What I want not if they want me

This article does not deal much with mass media communication except for the fact that many people and institutions let the names of colleges and their reputations decide what type of education a student received. I thought it would be interesting to other students in the class, it was to me. NPR (National Public Radio) is doing a seven part series on the college admissions frenzy and things students should take into consideration. The one I would like to draw attention to is “some students looking for ‘hidden gem’ colleges.” Those highly coveted colleges’ admissions processes are very intense. The students that apply are basing their wants on the reputations and advice of family, friends and highly popular ranking systems. Is this information enough to promise an education based on your needs and personality? College is a time where we start figuring out who we are or who we will be in the future. Will a name help define us or is that exactly what some students don’t want? More and more, students are looking for colleges that fit into the life they hope to make by thinking about the environment, the people, and the studies, not just ranks and G.P.A. I love this outlook because it’s how life should be. Our college education is about what we want it to be, the friends we will make, the places we will live, and the careers we will have.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7384194

Is college costly mistake for some?

Opting out of college for blue-collar life was the headline that caught my eyes as I was browsing an NPR website. The article was so interesting and went in-depth information of how some student do not belong in college. Kip Beaudoin, a guidance counselor in Kingsford, Mich, public high school is encouraging the high school students not to seek higher education, if they think it is not for them.
The reason that some educators think the increased college dropouts is the cause of pressure on the students to follow the college track, and they think they might be better suited to other options.
A chemistry teacher at Jefferson community college on Louisville, KY, surprised me with his strong words saying that ‘he often encounters students who should have been told long ago that they don’t belong in college.’
Is this another trick that the blue-collar employee seekers are using to get more students to dropout to fill in those blue-collar positions that have faced a shortage of staff? Or it is the thinking of the intellects went wrong.
It might had been possible in the past that some of those dropouts made it a good life, but is it the same now to take that risk when technology is leading us into the wonders of the future to be without higher education? The economists have cautioned that skipping college is much riskier to day than it was in the past. “It is a bit fool’s gold to think that you can drop out of school to day and …do particularly well in the US economy in the long run,” says Harvard economist Larry Katz. But the question is why some educators are suggesting that some students are better off some other options rather than college? And why some students agree that going college is waste of time. Rob Macdonald from Waltham, Mass, wishes he had been better advised; he tried college, but quit and left with $40,000 in dept.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7504120

Mass Communication and Hurricane Katrina

www.hurricaneonthebayou.com
Hurricane on the Bayou is an informative IMAX film and had a message to convey to its audience-Save the Wetlands. Produced and executive produced by Greg MacGillivary and Audubon Nature Institute, respectively. This project began to educate people of all ages about the importance of saving the wetlands because of the protection barrier they provide from the powerful hurricanes of the Gulf Coast. While they were filming, the surveillance message from the media warned of the impending hurricane, and forced the crew to rethink the direction of the film.
In the past 50 years the wetlands have eroded dramatically and must be replenished to be the first line of defense against future hurricane storm surges that cause the sea level to rise or as in the case of Katrina breech levees. It is predicted that without rebuilding the wetlands, the Gulf of Mexico will move 30 miles inland by the year 2050.
A pivotal moment in the film was during the footage of the devastation after the flooding began-“communication was dead,” there was no help coming and it showed neighbors rescuing neighbors from roof tops. This portrayed the impact of the loss of communication on the people who remained in their homes after the flooding began.
The project successfully communicated the message using influential musicians, respecting Louisiana’s history of jazz and blues. Through the side stories of music and devastation the message was clear “this kind of flooding is preventable in the future if we all work together to restore the marshes.”
I knew that I had to see this movie, while I’m researching communication failures during Hurricane Katrina. I realized during my research that I don’t have many visual images in my mind because I didn’t own a television at the time of the hurricane. All of my news came passed on by friends and coworkers loaded with their own interpretations.

Where High Tech Meets High Concept

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i25/25a02701.htm

I think the concept of finding new medias, and the exploration of creating new forms by using unconventional means, is pretty exciting. I hadn’t put too much thought on how media is “created,” more on how it is applied. There is a new undergraduate and graduate program at the UW that focuses on innovating new forms of media technology; the idea is to use “the aesthetics of often-obscure or little-considered technology, and the nature of human encounters with it.” I think by allowing students to “reinvent” certain types of media (e.g. filmmaking), one may discover a new method on how the public views movies, TV, radio, etc. It will also translate into how media forms are utilized and for different purposes than what they were originally intended. Mr. Brixey states “With the advent of new technologies — ones based on computers and the Internet, and many others that draw from fields of scientific discovery and insight — new dimensions are opening up that lend themselves to representation beyond two- or even three-dimensional art.”

The exploration of new media technology could certainly bring about changes that could potentially benefit society as a whole. I like the fact that it’s pointed out that it’s “not weird science, but an art form.” Personally, I haven’t really considered media forms as “Art” per se, but do realize that there is much involved in the creation and implementation of media; I think with this new program, individuals could produce some viable “art,” as well as contribute new technology to different industries. I believe it to be a win-win situation.

Advertising & Children

The Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) and the National Advertising Review Council (NARC) are for promoting better advertisements for children. Recently companies like Campbell Soup, Hershey Company, Kraft foods and McDonald's all agreed to be involved. Right now more then 2/3 of children's food and drinks are advertised on t.v. The goal is to teach children healthier eating styles and an all around better diet for their lives. That teaching them good habits at a young age will stick with them when they are adults.

There are two main agreements which are self-regulation program approval of significant revisions to the self-regulatory guidelines and to monitor advertisement for children under the age of 12. The main point amongst the other companies is that they will promote healthier things on t.v. and all around advertisements. One of the rules is that the companies are not allowed to advertise food or drink products in elementary school. I think this is a great idea! The less children see of advertisement of unhealthy things the better it will be for them.

In the next 6 months we should see these companies doing what they agreed to do. I think it will be interesting to see how the companies are going to promote healthier foods. How they have to rethink there ideas. I am hoping that it will be a success. I do have doubts about if all the companies will stick to the rules and guidelines of the CBBB and the NARC. For it is going to be a huge change now that they have to really think about what they are going to advertise especially since they did sign a contract.

I wish the idea of promoting healthier eating habits on t.v. and all around advertisements would have happened sooner. For we have known for quit some time now what is healthy and what is not for our bodies. I feel as if we would have did this earlier children would be a lot better off. Though people have to remember children do as they see. So if it is a success that the companies do show healthier advertisements I hope the adult will show the same examples. I feel as though the child will benefit hugely if this is done.

http://www.bbb.org/Alerts/article.asp?ID=728

Cingular Wireless the New AT&T and the Old South...Why no protest?

Cingular Wireless, the “new AT & T”, is running a commercial that features a young man on the phone with his future father in law, whose name is Jim. The father states, “I hope you can think of us as buddies.” The young man replies, “o.k. Jim, Jimbo, Jimmy boy, the Jimster” and then proceeds to break into the song “Jimmy Crack Corn”. The shot of the young man cuts at the line, “Jimmy Crack Corn and I don’t care”, back to Jim smiling saying something we don’t hear because the call has dropped. The young man believing he’s gone to far in his friendliness saying, “ah Jim”. The commercial cuts to the phrase, “A dropped call can ruin a conversation.” The last shot is of the young man saying, “Jim, I mean Mr. McDermott.” Cingular asks us to “switch to the network with fewest dropped calls”.

