Net Neutrality

Imagine logging on to your computer as you normally do, only to find that the web pages are loading slower. A lot slower. Now, imagine discovering that restoring your Internet speed is not a matter of fixing a few technical problems, but a matter of who you are. That's right, your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is deciding the quality of service you receive based on who you are (Read: how much money you can pay and how much influence you may have).

This, dear readers, is a matter of Net Neutrality.

The Internet has been kept neutral since its creation--the same quality of service is provided to everyone. Its built into the structure of the Internet. However, it has recently come up that some ISP's in the U.S. would like to start providing different qualities of service to different people.

An article in the New York Times discusses this issue. They look to Europe as an example of how replacing Net Neutrality with Net Transparency (as I will refer to it) could be the best model for American Internet. This means, they think it better if ISP's were simply and completely transparent about their Internet quality levels. They should tell every possible customer how they determine who gets what type of service and who they allow to do what with their service. This way, the Internet could become more profitable and need less governmental regulation.

However, I am not sure this is entirely true. Compared to Europe, the U.S. has very few ISP options--mostly just Comcast or Verizon. This means, even if they were transparent about their services, there wouldn't be very many options for quality of Internet Service. More than likely, the options would be this level of not-so-great quality or that level of slightly-better-but-still-not-great quality service. In Europe, this is different. With so many different ISP's and so much competition, it's more likely to find one with the quality of service you are not only able to pay for but also that you would prefer. So, while this model may work in a country with lots of ISP companies, I do not know how well it would work in one with so few.

But why does this matter? Well, do you want to pay more for the same quality Internet you are getting right now? Do you want to get less quality service than businesses simple because you're an individual and not a company with influence? Probably not.

Right? What do you think?

Ads: anywhere and everywhere

We are use to seeing ads in magazines, newspapers, websites, on the side of highways, and even on everyday objects, but what about school websites, school buses, and school buildings? School, the one place where children are supposed to be kept safe from the empowerment of advertising, is now caving into it as well. In a recent article by Jeff Martin, on the Commercial Alert website, the scary reality of ads appearing on school websites became apparent. A growing amount of schools around the nation are experiencing budget cuts and are left desperate for revenue. Although some parents and citizens are outraged by the thought of having advertising on school websites, school officials say it is the only way. Schools promise to keep the ads educational and appropriate, but what happens when the school is left with the need of more money and the only ads available are McDonald's?

Although these advertisements are meant to be "symbol free" and just innocent ways to advertise, the truth is every media image has an ideology. Every media image is polysemy, meaning it holds a various amount of messages. Also, most ads, no matter what they are advertising, promote some sort of worldview or lifestyle. Children are at the age where they are beginning to create their views and beliefs, and advertisments/media will play a role in these developments. Whether the ads presented on the school's website, or school bus are educational or not, they are still going to influence the children. They are too young to be able to know the difference between an advertisement and "real life."

Ads are everywhere, but should they be associated with the educational system as well? Is there not any other way a school district can make more revenue other than advertisement? What are your thoughts about this issue? Would you want your little sister or brother being advertised as they take the bus to school every morning, or every time your high school sibling goes online to look up their next school soccer game? It is a sad day when bake sales and spirit wear fund raisers are no longer enough to raise the extra money a school needs.

LPFM NOW!!

From the website freepress.com i found an entire section of the website (including an article) dedicated to LPFM.For those who are unaware of what exactly LPFM is, it is something that every college student should be interested in. It stands for Low Power FM Radio. Low Power FM Radio stations are those run by colleges, churches, local organizations, communities and so forth. You may be familiar with a scratchy sounding college radio station with amateur Disc Jockeys playing underground music, stations such as that are LPFM. These stations give unique perspective and view points that are increasingly valuable in a world so controlled by major media companies.

For a short background, Congress approved LPFM stations in 2000 and the FCC began giving out licenses to non-profit organizations left and right. "Big Media" and their lobbyists stepped in soon after and influenced congress to pass legislation to drastically reduce the abilities of the FCC to give licenses to LPFM groups. The lobbyists from Big Media corporations made (what we now know to be false) claims that an influx of LPFM radio stations would seriously affect more prominent and popular radio stations that are not non-profit. They made claims that the LPFM signals would actually interfere with the signals of other stations.

