just amount and used good materials in a good work environment? Would you be willing to pay the extra money? Christians absolutely should pay more for their clothing if it means they are supporting a just company. Jesus demands that we pursue what is right and justice is right and good. Money can be a mean to ending injustice.
What are your thoughts? Is it worth it to buy (or sue) for justice if it means extra money? If you’re not a Christian, do you still think it is worth the cost? I’m interested in what is good, so I hope I am closer on my way to discovering it.
Betsy

Football Controversy Fumbles

In the upcoming weeks until the Super Bowl, there was much hype surrounding a Focus on the Family Super Bowl advertisement that featured Florida quarterback Tim Tebow. Word got out that it would be a blatant anti-abortion ad, and women’s groups such as the National Organization for Women were infuriated. Once Super Bowl-time came around, the ad aired, but there were no references to abortion. All the built up resentment toward the ad fizzled once people saw what others complained about.

The irony of the whole debacle was that no one who protested the ad before it aired during the Super Bowl had actually seen the ad yet. The whole controversy was based on rumors, assumptions, and speculations. Focus on the Family is grateful, however. FOTF assumed that the ad would simply air during the Super Bowl, and that would be it. Those who protested the ad in the weeks before the Super Bowl brought much attention to the ad, meaning that more people would then know about it. This was especially useful in promoting the second part of FOTF’s 2-part message. The ad itself promotes celebrating family (a fitting theme hence the name “Focus on the Family”) and then refers viewers to FOTF’s website, where they can see additional material explaining how mother Pam Tebow’s medical condition prompted doctors to suggest that she get an abortion and her reasons for refusing.

The controversy about the ad reiterates the risks and benefits of advertising. A major fact to remember is that no one knows what will sell. No one knows what people will like or not like. People were immediately drawn to this ad because they thought it talked about abortion when it actually talked about celebrating family. Also, in this case advertisers risked spending a chunk of money on ads that people may forget or not notice. Fortunately for FOTF, the risk was worth it because protestors brought more attention to the ad. They fought against an anti-abortion stance, yet they ended up promoting it (indirectly, of course, since the ad itself did not mention abortion, but it referred people to the website that did talk about abortion). This is evidence of the unpredictability of advertising – even seemingly bad news can turn into good news.

The Plight of the Watchdog

Families across the country have tightened their purse strings during the economic recession of the past few years. Money doesn't grow on trees, as the saying goes, so when there's less of it coming home, changes in budget must be made. Just as with American families, major U.S. companies - including media corporations - have had to do what it takes to spend less (and make more). At first glance, that doesn't seem like such a bad thing. But consequences of cost cuts extend farther than you might think. The news industry, for example, has faced some challenges without the funds to investigate certain stories and pursue legal means to get evidence for such cases.
.

A New York Times article on February 14th addressed the recent investigative efforts of a media conglomeration named Hearst. Because so many budget cuts have taken place, Hearst and other companies have had to work "smarter" to keep up investigative work, choosing stories that minimize costs in whatever ways possible. According to the article, "... people, lawyers and activists, have lamented the deep cuts in newsrooms across the industry, saying that they have for years relied on the work of investigative reporters to spotlight judicial injustices." A lot of smaller companies have had to put investigations on hold. Hearst forges the trail ahead, though, and continues its research and legal pursuits; they've even been able to increase the number of cases they're going after because of changes they've made, including the use of in-house lawyers. And it's a good thing, too. The news industry as a whole has long been a source of checks and balances with the government, fighting "legal battles to gain access to government information." When there's a controversial story or information is being withheld from the public, a news company will often take it court and demand that documents be released. The news medium can in that way act as a watchdog that protects citizens from the wiles of politics. But, because of the economic downturn, cost cuts have been hurting the news media; across the board, the number and quality of investigations has been decreasing. Thankfully, though, companies such as Hearst have been able to keep up their work in spite of it all.

.
Overall, it's important to remember what a huge role the economy plays in the production of media. In the news industry, economic factors can determine how many and what kind of stories are being reported, as well as the range of story topics and ideologies being presented. Some stories are cheaper to report because they don't require as much investigation, and it's definitely cheaper to utilize a fewer number of journalists to get the job done. And, beyond cuts in their budget, news organizations are also going to target audiences that can help increase their revenue in order to bolster more money towards improving an already-decreasing budget. Authors Croteau and Hoynes point out one potentially-harmful consequence that appealing to a certain audience may bring: "Such cost-cutting measures are likely to make news coverage oriented more toward elites and government, with little focus on events or perspectives outside the official world."

.
All of these decisions, based on the need for budget constraints, affect the news reports we receive on a daily basis. Bad economic conditions don't just determine what you can or can't buy - they also determine what is or isn't reported by the news media.