For awhile every time I saw this commercial, I reacted in disbelief. Future showings of the commercial had me running across the room for the remote. Why the severe reaction? I couldn’t believe the commercial was using an old minstrel song to make a point about dropped calls (I would note later others commandeered it and labeled it a folk song). I am curious to know, what made this young character, who is white, sing such an old song? A song, I would presume his generation probably never ever heard growing up (Note again, I am wrong about this too…apparently the song is taught to school children). I was disturb because the lyrics depending on a persons interpretation has mixed meanings. It could be a song about slaves seeking revenge on their master, it might gave been a protest song to abolitionist, an uplifting song for the slaves, and interpretations continue. I think hearing the use of the word “Jimbo” seemed to trigger the word “Sambo” (a negative connotation towards dark skinned people), the words “Jimmy boy” made me think of the negative connotation of the word “boy” when by white southerners, and luckily the word “Jimster” only reminded me of an old Saturday Night Live skit featuring Sting, in which the character proceeds to say “Stinger”, “Stinger ronni”, “Sting man” and so on. The fact, the commercial cuts to another scene before he completes the line with “my massa’s gone away” is a sign the creators knew they were close to crossing a very dangerous line.

I wondered was I the only one to be disturbed by this commercial. Where are the protest from the NACCP? What were the ad people thinking and why develop such a commercial? Where’s Dave Chappelle with a comeback to bring balance. I could only conclude we’ve become to desensitized and we lack understanding of history and its relevancy to today’s culture. It also probably doesn’t help that rappers and various other people have adopted the song further aiding in a lost understanding of the songs meaning which has various interpretations.

What do you think? Should people protest AT & T. Should this commercial have aired? Did they creators cross the line?

Check out the commercial and what some others say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqeMZh1WJs4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Crack_Corn

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a981030.html

News War

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/view/

In this very timely and first of a series called News War, Frontline uses the “Plamegate” ordeal, the jailing of Judith Miller, and the current Scooter Libby case to discuss reporter’s privilege. Not only that, but also how our government can use and did use the news in it’s run up to the war in Iraq and to sell to the public the need to topple Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times and many other major publications have a very limited ability to access the intelligence community, due the lack of national security reporters and bureaus internationally. The intelligence that the NYT reporters (Judith Miller) were using in their stories, that supported the war, was coming directly from the Bush administration. In turn, people like Cheney who gave the information to the reporters, would turn around and reference these stories on programs like Meet the Press as if the NYT had gathered this information from independent sources. Not surprising, but appalling nevertheless.
This is appalling not just because of the employment of these sinister tactics by the Bush administration, but because the NYT and Judith Miller seem to have been complicit in this.
The bigger question is whether Miller went to jail on principle, to protect her confidential source, or to protect the Bush administration, which was her source. If it is the latter, and I tend to believe it is, it confirms one of the important messages in this program. Before and during Watergate, confidentiality was used as a tool, by journalists, to coax their potential sources to give up information. Now confidentiality can be a condition imposed on the reporter by the source to spin a story. The D.C. elite and elite media hand in hand manipulating the public. No wonder there’s a major credibility problem in journalism today.

Online Video of Madrid Trial

It is amazing how relevant this class has been to everything that is going on in the World. Hearing earlier about the Radio consolidation proposal, and now seeing this article in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/business/worldbusiness/19media.html?ex=1172638800&en=2f4d263e2fc67c42&ei=5070&emc=eta1

“MADRID, Feb. 18 — On the opening day of Spain’s trial of 29 men accused in the deadly Madrid train bombings, police officers ringed the maximum-security brick courtroom while a helicopter whirled overhead.

"But with the click of a computer mouse, anyone can peek inside the inner sanctum for a glimpse of Spanish judges in black robes with white lace cuffs facing suspects barricaded behind bulletproof glass. [...]

“Datadiar has struck an alliance with the tribunal, the Audiencia Nacional, which has opened the courtroom wide to cameras. Four are posted at various angles in the court, and a fifth shows documents presented as evidence. “

I love that anyone can peek into the courtroom and follow the proceedings online. That is exactly how it should be. Although I agree, that the OJ Simpson circus showed us how NOT to publicize a trial, I hope we have learned our lesson. The world can only become a community if we are all involved and we can only be involved if we are given the chance by opening doors – or tiny little windows in this case – into courtrooms everywhere. I applaud Spain for showing how democracy should operate and for broadcasting without any commentary. For any mistakes that may happen during this trial, the judge seems to say: they have nothing to hide.

I would like to make it clear: I would not be so enthusiastic, if this was a television show, where “experts” weighed in on every word uttered. Although it may be hard for common people - not well versed in legal lingo - to understand what is happening, the symbolism of this opening is enormous. Everyone can take the time to follow the events. The company who is broadcasting is a for-profit firm, but made an exception in this case and made the footage available free of charge. Everyone – including the technology – is coming together and that is just so exciting to see.

Proposed Consolidation of the Satellite Radio Industry

The top two rivals in the satellite radio industry have agreed on a merger as an attempt to lower costs. XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio hope to merge as equals with shareholders of each company owning approximately 50 percent of the combined entity. They would collectively decide on a new company name and where the company would be based.
Currently, a Federal Communications Commission provision specifically forbids the companies to combined making the proposed plan seem more like a far-fetched idea. The companies would need to demonstrate that the merger would be in public interest, giving consumers more choices and affordable prices. They would also have to meet antitrust approval from the Department of Justice. The two companies plan to argue that they currently compete with traditional radio, advancing digital audio sources as well as each other.
XM and Sirius are working on developing a universal receiver that could receive signals from both companies instead of just one company's signal. This would allow them to eliminate exclusive programming and listeners could enjoy programs offered by each company. The impact on subscription prices is unknown at the time. The merge could either bring down the cost of providing service or it could grant increased pricing power as the only U.S. satellite radio provider.
It is unclear if the FCC will change their regulations regarding the consolidation of two satellite radio companies. The National Association of Broadcasters, a group that represents radio companies released a statement urging federal regulators to block the deal.
This article reminds me of the consolidation of the radio industry following the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act made it possible for a few large group owners to dominate the industry. I would predict that if XM and Sirius were to merge into one satellite radio provider, the consolidation would have similar effects on the sound of satellite radio as the consolidation that occur through out the radio industry.

http://www.komotv.com/news/tech/5934831.html

Thank you Robin Wright Penn....

Thank you Robin Wright Penn for trying to remind the public that your job is an actor not celebrity. These days athletes, politicians, chefs, reality show personalities, and the like achieve the status of celebrity. The public obsesses over their lives wanting to know every intimate detail. The entertainment shows and even national news shows feed the people’s need to know. As Penn points out in a CBC interview, “Do we know these people? Lindsay Lohan? Angelina and Brad? Are we in their f----g bedroom? No, we’re not. Do we hear their conversations? No, we don’t. It’s the most insidious thing in the world. [For actors,] it’s like being a prisoner. The only difference is someone in prison committed a crime. Where did we f--- up? We’re doing art. It’s bizarre.”

I used to love watching the show “Inside the Actors Studio” until I noticed the show started interviewing actors in conjunction with the release of their latest movie and the actors work didn’t contain necessarily a high quality body of work (Jennifer Lopez, Martin Lawrence, and Tim Allen). I liked watching the interviews because I was hearing the actor talk passionately about their craft and how they decided to portray a particular role. They aren’t discussing their personal lives. When Penn states, “I love acting,” and further into the interview states, “We’re all tortured in some way, actors. There’s something that needs to be exposed, and that exposure is a sharing. I’m kind of a shy person. I’m not bold, and it’s an outlet. Hopefully, I touch people and get them to relate to each other, because ultimately, that’s what we’re in this life for, to relate. Otherwise, we’re just whirling-dervish silliness.” She’s talking about her craft as an actor not her celebrity, it makes for a more interesting story to me.