The FCC found in a study (The Mitre Report) that these LPFM stations would not interfere with signals of other stations and now the process to repeal the restrictive legislation has begun. So far the House of Reps. has passed legislation to allow these LPFM stations to flood the airwaves but the Senate now needs to do its part as well. These stations must be aloud to broadcast simply to prove to the general public that our government is allowing local representation.

There are letters and petitions that anyone can sign. Keep Big Media's Influence controlled and allow diversity and individuality to flow through our airwaves once again!!

Creating Political Ideologies

The New York Times recently posted an article entitled “U.K. Politics Moves Into Television Age.” The article high lights the fact that Britain is holding its first ever televised electoral debates. The candidates have gone so far as to invest in debate coaches, many of which have a background aiding US Presidential Candidates. The televised debates will be much different than what the candidates are used to in Parliament. The environment will be very controlled; there are strict time limits for rebuttals and open debates. According to the article, it is anticipated that many audience members, because of their current dissatisfaction with politics, will not stay tuned in to the debate for very long. Instead, it is likely that they will only watch for a few minutes and then “will be looking to the news medi[um] to interpret it for them.”
Reading this article reminded me of the philosophy known as political socialization theory (Croteau and Hoynes pg. 244). Advocates of this theory are largely concerned with how media involvement in politics will influence future political philosophy. It claims that, because media is such a large part of socialization, and thus more specifically a large part of socialization in regards to politics, the ways that we use media in politics today will influence the political theories that are created and adopted in the future. This stuck out to me in relation to this article because I can see how the media has affected my view, even of the structure of political campaigns. The fact that another culture, in this case Britain, did not utilize televised debates in their campaigns is a foreign concept to me. In my mind, televised debates are part of political campaigns, but this is only because I have been socialized to think so. Another thing that stuck out to me in this article was the mention that “Optimists see it [the televised debates] as a chance for leaders to reconnect with a jaded electorate. Pessimists fear that it will further ascendance of show business over substance in British politics.” This makes me wonder how much the use of media in politics has influenced the philosophies that are developed. Imagine what politics would be like without media. It seems as though this comment is expressing a concern toward a negative effect of political socialization theory. Media’s impact on political socialization could be a positive one, but it also could be causing a shift toward sensationalism and a lack of discussion about essential issues.
In response to this, the central question that remains in my mind is a broad one: How has media affected politics and their campaigns, and is it positive or negative influence? How will media’s involvement in politics influence the philosophies and tactics that will be developed in the future? According to this theory, media plays a large role in creating the ideology I develop about politics. Is that good or bad? What do you think?

A Movie to End Malaria

The United Nations Foundation has recently presented a film by Bobby Bailey called When the Night Comes. It outlines what the disease malaria is and tells a story of a family suffering from it in Uganda, Africa. The film also provides the history of the disease, and how everyone can do something to help stop malaria by the year 2015. Malaria currently kills one child every 30 seconds, and a total of one million people each year. 91% of malaria deaths occur in Africa, and 85% of malaria deaths are children under the age of 5. The film leaves one with goosebumps and a sudden urge to help. For only $10 a mosquito net can be bought to save a life. Everyone can do something, and this film shows just that.

The reaction taken from this film is different for every person. For example, some will come away from it feeling apathetic and discouraged about the immensity of the disease. Others will be set on fire to act and make a difference. Still others may not have any particular feelings after watching the film. These reactions can be determined by explaining the O1-S-O2-R theory. O1 represents the factors that we each bring into a situation. Some of these can be age, gender, region, culture, language, education, and neighborhood. The viewers have these characteristics before they encounter the stimulus. The S, or stimulus, is when the film is watched. After the S, a second group of factors determine how the viewer will respond. This is represented by O2. These factors include time, setting/context, social group, and the people you are sharing the media experience with. All of these factors determine the R, or response. Everyone will respond differently. How will you respond? The only way to know is to see the film!

On April 20th at 7pm on the second floor of Walton, Operation Net at EU will be hosting a screening of the documentary. Everyone is welcome to come and see the film for themselves. We all can make a difference in the fight to stop malaria, but it is up to you to take action! Is this film persuasive? Does this film affect the audience and if so what reaction does it provide? For more information visit Operation Net on facebook or at www.operationnet.org.

To Rate Or Not To Rate

R. PG13. G.

Everyone knows what these letters represent--movie ratings. What many people don't know, however, is how these movie ratings are decided. Jen Yamato wrote an article for Cinematical.com where this exact process is described by Joan Graves, the head of the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA). Basically, a group of parents from across the country votes on it and majority rules. However, this is not the meat of Yamato's article. She is more concerned with the entirely pro-censorship spin the MPAA has put on their website as of recently.

