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