This past weeks reading we read about the media and first amendment right protections and ethics. I am unable to comprehend why it’s necessary or pertinent information to cover the life of someone to the point their stories transcends them to celebrity.

Why do we forget that an actor is just an actor, a athlete is just an athlete, and etc? Why can’t we recognize them as everyday human beings? Why do we place them on the pedestal and continue to support the media’s pursuance of celebrity stories?

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/robin_wright_penn.html

hottest January ever!

Climate change or global warming is a serious challenge and a threat that we are encountering to day. It has been on the focus of political debate recently. The political debate did not create any significant point for the world against the global warming; because each and every one of them has their own interest.
The affect of the global warming is obvious and have been noticed around the world, increasingly serious sign are developing. According to the U.S scientist, January 2007 was the hottest January ever. It broke all the records they had since they started the temperature record keeping in 1880. The increase was 3.4 degree Fahrenheit warmer than a normal January.
“That is pretty unusual for a record to be broken by that much” said David Easterling, the data center’s scientific service chief “I was surprised”.
In order to prevent a major problem to the health and the economy of this and the future generation, there must be taken an appropriate action towards this progressing mater of global warming issue.
“From one standpoint is not unusual to have a new record” said Jay Lawrimore, climate monitoring branch chief. Bur January, he said, was a bigger jump than the world has seen in about 10 years.
Scientist and the environmentalist cried out loud to solve the problem which seems to be a man-made.
The major factor that contributes to the climate change is the burning of the fossil-fuel, and carbon dioxide releasing gases. If we could eliminate the use of those, and turn towards a renewable energy for our electricity, reduce the dependency on oil, increase of the use of an environmental friendly energy, we would create a saver environment for us and our future generations.

www.komotv.com/news/national/5853221.html

Advertisements and the effect...

It’s amazing the effect ads have on people. Volkswagen was asked recently to pull an ad that showed a man about to jump off the top of a building until he learned that the car was selling for less than $17,000 then he easily walked away from the edge of the building. The article said that no one complained about the ad, not the consumers, owners, or dealers, but from suicide prevention groups that were concerned about its message. Volkswagen withdrew the ad, saying that sensitivity was a key element. The issue seemed to be that the ad trivialized a very significant public health problem.

I personally saw this ad and thought nothing of it. But now reading this I can see how some people might not want it to be aired. It is making light of a very serious issue and reflects how our society views the issue. If people that have such issues see society not taking it seriously it could make a bad situation worse. It just goes to show how much an ad can say without realizing it. I’m sure that Volkswagen didn’t want to cause any problems when they aired the ad, and saw it as a good advertising campaign, where someone decides life is worth living after all because a car is affordable. They showed that they didn’t want any controversy when they pulled the ad.

We are surrounded by advertisements and I’m glad that someone is paying attention to the meaning of them or the underlying messages, because I guess I have become numb.

http://www.komotv.com/news/business/5892561.html

Shield Laws

Speaking of reporter’s shield law…
http://www.komotv.com/news/local/5913776.html

The house has now passed a bill that would protect journalists from facing prison for not revealing confidential sources. The bill would grant absolute privilege for protecting confidential sources. "It is really important in a democratic society that we have a free press, that we as citizens know what is going on in our society, that the people in power who have an interest in keeping information from us shouldn't be allowed to bury that information," said House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, who sponsored the measure.

This is what we have been discussing. Maybe we are getting closer to the shield laws not being so undefined. It did state that under it’s provisions the court could force the discloser of information under circumstances. These circumstances seem to be what the class agreed on the discussion board, that when it is necessary in a criminal or civil case and the material cannot be obtained else where. It also said that the law would provide a more limited privilege on materials such as unpublished notes and tapes.

A point that was made, was that sources are more likely to come forward if they know that their identities will be protected, and this is essential. Our society relies on journalists for a lot of information and news that is important for the public to know. They and their sources need to have protection!

It’s now headed to the Senate… so we’ll have to wait and see where it goes from there.

Target Me

Blogging, a place to speaks one’s mind or a new way for companies to reach their target market? Many people use blogs to see reviews on products, places, and even people. Can this be a resource for unswayed opinions? According to a recent article in the Mercury News, blogs are now using blog authors as an outlet for advertising. Microsoft recently gave out free $2000 laptops to blog authors with the hope of a blog review of their new Vista operating system. One thing this new practice does signal is the growing popularity of Blogs. Stated in the article “a choice now facing blogger,s” Do they intend to be a trusted source of insight and information for their readers, or merely the Internet's version of an infomercial?” and goes on to ask another question of should the use of freebies or financial backing be disclosed on that website.
To me this new marketing practice is not surprising. It actually seems like a somewhat inexpensive way to reach the consumer. How many people will start blogging if they know they will receive some sort of compensation for their effort? Millions! Paid vacation? Blog your travels! New Laptop? Write a positive review! Sounds good to me! On the topic of disclosing the freebies received for these blogs, I think it should be up to the author. If as a consumer you take the advice of a review that is the consumer’s decision. We are not forced to purchase products or a service; that is our freedom as consumers. If it makes the blog less trustworthy, then find a new resource for information. There will be blogs that will pride themselves on the fact that they don’t practice this type of influencing. They might even start charging people a small amount to join their oh-so biased blogs. People will find a way. They always do.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/16621026.htm

Some Convenient Truths

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/global-warming?ca=GoobwGcLwI%2BVplz2kB%2FCB3JmiBypO%2Fcy6koU2wI9t2Y%3D

A friend of mine posted this article on her facebook account the other day and I thought it was worthy of a blog post because it's a different side of the spectrum of global warming.. Or climate change.. Whatever you prefer.


I'm really glad that people are beginning to acknowledge the fact that things are changing, especially regarding greenhouse gases, because if something isn't done our future is not going to be so bright.. I do believe though, that some politicians are making it seem like stopping (or slowing down or even controlling) global warming is going to be really hard and really economically expensive. I don't think it will be at all, and I believe our past has proven that. I mean honestly, when you watch the news you never hear about anything that we have done right to help prevent or slow down global climate change, but we've actually done pretty well so far... For the most part... BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD STOP!!!

In the past forty years there have been three major threats to our environment; urban smog, the emissions of chlorofluoro­carbons (CFC) that threatened to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer and acid rain that threatened to destroy the dying Appalachian forests. All three of those issues were acknowledged by our past presidents and strict regulations regarding each issue were enacted. In the past thirty years "smog-forming has declined by a third to a half, emissions of CFCs have been nearly eliminated, studies have shown that ozone-layer replenishment is beginning and since 1990, acid rain has declined by a third (which is a start), while the health of the Appalachian forest has greatly improved."

Now isn't that something to at least be proud of? I didn't know until a couple weeks ago that we have actually been improving... Especially our ozone layer.... I always used to look up at the sky and imagine a huge hole just appearing because I thought the ozone layer would never start getting better.

Why do you think it is that we never hear about the things that we are doing right? Don't you think if people were told that the work they were doing to prevent global warming was paying off it would motivate them to do it more? It would for me.... And did those regulations hurt our economy at all? I don't think so... Did it cost us an arm and a leg? Not so much...Even if it did there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to spend an arm and a leg to help our environment when we're spending thousands of bodies other places doing other things......

http://www.kirotv.com/sports/11017440/detail.html

Here's a story that compliments our reading for the week.