As an amateur author, I understand the arguments that censorship squashes the creativity of artists of all media types. I'd be upset, too, if someone told me I had to cut out this, that, and the third from my creation because it was simply too controversial. But I do not believe censorship to be a completely horrible thing. After all, it came about as a means to protect younger audiences from viewing potentially harmful images.

Also, as stated by the text Media/Society, the ratings system is a form of self-regulation. The system came about so the government wouldn't regulate or censor movies more strictly. It's a preventative measure to keep censorship from going too far in this art form.

So, as a preventative measure for too much censorship and a means of protection, some, minor forms of censorship can't really be all bad can it? What do you think?

A Little Perspective

The Benton Foundation recently posted an announcement that Representative Joe Baca is asking the FCC for “stricter regulation of violent video games.” Apparently, the FCC has implemented proceedings on Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Evolving Media Landscape. Representative Baca’s request is a response to these hearings. He is specifically asking them to address how violence and other potentially controversial content is affecting the developing minds of youth. The announcement ends with this: “FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski responded with a letter on March 3 noting that the ‘vital role of government in this media environment is to work to help ensure that parents have access to the full range of information concerning digital media content that will educate and entertain their children while also providing the tools necessary to protect children from inappropriate content.’”

This announcement revisits what seems like a timeless (at least in the time of media) debate over the effects of media violence on behavior. One aspect of this dilemma that I find particularly intriguing is the idea of an active audience (Croteau and Hoynes pg. 266). This idea is based on the premise that viewers of media are not as easily manipulated by its contents as some critics lead us to believe. We engage in a great amount of interpretation when we are determining the meaning of media messages and thus are not powerless in the ways that it affects us.

I cannot help but wonder how the theory of active audiences fits in with Representative Baca’s concern with the developing youth. It seems logical to grant that active audiences do play at least a small part in the effects of media on our behavior. However, I wonder how this can be applied to people, specifically children, who may or may not have developed the mental processes to make such distinctions. I am not saying that children and teens do not have the capacity to reason and think for themselves, but this is a skill that is developed over time and is lacking in young minds, mostly because they simply have not developed it yet. It seems as though this idea solidifies the importance of controlling what children and teens watch. Whether that control should be elicited by the government or not is a different issue. Any thoughts?

Are Games Taking Over Our Lives?

In a recent article on CNN, John Sutter was interviewed about why he thinks games will take over our lives. The article describes how games are showing up everywhere; from brushing your teeth to buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Games are all over the place, and they are just going to increase in number as time goes on. Sutter believes that we will eventually be so use to having games apart of our everyday lives that we may start thinking and seeing life as one big game. He argues that games are so popular because the user knows that they can be won. As the article says, “In real life, we have these problems, and the problems are hairy, and they're messy. You look at the problems that you face in your job or in your relationship or in your family, and it's like there's no clear winning, and there's no clear losing. Whereas, in a game, things are crisp and clear. The game presents you with challenges that can be met, and then it congratulates you on your successes at those challenges. It's a thing we don't get everyday in life.”

While reading this article I couldn’t help but think about the effects video games have on the players of the games. Studies such as Albert Bandora’s doll experiment prove that violence being shown in the media can cause the viewer to be violent as well. Likewise, desensitization can occur if a violent video game is played too many times. In the same way, if a game is played continuously it is possible that the player will have a hard time determining the game from real life, as the article supports. Games seem harmless but are they really? Media messages do matter and are central to our lives. Many play games for the fun of it and do not realize that being a part of the active audience allows the games to have influence over them. Are games dangerous? What do you think?

Bloggers Vs. Journalists

Leena Rao recently wrote an article for TechCrunch describing some statistics about the current blogging world. She writes that 52% of all bloggers consider themselves journalists. At first, this seems like a strange claim. After all, when I think of blogging, I still think of it mostly as the online-journal type of blogging, and not the serious, critical forms that are becoming more and more common. Just look at this blog! We're seriously critical about the media stories we're discussing; obviously the concept of a serious blog isn't foreign.

But as I was saying, it seems a strange claim, but under further examination it makes sense. Bloggers are journalists. And not just because they report on events--anyone can do that. But if you look more closely at how the serious blog functions, more and more simliarities appear, especially in the conventions and routines of the two media.