I understand the need to report, and the need by which to gather information. But, what I don't understand is why the underhandedness from an attorney? One, the details that he/she leaked is not worth being disbarred over, two, why wouldn't he/she want for a potential fair trial, and three, what did he have to gain in the end?

This story is text book example of the extent that reporters will go in order to secure the informants identity, and the extremes that are gone to in order to have a story. Where were their ethics during this time? Why would they think it's ok to use this type of information, knowing full well that the information is not to be disclosed. How do the defendants have a fair trial when two eager reporters, and a shady attorney are doing all they can to destroy these people. I find this type of reporting and characteristics to be deplorable. I see nothing good that came from this. Now, the reporters get to sit anxiously while they wait for their turn in court. Reporting a viable story is obviously important, but this type of behavior only sullies those reputations of reporters that are seriously seeking information in a legal way. Not all information is obtained legally, but you would think that more caution, or a look at what the potential consequences would be before delving into something like this.

Video will Resurrect the Radio Star

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/media/14radio.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=technology&adxnnlx=1171473237-IuYFEJHhpNd20tKi5dc5RA&pagewanted=print

This is an excellent review of the changes that radio will have to go through to stay competitive. The article argues that video will actually save the radio (star). Many DJs all around the country are already buying into this new medium although some are a bit concerned with their appearances.

Radio stations have been producing some video specials before, but nothing to the extent of which they are embracing video and user generated content now. Some stations are actually asking listeners to tape concerts which they later post on their website. So it seems that listeners, who are already familiar with radio being more involved, more engaging than other media, enjoy seeing themselves in addition to hearing their voices.

Listeners are now becoming viewers and very much enjoying this new dimension to the old medium. Radio stations are trying to capitalize on this by starting personal reality shows with the most popular radio personalities. These shows are posted on the radio’s website - to attract viewers who may turn into listeners. So it seems that the video is the lure and gaining listeners is still the ultimate goal.

It will be interesting to see if there are actually going to be problems with the crossover TV/radio stations on the Internet: “CBS Corporation, which is better known for its television network, to begin integrating some of its video programming into the radio division’s Web sites.” Will this pose the same problems that radio was facing at the beginning of the century in the form of the non-duplication rule?

For now, I’m just happy that radio stations are still around and excited to see this new stage of the evolution of an old friend.

How much is a Planet worth?

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=21200&hed=Branson%2c+Gore+Team+to+Save+Globe#

Richard Branson and Al Gore join forces to try to save our planet. Their approach is not new, but I think it is definitely worth mention: they have posted a reward of $25 Million to anyone who can solve the problem of global warming.

I welcome this idea. First of all, rich people are trying to do something constructive with their money. Secondly, someone uses all the people of the Earth as a resource. This story reminded me of the NPR story we listened to through this class about “Wikinomics”. How wonderful, that a) someone comes out and calls it as it is: global warming is happening and b) offers a reward for a good idea.

I could not imagine a better use for the Internet than to try to solve the World’s problems with it. Why stop there? I'm sure if we started a think-tank of ideas to the most pressing problems around, like trying to irrigate certain parts of Africa, great suggestions may come from the most unlikely places.

I wish the Internet and mass media in general was used more often like this. Information sharing could finally amount to something useful, something tangible. Although I feel $25 Million is somehow not quite enough reward for saving a planet…

Sea-Tac Luggage Crime

Last week there were two luggage handlers that were arrested for stealing things out of peoples luggage. They worked for a company called Menzies which works with Alaska Airlines. Both of the men were young and 22 years old. They are suspects of stealing cigarettes, lap tops and credit cards. One of the suspects were caught for they were trying to use a credit card in Bellevue and the store called the police who then called the owner. This was the lead on one man for the company was able to identify the man that works for them. The other men was arrested for what police where thinking was a cigarette selling business. That the man was selling what he took from peoples luggage's.

The police and the airports are now trying to tell people if you are missing things in your luggage don't just tell the company that you flew with like Alaska Airlines but let the airport know as well. For the airports feel they will be able to help figure out who is breaking into the luggage and at what airport.

I found this article very interesting for one it was at Sea-Tac airport which is the main airport I use. Also it just reminds me of how much you have to watch everything. Now that there are only certain types of locks you can put on your luggage if any for safety reasons you have to watch out. I understand the protocol but if the luggage's these two men got into didn't have locks then it made it very easy for them. So I see the ups and downs of being able to have locks. I feel as though Menzies needs to have a tighter check of their employees for if there not careful airlines will not want there employees. The best advice I can think of is if your not going on a long trip to pack lightly so you can carry your bag on. I find it a lot more convenient as well for I don't have to wait for my luggage to come down the shoot.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003569894_webhandlers13.html

"I thought it would be pretentious to sort of write about myself as having participating in the destruction of the American political landscape"

I was listening to "On The Media" and I found this story. I am, to be frank, pleased with the fact that Fox News has been losing ground. I have found them to be crass, dishonest and chilling in their style of "news."

"You aim for a very broad segment of the populace – say, you know, middle-class conservatives or middle-American conservatives, and you do two things. You show them that their way of life is being threatened and then you give them somebody who they can blame for their way of life being threatened.

You know, so you fill their news with terrible and threatening news, and then you, in the same broadcast, do something like show a lot of pictures of gay people getting married on the steps of the Massachusetts State House. And then in the end, it becomes sort of a team-building exercise where people tune into that radio station not so much to hear that news but to hear other people like themselves tuned in so that they can feel like they're part of something, like part of a group."

So, while the creepy Fox propoganda machine is losing ground, (it's still number one,) it's losing ground to people playing the same crass game.

Another Perspective on the Media & Ms. Smith

*Pre-note this was written the day Anna Nicole Smith died and as far as I can tell I was on the nose…I am so happy for the Cartoon Network.

So today’s top headliner is going to be the death of Anna Nicole Smith. We won’t be able to escape it. All other news will be out the window. I am willing to bet that Good Morning America, the Today Show, and CBS News along with the various entertainment channels and entertainment shows will recount the story over and over. They will either describe Smith in negative ways such as the Fox News headline “Anna Nicole Smith Dies…Outrageous ex-Playmate dies after collapsing at Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Hollywood, Fla.” or paint her as a woman who was never given a break, as described in the first paragraph of the AP story by Suzette Laboy, from The Seattle Times, “Playboy centerfold, jeans model, bride of an octogenarian oil tycoon, reality-show subject, tragic mother — died Thursday after collapsing at a hotel. She was 39.”

It’s moments like these that the news becomes so obsessive you wonder what else is happening in the world. It’s also odd to think what we’ve become attracted to hearing tragic storylines. While I am still trying to get a clear picture of what’s happening in the Scooter Libby trial the media will be doing biographies of Anna Nicole Smith for the next few weeks. I am not discounting her death. She’s just one person the media turned into a celebrity and the public’s need to know every detail of her life just didn’t help. The lines are becoming so blurry between what the media considers hard news and soft news.

I frequently hop from one news web-site to the next and I can’t help but notice what different stories are the headliners for today on various news sites.

• BBC news (international version) web-site is “Palestinian rivals in unity deal” and a small picture of Anna Nicole Smith.
• The Seattle Times-features updates in red with a big picture of Smith and the first story is “The Army Ranger who robbed a bank”. Of course, no one cares about the army ranger most people are going to read the story about Anna Nicole Smith.
• CNN.com- “CPR fails to save Anna Nicole Smith”
• The NY Times- lead story is “Palestinians Announce Unity Deal”
• NPR.org-“Libby’s Attorneys Pick at Russert’s Account of Leak”

The examples above are only of print media. If you’ve ever watched Good Morning America, the Today Show, CBS News, and Fox News during the morning, it’s always intriguing to notice what their top 3 stories are and what order importance they place these stories. It sometimes reads like a who’s who of celebrity news or if the viewer is lucky they hear the hard news first before the entertainment.

It just reminds me that as a person who wants to know what’s happening in the world I should be vigilant to check every available source of information I can find and never take for granted that I do have access and the ability to conclude my own views about the world.

25 month old died

In the Seattle Times this morning there was an article about an adult named Gomez and her trial for abuse and 1st degree manslaughter back in September 2003. The article was about the foster care organization that was in charge of Gomez's son Rafael also known as Raffy. The baby was born with methamphetamine "meth". Three days after his birth he was put into foster care. Over a short time he was in 4 different foster homes but kept getting sent back to his birth mother.

Six months after Raffy was with his birth mother he died. Gomez says Raffy threw himself out of his high chair 3 times when eating his meal which lead to his death. Raffy had severe force drama to his head. The question is why didn't his mother do something? I mean after the first time her son supposedly threw himself out of the high chair why did she put him back in it? The other question is why was Raffy in the care of his birth mother. The adjacency did not do a good job at all checking out the mother. I'm wondering why this is. Why didn't they look into Gomez since she is into meth and she also has 5 other children in foster homes. It just doesn't add up to me.

I feel as though the adjacency is to blame along with Gomez. There is an apparent reason why her other children do not live with her. I feel as though this case was over looked. The poor child was in and out of foster homes 4 times over 2 years. Something is not right. I hope the investigators figure out what really happened for I do not think the child threw himself out of his chair 3 times and if so he should not have been able to do so if Gomez was watching him properly. Now a child has paid the price for a mother that was careless and should have not had rights to him.

Here is the link to the article.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003566167_webtrial10.html

News medium

Chapter 12 critical thinking #3

To respond this question one should really compare the existing media news we have. It is very clear that all (broadcasting, print, or online medias) have their weakness in one way or the other. And one to say that type of media is the most believable source is not that easy. All the Medias are formed by some inevitable factors that can not be ignored. Some of those factors was mentioned in the text are tradition, technology, and economics. Those factors can formulate the news worthiness among the media. Since economic is also a main factor it will play a major role in the news media; its weakness or worthiness.
Online news is the least believable news media among those I mentioned above. Because the web journalists are too quick to post their news online, and they do not have enough time and enough gatekeepers to edit or check the credibility of the story, thus, the online journalism is not a source that can be relied on as a fact.
It seems that the other two media (broadcasting and print) are somewhat to be believable. But recent years, the broadcasting news, seems to be less believable than that of print due to the troubling events in the broadcasting media that damaged the industry’s credibility.
Printing media seems to have a higher rating on the believability of the news. The reason can be that it has the potential to present in-depth reporting and length analysis; which the broadcasting media lacks because of the time pressure. The print media have the time to check and edit its news before it reaches the readers, while the broadcast media do not have this advantage. Although the critics describe the printing media is a “slow and old fashion”; but it is an accurate and believable source of media that exist.

Free Speech Victory

http://www.freepress.net/news/print/20748
A story within a story, Sarah Olson an independent journalist and radio producer from California was subpoenaed by the Army prosecutor in the case of the Fort Lewis soldier, Ehren Watada. The prosecutors dropped 2 of the 4 counts on Watada and Olson’s testimony was no longer needed. However, being free from the subpoena did not quiet the uproar from Olson’s supporters’ demands “that a journalist should not be forced to assist the courts in limiting free speech.” Olson received legal assistance from First Amendment Center, the Society of Professional Journalist and many reporters and celebrities. Olson’s case and other similar scenarios have made headlines in independent and alternative media.

Had Olson refused to testify she could have faced 6 months in jail, $500 fine, and a felony charge. I believe journalists are responsible for reporting news to the public without fearing implications from the government. In this case the distinct line between the government and the press has been blurred. Olson states, “It is clear that we must continue to demand that the separation between press and government be strong, and that the press be a platform for all perspectives, regardless of their popularity with the current administration.”

Freedom of speech and free press play a tremendous role in society and our democracy. It is the role of the journalist to report the news as they see it. History has shown that we need our journalists to be able to function as “watch dogs” on government affairs. I believe the prosecutors realized they did not have a case and that the charges against Watada violated his Freedom of Speech. This article made me realize how important the independent journalists are and the amount of attention to important topics that one or two people can bring.

I doubt I could talk about anything else today

I think that a mass communication course such as ours must take this moment to think about Anna Nicole Smith. Anna Nicole died yesterday, bringing a desperately sad end to a desperately sad life. I've gotten the feeling, over the past 24 hours or so, that obituary writers have been scrambling to put together stories celebrating her life, while answering the question, "so why was she famous?"
Writers have drawn parallels with Marilyn Monroe, who was the bombshell of her time, blond with a childlike voice, exploited by men, the media and her "fans" and dying in her late thirties of a drug overdose. While this may be an apt comparison, I think that Anna Nicole was quintessentially of her, and our time. She was a celebrity that could have only existed now, in the generation of E!, of reality shows, of Paris Hilton and K-Fed.
Before The Real World was broadcast, we had the illusion, at least, that celebrity was something given to the exceptional. The best, brightest, most attractive artists, writers, actors and directors, etc. were the subject of scrutiny and adoration. It made sense. People could love or hate them, but their work would stand on its own to defend them.
Now, as celebrities are chosen specifically for their mediocrity, they are purely famous to be ridiculed. Since they are not exceptional, they don't have their "work" to defend them.
Anna Nicole was famous for being a train wreck. Her fame as a train wreck fed in to her own self destruction. As she became more and more dysfunctional, she became more and more famous for it. Yesterday, it killed her.
I'm personally feeling some guilt for it. I laughed at her cooking, "Pasghetti" a few weeks ago. I chuckled at her fake wedding, the paternity suits, the Tony Hawk Mad TV episode...
I haven't figured out exactly what it means, but I'm pretty sure that her death is a snapshot of mass media in 2007 that cannot be ignored.

Digital Divide

DIGITAL DIVIDE IS SEPERATING PARENTS, KIDS

http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/uweek/uweekarticle.asp?articleID=30377

Here’s an article that discusses the issues of children and etiquette online. I was reading another article online with regard to schools instituting new regulations for students and “bullying” online. My older children access the Internet everyday – whether from home or school, and there have been incidences of questionable etiquette. At that point, they lose their privilege of using the computer. Also, I think it’s true that there is a gap between those children that are computer savvy, and their parents that don’t use Internet as part of their daily lives. Me, on the other hand, have to keep abreast of most advances, as my job requires it. But for some, the need to be up-to-date with the latest gadgets isn’t necessary. More schools (public and private) are beginning to use those levy dollars for the purpose they were intended – upgrades to computer technology programs. Our children today (well, at least mine) are familiar with computer techniques, and can out perform many of their adult relatives. Leaving them looking like prodigies! There are definitely many safety issues that should be discussed with children while using the Internet. There have been so many incidences of child luring, pornography, and other less than desirable contact made with children, that it’s imperative to help them be responsible and make good decisions while on the Internet. Children (and adults) have the perspective that just because they are not sitting face-to-face with another human, that it’s ok to say whatever you want without recourse or consequence. The old saying of “There’s no excuse for bad manners” still applies whether in the privacy of your own home, and communicating via on-line, or in person.