The authors of the text Media/Society define conventions as the routines found in any particular job that have been repeated so much so that they simply become the way things are done. Newspapers (the print kind) have many conventions, especially when it comes to the area of news gathering. More often than not, journalists will congregate in places where newsworthy events are most likey to happen--court houses, press conferences, or even specific places like the White House. There, they obtain the daily stories that can be found in newspapers. This sort of congregation towards regular news sources is the most typical of conventions in print newspapers, and it is reflected by blogging journalists.

Bloggers gravitate towards news sources as well for their stories, just a different kind than print journalists. They gravitate towards other blogs. According to Rao's article, 91% of bloggers and 68% of online journalists say they use other blogs as a primary source of news. Meaning, they find their stories at other, reliable blogs on the web, much like print journalists find their stories at the same places from day to day.

They have practically the same news-gathering conventions!

So, yes, if you ask me, bloggers are journalists. They gather news like print journalists, and they often report similar stories, just with their own spin on it. One of the only big differences that I can see is that journalists are paid, and bloggers are not. But, that's just me. What do you think? Are bloggers journlaists? Or, are bloggers simply people with nothing better to do, ranting without merit or credibility?

To Watch or Not to Watch, That is the Question...

Since the development of film and television media, there has been much debate over the influence that the violence in these programs has on aggressive attitudes and behaviors. Out of these debates have arisen controversies not only about the validity of negative effects theories, but also how governments and/or media companies should handle the violence that is portrayed. Operating on the generally accepted assumption that media do have some sort of impact on violent behavior at least for some people, several solutions have been proposed. One of these recent solutions is introduced by the company ClearPlay, and it allows viewers to skip over any scenes in a movie that have content they do not want to watch. An article in the BBC brings up this system in relation to its release in the UK that will occur in a few months. According to the article, though the British Video Association is not opposed to the system at all, there has been some controversy over its release in the US. Those who oppose the ClearPlay system are afraid that its implementation will be a "violation of copyright laws." In a court case, a judge ruled that there was no violation because "no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture was created." The general director of ClearPlay stated: "ClearPlay has an innovative system for enabling parents to shield their children from what they consider to be inappropriate content in the home...It may also allow them to watch age restricted video with younger children whose content is generally suitable to view but again there may be moments of stronger content."
Part of the reason that it is so difficult to determine how much influence violent media has on behavior is because there are so many individual factors to account for. Even if correlations between violent media and aggressive behavior are found, we still have to consider other influences that come in to play; i.e. family life, individual personality, life experiences etc... (Strasburger, Wilson, and Jordan). In addition, questions of causality remain. Does viewing violent media cause violent behavior and attitudes, or do violent behavior and attitudes encourage the viewing of more violent media (Strasburger, Wilson, and Jordan)? With these questions in mind, and an overall less than definitive account of the effects of media violence, it seems as though some sort of censorship and control should be implemented. This is especially important in regards to children and young adults, largely due to the fact that many studies have shown that, though other factors are still involved, violent media have the most impact on this age group of developing minds (Strasburger, Wilson, and Jordan).
Knowing this, do you think that the ClearPlay system is an efficient and reliable way for parents to regulate what their children are watching? Though it could have many other uses, it seems as though statements by ClearPlay executives infer that this is one of their main objectives. I am unsure of its overall effectiveness, but quite honestly it seems as though a better solution would be for parents to simply not let their children watch programs with content that they do not think is suitable. Why do we feel the need to, as the BBC article quotes from a member of the company, "make some tools available for individual viewers?" He goes on, "today they can only choose on or off. With ClearPlay they can make vastly more choices." Why do we need to be able to eliminate the parts of a movie or show that we think are inappropriate, simply so that we can have more choices? Maybe I am naive, but doesn't it just make more sense to watch something else instead? The issue here is not even whether or not the violence should be present in the first place, it is whether or not you should choose to watch it. If you patch out the material you do not want to see, you are not even watching the story that the film maker originally wanted to show you. If the content of that story is inappropriate for you or those you are responsible for, then watch something else. What do you think?

The Local News Bully

In a recent post I found on Freepress.com, a ruling in a U.S. court was discussed as it brings severe and dangerous implications into the world of local Media. A "stay" was lifted on a rule created in 2007 by Kevin Martin (Former FCC Chairmen) which in essence was created to allow Media companies to have cross-ownership within the same media industry. Now that the "stay" has been lifted big name companies can get their hands on various local news formats.

You may ask how in the world may apply to us, the individual. Well, it absolutely does as now local media sources are up for grabs. Local journalism is one of several ways that the public can receive close to what they desire from the news and media but by allowing big media to get its hands on local journalism it may woefully afflict its independence. Cross-ownership has been regulated by the FCC to prevent these specific implications from occurring. In specific this will allow news broadcasting stations to absorb local newspapers.

Those who have ever watched Fox News or MSNBC are well aware of how political bias is a constant in the news that is being reported. I believe that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the thirds circuit has made a horrible decision towards protecting the freedoms of the public it is supposed to be protecting. I am not saying that immediate repercussions will incur but eventually this could prove to be a detrimental move in preserving local journalism and individual creativity.

Any thoughts?

Public Online Info. Act

In a recent article found through freepress, it was revealed that Congress if going to be pushing forward a Public Online Information Act. This act would require that all information that is deemed public within the Executive Branch and its agencies must be posted on the Internet within the next three years. The information would have to be searchable and accessible to anyone with an Internet service in America. The point of the act is to move all information, "out of the metal file cabinets and into the sunlight of the Internet". Currently most public federal records can be found in paper form or on federal computers but those facilities are usually only open from 9a.m. until 5p.m. which makes access by the public nation-wide difficult if not impossible. Of course there would be exceptions for agencies with information that could "reveal sensitive material".

The point of creating this Bill is to simply keep our Nation accountable as a government made for the people by the people. I personally believe that this is a big step in making Americans more confident in the own government by using such a powerful mass media form as the Internet. In an age where public information is available to the entire populace through a web browser, the American government needs to join the party and let its citizens in. A government that is transparent with its people is an excellent and sometimes difficult step that could hold great effects in the long run.

The approval of a Bill such as the Public Online Information Act could and will effect the American public directly. Students hundreds of miles away from Washington D.C. could have access to information for reports. Americans can have a growing confidence in their relationship with their own Nation. Various other positive outcomes could arise from approving such a Bill. It is extremely encouraging to finally see the American government not only working to regulate mass media such as the Internet. Creating a Bill that utilizes Mass Media in such a positive and creative way incurs many implications about the public's relationship with Mass Media. Possibly not only a greater trust in our government but in the media that provides us with information.

Any thoughts?

Network Neutrality and the Future of the Internet

The importance of network neutrality was presented in a recent article submitted on the Benton Foundation website. Since the creation of the internet, American companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, Youtube, and others primarily make up the majority of the web. As the internet expands and develops, the “suffers” now are faced with choices. Should we allow for new companies to come in and alter the Internet or should we try to uphold what we currently have and the freedom it represents. Do we allow “entrepreneurial entry” or do we “impose new fees.” The write of the article argues that the FCC should ensure that principles of openness and fairness remain in the marketplace. Network neutrality is extremely important and we should make sure the internet remains a place in which competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity exist.

The FCC’s, Federal Communications Commission, main job is to make sure the Mass Media is serving the public interest. The public interest is usually defined as regulation of decency, children’s educational programming, multiplicity/diversity of voices, media ownership, and localism. As Kevin Maness’s manifesto says, “Media content should be as diverse as possible to reflect as many different tastes and perspectives as possible.” Therefore, the FCC has the role of making sure the Internet is a place in which many opinions and diversities are available. This can be shown in the variety of websites accessible to users, and the diversity of owners of those websites. In the past the FCC has mainly controlled the Internet by means of prohibiting certain obscenity, but in the future they may have to put more control on the ownership and structure of the Internet.

What if we had to pay for Facebook, or even worse for the Internet in general? What if we were charged to create this blog, or to upload our videos to Youtube? Would you pay to keep in touch with friends on Twitter or to search something on Google? The future of the Internet might just look something like the above scenarios. Do you think there should be more regulation when it comes to the Internet so this does not happen? What on your thoughts?