E-books V "Real" Books

I find it so interesting, that while the entire world is springing forward, there are some people who are holding onto their old ways – and are getting away with it. Case in point is J.K. Rowling. The best selling author of the Harry Potter books prefers to write by hand on a piece of actual paper. She is also causing some problems for the - small - camp of e-book readers. She refuses to publish any of her books through this medium, as she believes, that to experience her stories fully, one must hold a (paper) book. Does she have the right to stall progress like this? I believe so.

And this is what really struck a cord with me. In today’s world of immediate information sharing, there are a few books, real, old fashioned paper books that still cause a stir, which people still get excited about. What is this “different” experience a book can provide? It is the atmosphere. It is the feeling one gets while sitting in a comfortable chair, sipping tea and focusing on only one thing at a time. It is difficult to multitask while submerging in an excellent book. Some may argue that this can be achieved with an e-book or a laptop also, but I disagree. This is not a cognitive decision, it is an emotional one, and paper books still win the battle here.

However, there is definitely a place for the modern e-books also: textbooks first come to mind. How much easier it would be to find a reference in an e-book on a Tablet PC just by typing in a search word? Much better than trying to manually search through hundreds of pages for that one sentence, but will it make us study more? Hm, I guess I am just scratching the surface now.
For better or for worst, I do believe that paper and e-books should co-exist and both should be available for their best possible use. Maybe one for recreation and the other for work…

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-02-05-potter-no-ebook_x.htm

NPR Article

http://www.kuow.org/programs/theconversation.asp

today on the conversation they will be discussing the homogeny of radio broadcasting due to the conglomerate coporations owning so many stations....

Downloads v Brick - and - Mortar

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2850042&page=1

I thought this was an interesting article. It’s contrary to what the book reads (to some degree), in that, the experience of actually shopping for music is not quite dead (at least in some cities). It’s not all about just downloading one song from an album, but rummaging through stack after stack of CDs, looking for something obscure, or searching for the latest Top 40 album. It’s also about connecting with others that have the same interests, and also a place to network. Many people do enjoy the hands-on experience, and the personal attention received. Internet can be quite impersonal. I agree with the commentary that there are many individuals that prefer brick-and-mortar to that of online shopping for music. For Amoeba music shop, it was probably beneficial that Tower Records filed for bankruptcy. It left Amoeba as the one source in the area that provides every type of genre available, all under one roof. And, without the competition, they are sitting pretty good. The article also points out that Amoeba doesn’t have numerous stores around the globe, thus, allowing them to be more focused on just a few stores, providing customers personal attention and a vast variety of music. Another aspect of Amoeba is that many famous band members frequent the place drawing fans there as well in the hopes that they will be able to bump into them. The atmosphere plays a huge role in drawing customers, something you don’t get with Internet.

Social Responsibilty....

Chapter 9 Critical Thinking Question #3

Filmmakers are only so socially responsible in so far as their own conscience leads them. Just as is the case in all other forms of art, the artist is responsible for creating and the audience for interpreting. If we decide that certain types of art need to fall within parameters how do you set those parameters without bias. Is it okay to have smoking onscreen even though we all know how dangerous that is? What about religious content, do filmmakers have an obligation to inform the audience on the multiple points of view available there? What is required to classify something as "socially responsible" or "not". Who decides where that line lives? And even if we had a classification system in place why should we require filmmakers to work within those boundaries. It seems that individuals should be responsible for what they expose themselves to. If you disagree with something on the screen you have the right to ask for your money back and ask voice your opinion; so long as the content has been reviewed and rated then the rest is a matter of personal choice.

I would hope that the people creating film have a level of personal integrity and taste that would curtail any major damage through film. At the same time it could be easy label controversial films that show the reality of war, or alternative lifestyles, or scenes with sexual assault irresponsible. Recently a movie screened at the Cannes Film Festival found controversy for the inclusion of an assault scene (see link)

http://www.cinematical.com/2006/07/21/dakota-fanning-tackles-sex-abuse-in-controversial-role/3

It seems that this could be irresponsible for the effect it could have on the actress, the actor opposite her, and any one exposed to the film. It is a potentially scarring moment but, could it also be an opportunity to educate. It just seems greedy for us to expect filmmakers to not only entertain us, but also inform and inspire in a responsible manner. I think we all should just make good decisions for ourselves.

VOD and the TV Industry

Video on demand will effect the TV industry greatly. Its was slow to catch on when it first came out but it programs have changed to make it easier to access. Products like TiVo or Comcast boxes allows the viewers to record TV shows when they are away so they could watch it at a more convenient time. With those products they are allowed to fast forward parts that they don’t want to watch and re-watch parts that they enjoyed. It also allows people to purchase movies to watch when they are bored. I believe this products will make money for the television industry because they are allowed to tape one show and watch another. The TV industry will be getting viewers that weren’t able to fit TV into their schedule before.
The downside to VOD is that TV channels could possible lose money in the long run from commercials because people are no longer forced to watch them while waiting for there show to come back on. It also effects the movie rentals places like Blockbuster or Hollywood videos now that there is the option to rent from home people aren’t required to come drive to rent movies. No more late fees.
Once it becomes a more popular trend to have VOD in every cable box installed. I think cable companies or TiVo will raise there monthly fee to access it because there is now a demand. It causes people to spend more money for television. Money that is probably better spent elsewhere.

Legal p2p in Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/internet/downloading_music.html

Here's an interesting twist to the controversial peer to peer file sharing dilemma. The above is not a very recent story, but it's something the music industry is trying to fight right now. For our neighbor's to the north, it is legal to download music from internet service providers, such as Kazaa. In June, 2004, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that these service providers do not have to pay royalties for downloaded music files. They found that these ISPs are not responsible for how individuals use the technology they provide. Also, individuals placing songs on a file sharing directory, like Kazaa, is not considered to be distribution. However, I read in another article that while downloading songs is legal, uploading is not.http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html Is not placing a song in a directory and uploading a song the same thing? Even so, I guess as long as the uploading of a song occurs in a different country, Canada will turn a blind eye to the downloading of said song.

Well, anyway, to deal with matter of royalties, the Canadian government has placed a tariff on the sale of hardware or software that deals with digital recordings. The money collected from this tariff is meant to be distributed to the artists, publishers, and record labels. In a two year period, 28 million dollars was collected. However, the tax no longer applies to MP3 players. Apparently, the current Canadian Copyright Act does not have language dealing with Mp3 players specifically.

The point is, American artists and American labels may be able to cope with the downloading behaviors of American consumers, but how should they deal with every country with their own set of copyright laws?

Public Television

*What should be the goal of public television? And
*Should the government support Public Broadcasting?

Well, the goal of public television is clear, in my opinion, and it is towards the public benefit; educational programs.
Since the creation of CPB by the public broadcasting act of 1967, which setup public broadcasting service in 1969, the PBS has done a tremendous service for the public. Its achievement is obvious. Thus, Its goal is to reach as much audience as it can, and educate them of the variety of different and diverse programs it offers; from children to adults, presenting them the educational programs in the areas of wonderful science and the children’s sesame street, respectively.
Public television is the safest TV program to let your child watch at all times, since the concern over the impact of TV’s violence programs on the children grows widely. It has a substantial audience, (as J.R. Dominick describes in the book), and that more than half of American homes watched the public TV at least once a week. That shows the public has an interest in public TV. It gives the education tools up to college level for the students, and educational materials for the teachers up to K-12.
I think the government should support and fund the public television, as the government does support in other nonprofit organizations that benefit the public in some way or another. Public television has devoted in the public education and consciousness,and it has an important role in the soceity. Thus, PBS is such a wonderful broadcasting network that has earned the trust and the respect of its audience. Thanks to the donations from its supporters, the hard work, and the determination of its stuff.

Microcasting

When reading chapter 12 from the book I came across the topic of Microcasting. Microcasting is an interesting topic, which could have potential for a lot of controversy that we have already begun to see. The book defined microcasting as sending a message to a small group of interested people. This is very handy in the society that we live in today.

Our society has become spread out as the Internet has allowed us to make relationships with people across the country and even across the world. Now microcasting (and the internet) are making it possible for us to stay close. The book used the example of how there is already a cite that microcasts funerals on the web. This makes it easy for someone to be there without actually being there. In most cases this could be a good thing, but I wouldn’t want to see people begin to opt out of going to things using the excuse of microcasting. For example saying, funerals are just to hard for me to go to so I will watch it from home, this would be disconnecting people more then connecting them. In my opinion this would lead to regrets, when in the situation it seems easy to opt out of it, but then looking back on it I would feel even more disconnected.

There is then the issue of privacy. What if there is someone that doesn’t want to be posted online for the world to see, but happens to be in a video being microcasted around the world. Now that there are video cameras in cell phones, making your own recordings and posting them has become even easier. Who is to say when we have gone too far?

Video -On-Demand (VOD)

In Chapter 10 the author talks about video-on-demand which is being able to watch movies at your leisure as long as you signed up with your cable company for it, so of course it is not free by any means. Having VOD is going to bring in a lot of revenue for the television companies. For more people are signing up with being able to have VOD. I feel as though it is a great invention that you are able to watch a new movie by a click of a button. The movies are limited but there are a lot of them. I have noticed the movies on VOD have a wide selection from movies a few years ago to recent ones. That now if your movie store like Blockbuster is out of the movie you want it would be smart to check your VOD.

VOD is changing the television industry by having more options for customers. They are and will continue to make a lot more money by having more to offer. Along with being able to buy a movie on the television you are able to pause and rewind the movie ext. Now that is pretty cool if you ask me. It's just like you rented a movie. Also when you get a movie on the television I believe you "get" the movie for 24 hours, so you are able to watch the movie as many times as you would like and many people can watch it.

VOD is coming a long way but so are even newer options. How about TVOO. (Not sure how it is spelled) TVOO was pretty popular for the past couple of years as well but you did have to buy the device first and I am not exactly positive how the whole paying situation went. I think the most recent option on the television part is "My DVR" which you are able to select different shows and movies off the television that you want to record. You then are able to watch the shows at any time and like the VOD you can stop, rewind, pause ext.

Overall the television companies are coming out with new things all the time and with having VOD and now "My DVR" the companies are making a great deal of money.

The Evernet

The Evernet is a very interesting aspect of the Internet, one in which I have never really considered. To have everything thing be connected to you and each other would be amazing, but weird at the same time. There would be a lot of pros and cons.

To start off, to have everything connected to you would be very convenient. The book mentioned that your garage door would automatically open and your furnace would reorder it’s own parts when needed. Our society tends to like things that ‘do it’ for us. At the same time this reminds me of the robot movie with Will Smith and how things would just take over our lives. Our houses would know our preferences and change to our settings when we walked into a room. Would people just turned into these ‘routined’ beings that never changed preferences and did nothing for themselves?

There would be great medical benefits, as the book said, your medical data would be transmitted continuously to your physician. If something started to change, for instance your heart rate, your doctor would be notified and they would be able to follow up. Or if you were having a heart attack the medics would be automatically called for.

The Evernet might divide our society into distinct class by wealth, because I’m sure that the Evernet would not be affordable to all, or at least not for a long time. You would have the class that could afford all these great benefits that ‘easened’ their lives. And then you would have the class that couldn’t afford it and would still have to get to a phone in the middle of a heart attack to call the medics.

There would also be the issue of privacy and hackers, which are present on the Internet today. If someone could hack into your personal Evernet somehow, then they would have access to everything you are connected with, for instance your house, car, and personal information.

I don't pay fees to access the web...but wait I do???

Roger Ebert’s prediction that internet information will require users to pay is definitely headed that way in some areas. A large majority of news sites (NY Times, CNN, and Seattle Times) require you to pay to access stories or stream video features. I am just waiting for KEXP and KOUW to start charging non-donators for access to the streaming stories and music.

Currently, I am unwilling to pay directly to access any news story. There were several times on the NY Times web-site in a which a story (over 7 days old) was inaccessible unless I paid $4.95. So I rebell by reading the paper on a daily bases and print the story out at the time of reading it to avoid the fees. You could argue just order a subscription of the newspaper but I enjoy having quicker access on the internet and saving a few trees. It is interesting to note that as Seattle Community College (at least at Seattle Central) students have access to archive articles from the NY Times and probably other news sites that charge fees. I wonder, what the cost is to the colleges and in turn me as the student? I guess, I am paying fees as long as I am in class, but I would reason it’s definitely less than $.4.95 per article.

I just can’t imagine web-sites charging people for access to their pages. It’s counter-productive. Who wants to pay a fee to access products and services? Then again, Costco charges membership fees for people to purchase products at their warehouse and online? What’s to stop Amazon.com?

First Blog

I believe modern filmmakers have no obligation, socially speaking, to what they present on screen. Movies have always been an art form, an arena for expression. No one that goes to the movies is forced to go, and furthermore, told what to believe. There is almost always a perspective in movies and the moviegoer either identifies or does not identify with that perspective. If anything, a movie can open audiences’ eyes to something they might not have been aware of before. This does not mean, however, that the producer, director, and screenwriters have a moral obligation to educate and inform. Films such as Passion of the Christ and Apacalypto are made in a socially conscious way. Directors such as Mel Gibson try to promote an understanding about the subject. Whether these movies are in contradiction of history or not, it is his artistic expression of the events that may have taken place. Other directors may take the same event and put a whole new twist on it. This does not make one director socially “right” and the other “wrong.” More sides of the story are illuminated and therefore more people are open to the different possibilities. If, by some chance, the viewer takes action on a movie, it is not the responsibility of the production company or filmmakers for that action. Are you forced to buy your ticket to a movie and soda and popcorn? In any culture, art plays a role in forming us, but it is the individual who must choose what is right and wrong and what motivates and what does not.

My Not So Personal Information

The Question For Critical Thinking that caught my eye was the the second question from Chapter 11. It suggested doing a Web search with your name to see how much personal information you could find. My name fairly common and I thought it would be interesting to see if the search would bring up any of my personal information.
I decided to use Goggle's search engine to begin my research, simply because that's the site I always use when I'm searching for something. At first I simply typed in my first and last name, "Alison Williams". The search results showed information for Alison Williams as a contemporary artist, wedding photographer, holistic practitioner, and other professions. Pages and pages of results for my name and yet none provided any information about me.
I knew my search was too general and decided to include my city and state. My search for "Alison Williams Seattle, Washington" was more successful than my first try. On the first page of results, the sixth item from the top related me. I had signed up for a Dachshund Meet-up club when I first got my Dachshund a year ago. I only logged on once, the day I set up the account and I haven't used it since. I was surprised that the first piece of personal information I found came from something I signed up for without much thought.
For my last search, I added my zip code to the previous search. My complete address and home phone number popped up on my screen, listed under the result link. My personal information was available without having to click on a link to another website.
This is a scary thought because the information is out there, open to the public. It would not be difficult for others to access this information. If someone knew the general area I live in along with zip codes of that area, they could find me and come knocking at my door. This was definitely a wake up call to me and I think anyone with some free time on their hands should try it, too.