History in the Making

Where do you go for your news? A recent article in the New York Times outlines the fact that, even though the availability of online news sources continues to increase, most people still only use a small number of these sites. According to the article, 35 percent of those who read their news online have a favorite site, and 21 percent use a “single Internet news source.” In addition, 57 percent of those people use two to five online news sources in their news reading routines. The article states that “just 7 percent of people said they would be willing to pay for access to any news site. And even among the people who are most loyal to a single site, only 19 percent said they would pay, rather than seek free news somewhere else.” This, however, does not upset news companies all that much because they believe that even if only 5 to 10 percent of their online readers paid it would still be profitable for them. One last statistic that the article presents is that, of the thousands of online news outlets, 199 of them get 80 percent of “the United States traffic.”

Though there are many issues that could be brought up based on this article, I would like to focus on the last statistic mentioned above. The fact that so many news outlets are available, and that so few (I know, 199 is a lot, but compared to the thousands that are available and the number of people that likely access them, it loses its impact a little) are regularly accessed raises an intriguing idea. These 199 sites that are accessed by 80 percent of online news readers are creating history. The promoters and assemblers (Molotch and Lester pg. 122) of these news stories are creating the events that will determine what we perceive to be “public time.”

I focus on this idea because it is fascinating to me that there is so much power in journalism and media production. It is odd to think of the fact that, if these 199 newspapers does not report an event, it is highly unlikely that anywhere near the majority of people will ever know that it occurred. Journalists, in a sense, create history. Hopefully, the most important events get reported, and that is, I think, the objective of news companies. However, it is interesting to consider the influence they have, not only over what is actually reported, but also over the messages we receive about the events being reported. The individuals that assemble news, even though most strive for objectivity, still portray a sense of bias in the messages they give. Keep that in mind while you read and watch. How does it influence you?

Your Next Facebook Friend Request Might be from a FBI Agent

In a recent artricle on guardian.co.uk, Daniel Nasaw reveals the newest tactic in finding and prosecuting criminals. U.S. government agents are being trained to log onto social networking sites and search for information needed in criminal cases, such as finding evidence, tracking suspects and finding witnesses in crimes. Social networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter are just some of the targets of these law enforcement agents. FBI agents are creating fake identities and accounts in order to befriend their suspects and lure them into confessing or revealing clues needed. This without a doubt violates some of the sites’ rules. In addition, Facebook is now being used by many companies as a means to do background checks. The US Cyber-Security prosecutor recently stated that agents should be able to go uncover as much as they want, but some rules should be made. Many are worried that this recent new method in investigation will take away from the very reason social networking sites exist; to create personal relationships with others.

While reading this article, I am reminded of the first amendment of the constitution. “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or press.” As discussed in class, there are some things that are seen as restrictions to the freedoms provided in the first amendment. Things like slander, incitement, threats to national security, and offensive speech are seen as cases in which the government can step in. The overall role of the government is to keep order and peace, and I guess this sometimes means invading our privacy and freedoms for the better of all. This sometimes means violating rules installed by companies, such as Facebook, in order to “protect” others. The government has a fairly big role in regulating media content and distribution, but should they also be allowed to scrutinize personal information and violate some of their own rules to solve a crime?

I’m not sure how I would feel if I knew my latest friend on Facebook was really an undercover FBI agent studying my page for any information he/she may need to solve a crime. How would you feel? Even worse, how would you feel if you knew the company you were applying to work for was examining your Facebook wall for information that may cause them to not want to hire you? Sometimes privacy isn’t so private. Is this fair? Should the government have access and the ability to view whatever information they want, whenever they want?

Comcast, Don't Be Jerks!

In a recent article I read about the pending Comcast and NBC merger I realized just how much power and authority such a move will grant Comcast. One of the few Cable providers aptly did not sign there name to the petition for the FCC to work on new rules so that such interactions with newtworks and Cable providers (ABC and Cablevision) never interfere with the audiences enjoyment and entertainment again.

Why, oh, why would Comcast not sign their name to a petition that would ultimately be to their customers' immediate benefit? Well Comcast is about to become the owner of a brand new broadcasting network and a powerful one at that. When Comcast gains NBC it is very plausible that rates from other Cable providers will jump and many disputes and last minute pulling of programming could ensue. Just like what ABC did to Cablevision when they pulled accessibility to the Oscars from Cablevision consumers.

NBC has become a favorite in homes, with coverage of the Olympics, the return of Jay Leno to late night and various other programs NBC has a lot of influence over audiences at large.

There most definitely needs to be government regulation on this interaction between Comcast and NBC. No one provider should be able to influence other competing providers so drastically. With the consumer in mind, the government must do more than sit idly by as their citizens become the victims of a brutal television battle that could and most likely will occur.

This will directly effect all consumers of cable television at large and most notably in a negative manner. The FCC should take its first steps in regulating interactions between broadcasters and providers by becoming an influential member and representation of the pending interaction between Comcast and NBC.

Money has power as we all know and the implications behind this transaction should have government officials in an uproar.

How do you think the government should get directly involved in this issue?

Public Interest

Government regulation of the media has long been an issue of debate. A recent article in the New York Times brings up this issue in relation to the controversy that occurred when ABC, on the day of the Academy Awards, took away its signal from many television providers in the New York area. As a result of this incident, the big television providers are asking the Federal Communications Commission to revise the current regulations. These regulations, according to the providers, give the stations too much power, and apparently allow the stations to demand that providers pay them more to broadcast their programs. As of right now, a station like ABC can “withhold their signals from the providers” in an effort to be paid more for their programs. The article goes on to state that the FCC has not yet responded to the provider’s petition, though political figures such as Senator John Kerry have been active in the situation and advocated for a change in the rules. The providers are asking for more government intervention involved in these “retransmission disputes,” as well as for the “FCC to require stations to keep sending a signal as long as the provider ‘continues to negotiate in good faith.’” The representatives of the stations are arguing that increasing their pay is a huge investment in a service that is vital to the production of the community’s news.
The FCC is supposed to operate out of a concern for the “public interest.” What is this “public interest” you ask? There is not a definitive answer to that question, other than simply to state that adhering to public interest requires acknowledging what will benefit the public the most. This of course begs the question, who decides what will benefit the public most? The FCC tries to determine this by “attempting to balance the interests of various groups, suggesting that there is no single public interest…they believe that regulation that promotes diversity in programming and services is in the public interest” (Croteau and Hoynes pg. 86).
With that in mind, in relation to the above dispute over retransmission, what is in the public’s interest? As was mentioned above, the FCC has not yet responded to the provider’s pleas for intervention. The stations claim that increased regulation on their freedom to withhold their signals from providers would infringe on their ability to bring essential news to their local communities. Is this true? What would the impact of increased official regulation on these disputes have on our daily lives? If the stations cannot demand more money from the providers, it is possible that they will not have the revenue to continue their programs. However, is it fair to the providers that the stations can simply “cut-out” their signals in order to gain more money? How much should the FCC be involved in this issue? What do you think their response should be?

Engagement Or Simply Entertainment?

I recently read an article by Matthew Ingram that comments on Hal Varian's examination of newspapers' positions today. In it, Ingram agrees with Varian that newspapers are to blame for going out of business and not the Internet as so many say. He believes that they do not engage their readers enough, leaving their readers uninterested and distanced from the stories reported. They are a simple bare-bones account of facts with little to no emotion behind them, making them incredibly boring. Also, he thinks that newspapers do not pay enough attention to what their readers want to read. Therefore, newspapers bury themselves for not generating enough interest.

However, Ingram has ignored the inner workings of newspapers and journalism in general in his assessment of them. Journalism and newspapers are run by conventions, which are such widely used techniques in a field that they seem to become rules and constraints. One such convention in the field of journalism is the idea of objectivity in reporting. Objectivity, according to the text Media/Society, is the separation of fact and value. Most every reader of newspapers expects this objectivity, making it difficult for any paper to function without it. After all, it's only annoying when reporters are blatantly biased on an issue they are reporting, as this bias can obviously effect how they write their piece and exactly what it says.

Objectivity is expected, no matter what Ingram may think about the level of engagement in newspapers, and therefore the facts-only approach to reporting is necessary.

Well, so what? Maybe objectivity is key, but the newspapers could at least report about what their readers want to read, right? Ingram hit the mark on that one, didn't he? Well, no, I don't think he did. News papers are not magazines. Journalists aren't supposed to report what people want to hear so much as what is happening; they inform. They don't entertain. If they did, the entertainment and lifestyle sections of newspapers would probably be a lot thicker. Newspapers aren't supposed to cater to their readers needs as magazines do, after all. Their readers buy the papers for information, not entertainment.

But so what? Why does any of this matter? It's just newspapers, after all. News will still be reported online if they disappear, right? Maybe. But, what if that news changes? If news becomes more about engaging readers than it is about informing readers of the few events they do choose to report on, what will we be reading about? Imagine three point shots made in last night's Sixer's game or Johnny Depp's new haircut making the front page of major newspapers. Is that what we want news to become--more engaging entertainment? I sure hope not; no one would ever know what was happening in the world around them.