Debunking the Evernet: Redefining connectivity

The concept of the 'Evernet' involves a futuristic look of the Internet as we have come to know it today. This third version, or next instantiation of the Internet will "describe the convergence of wireless, broadband, and Internet telephony technologies that will result in the ability to be continuously connected to the Web anywhere using virtually any information device," (Source: http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci509018,00.html
).

While futurists and some college professors may goo over the concept of an 'Evernet," it will not become an actuality until the convenience of connecting every device under the sun actually meets the basic rules that have made the rise of Internet communications the phenomenal success that it is today.

Internet successes to date have been characterized by three factors:
1) Connectivity to information
2) Connectivity to community
3) Convenience

The first Internet "Aha" moment for most was the first time they typed a query into Yahoo or any other of the early search engines. By typing a word such as "cars" into the search page, pages upon pages of car sites would be returned within seconds - faster than ever before. Of course, we are all familiar with the story. Years after competing search engines were on the scene Google entered with a new hyper-relevant search engine that transformed the way that information has been categorized across the Net. Google's success as a company lies in the fact that it was able to serve advertising to its millions of users, but at the root of their business was the simple fact that the company found information, most importantly, relevant information, faster than anything before it. Similarly, the rise and demand for connectivity has been driven by quick access to information - photos, instant messages, virtual newspapers, media files, etc.

The second factor that is most prominent today is the role that electronic communications have played today in connecting individuals to information and to each other. Today, the most popular sites across the web either connect extremely large groups of people to information or virtual communities where they converge and connect to each other. Examples of the latter category include MySpace and YouTube, the success of which has been driven by the simplicity by which millions of users connect with one and other, either via simple text messages, photos, forums, or by creating virtual links to friends and peers.

While I would argue that the first two underpinnings of connectivity are the most important in determining the success of the Evernet, a third measure will also play a factor - convenience. The broad definition of the Evernet includes connectivity to every device, appliance or lawnmower, due to the fact, I believe, that these devices will make life more convenient when they are connected. This however, is not some trivial obstacle to surpass as we are a terribly long ways away from the day when my toaster or thermostat performs at a higher level when plugged into a network than it does today.

Given this proprietary Livia Jobson framework, there are certain devices today that do in fact fit in an Evernet world. One example is the blackberry mobile phone. The blackberry allows mobile access to information via a wireless company's network. This device connects to information (email, photos, web sites) in a quick and efficient means. It also allows users to communicate with each other (via email or IM). It also serves as a convenience that did not previously exist, allowing business persons access to information on the go, that was previously unavailable. Note for this I am ignoring the sheer annoyance of people who user their blackberries in the restroom as a factor of 'convenience'.

Until all three factors are met, the Evernet will continue to live in the realm of fiction.

Hollywood Producers

While producers are the deal makers, without their oversight during the entire process of making a film, most films simply would not make it to theatres. The producer first must sell an idea to investors to insure financing throughout the process. This requires an understanding of what the story is and how it will translate into film. It's the producer who acquires the actors that will increase the chance of a film's commercial viability. Along with bringing together the behind the camera crews, the producer makes the most vital creative decision in finding the right director. The producer is responsible for the daunting task of organizing the logistics of shooting a film. Although the director has much creative freedom, it is the producer who will make the final call to keep the film on task. In post production, which includes editing and scoring the film, the producer makes sure the film retains its commercial value. In this way the producer has a vital role to play in the creative process of making films. All these skills show that the producer must have an in-depth understanding of all aspects of the film making process. Making the statement that producers don't make films, they make deals, implies that they are only in the business of transferring money back and forth. While it's true that making movies in Hollywood, for the most part, is just about making money, without the producer's hands-on involvement in the process, Hollywood films, as we know them, could not be made.

Music industry dances to the digital beat.....finally.

(note: I was under the impression that our blog posts were supposed to be based more on our personal opinions, kind of. So I went with my gut on this one and if it wasn't quite right let me know!)


"All is peaceful once more on the music industry front as the recent Midem trade show indicates that music labels have gone back from whining and causing a din about illegal downloads, to wining and dining on the French Riviera."

After eight years record companies have finally made their final transition into the digital age, and it's about time. I was really happy when I found this article, because although I know that music "piracy" is a bad thing, I thought it was really lame when the music industry got all crazy about pirated music and started suing twelve year olds (see "Twelve Year Old Sued For Illegal Music Downloading). Music is a really big part of my everyday life and I have a lot of respect for artists that make music for the people and not for the money. In essence, I feel like the beginning of the illegal downloading years was really just the consumer wanting something different and illegally downloading music was their way of expressing that to the “music industry man.” If record companies chose to take advantage of modern technology, I'm sure the will find that it will be a better way to connect with their fans and the happier artists make the consumer the happier the consumer will make them.

According to IFPI chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) John Kennedy, "revenues in 2006 doubled to about US$2bil," and by 2010 they're expecting "at least one quarter of all music sales worldwide to be digital." Making music isn't about record sales anymore and I think that most musicians out there are ok with that, especially because they're still making ridiculous amounts of money.

http://star-techcentral.com/tech/story.asp?file=/2007/2/1/itfeature/16730134&sec=itfeature



Twelve Year old Sued For Illegal Music Downloading:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html

Survival of Public Television

What should be the goal of public television? Should the government support public broadcasting?
The goal of public television should be to continue to provide quality educational programming, regardless of profits. Most importantly, PBS should continue airing children’s programs during daytime slots. PBS has been praised by critics for the quality of children’s TV, providing education in an entertaining way. Programs like Frontline and the various nature shows are also an element of PBS that can not be replaced by network or cable programming. According to Dominick, half the homes in America watched public TV at least once a week. This is a substantial amount of viewers considering the increased number of options we have today. Realistically, PBS will not dominate the industry like the major networks and cable channels, but it plays an important role in many peoples viewing habits. Noncommercial television needs to remain a viable option for people not interested in mainstream programming.

Despite challenges and tight budgets the government should fulfill an obligation to the public and maintain the integrity of the Public Broadcasting Stations. The government should be increasing funds rather than making cuts and the stations should not have to rely on commercial advertisements for financial stability. The internal structure and leadership should be evaluated by an independent source that makes recommendations for changes in the organization to eliminate communication problems between PBS and the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. PBS should also find creative ways to increase revenue and expand programs.

As a parent, student, and conscientious citizen I utilize the service provided by PBS as a source of education, entertainment, and news coverage. Without PBS I would evaluate my need for a television.

VOD Changes to TV Industry

I think VOD will change the TV Industry in a good way. Ultimately companies want to provide the best service they can to their customers. Every company would love to be able to provide their customers with everything they desire. That way the customer will spend all their money with one company.

TV companies and especially cable providers are going to have to look at the way they do business. If one company can provide regular cable programming and an archive of free movies for around the same price as a competing company, why wouldn't someone sign up with them.

I think that with the development of VOD, there's alot of money to be made. But, there's also alot of money to be lost. The production companies that own the rights to the movies can contract with certain cable companies allowing them to archive and show their movies to their customers. Obviously this technology and way of business will hurt the Hollywood Videos of the world. Why would someone go to the video store and rent a movie that's probably scratched, when for the same price they can simply navigate through their cable companies menu and have the charges added to the bill. Additionally, factor in the gas you burn going to and from the video store, the potential late fees if you don't get it back in time, and the irritating scratched DVD that just won't play.

One of the issues I have with this concept is that if video rental stores to go out of business, what choices do I have when it comes to cable providers. Currently I live in Renton and the ONLY cable company you can have is Comcast. What if Comcast decides to raise their prices and I can't afford the service anymore?