What do you think?

Tilikum Will Kilithum-Enough Already!

What else has to happen until we finally get the message that Tilikum the Killer Whale is clearly sending? GET ME OUT OF THIS TANK!! For anyone who doesn't know on Wednesday, February 24 2010 an autopsy confirmed the death of SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau. She was rubbing the killer whale Tilikum and he pulled her in by her ponytail as on lookers gasped in horror. What a shame for someone so young, and yes forty is young, to be killed in such a tragic manner.But I feel the true disgrace is on SeaWorld with this unnecessary tragedy, you see this is not the first time Tilikum has killed. What is going really going on here? Could this be about the money?
Joe Sterling of CNN reports that Jim Atchison, president and CEO of SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment says the shows with the killer whales will resume on Saturday. Atchison called Tilikum "a wonderful animal who remain active" and he promised to look into improvements for the park.
This sounds like more interest in money than mankind.

Will Tweet for Free Advertising

Mike Ryan wrote an article for Yahoo this past week entitled "Conan O'Brien's Twitter Account Draws Over 200,000 Followers in One Day." In it, he not only discusses the incredible explosion of popularity in Conan O'Brien's new, personal Twitter account, but also the Twitter accounts of numerous other talk-show hosts. Not all of these Twitterers have personal accounts like O'Brien does, preferring instead to have an account for the show. For example, "The Late Show" has a Twitter account run by its host, David Letterman, but Letterman does not have his own personal account.

These accounts, whether for personal or strictly business use, are a strange combination of publicity tools and a place to post actual, everyday observations, according to Ryan. Sometimes, you get people such as Jay Leno, who barely uses his Twitter and then only uses it to promote his show, and others you'll get people such as Jimmy Fallon, who updates frequently and even while on air in order to interact with his viewers. Accounts such as Fallon's naturally have more followers than the Leno variety Twitterers.

Popular or not, though, every Twitter is, no doubt, a new kind of advertising. And--even better for shows present on Twitter--it's free.

Whether or not the Twitter is completely personal, such as O'Brien's (he no longer hosts a show, after all), or not, all of these Twitter accounts advertise their host's talk show. After all, if you're following Jimmy Fallon, frequent updater, you're not going to miss that at a certain time on certain nights, he is on set, hosting NBC's "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon." And, if you're a big enough of a fan to follow Fallon on Twitter, that probably means you'll be sure to tune in to his show. Other accounts, such as Jay Leno's, are blatant advertisements for the shows each individual hosts.

This form of advertising is, in a way, cost-cutting for the stations producing the show. With the advertisement from Twitter, some money spent on advertising is definitely being saved, as the site is free. Even on shows as cheap to produce as all these talk shows (compared to other programming like dramas such as "One Tree Hill", etc.), producers are looking for ways to save money on advertising.

After all, as I've learned in class, the more viewers a show gets, the more space advertisers will want to buy in order to reach those possible consumers of whatever product they're selling. And, even better, the more the advertisers will be willing to pay for those spots! Even talk shows are, therefore, aiming to deliver us to the commercials. Even when we're being informed about events and happening in the world around us, we are still being "sold" to advertisers as we watch.

So, yes, some Twitter accounts may be personal, but free advertising is still possible with those accounts. Even O'Brien, the host without a show, may be "promoting" a future comedy tour, according to rumor. If advertising is so engrained in everything these people do--it's Twitter after all; 140 characters!--what does that say about us as a nation? Are we only here to be led to consumption? I hope not.

Times Business Reporter Accused of Plagiarism Is Said to Resign

We all know what plagiarism is. From the first time I was assigned a tiny research project in 3rd grade until now, my freshmen year in college, I have been told not to plagiarize and the serious consequences if one were to do so. If you are like me you have also been told over and over again what plagiarism is and how serious it is. Perhaps The Times reporter, Zachery Kouwe was never taught about plagiarism in school..Perhaps he was not as fortunate as the rest of us..

The New York Times reported in an article on Feb, 16, 2010 that Times Business reporter, Zachery Kouwe, was accused of plagiarizing “several portions of articles resigned from the newspaper Tuesday.” The plagiarized article was written on Feb 5th and since then editors of the Times have found portions of Kouwe’s article identical or close to identical to another online article posted just hours before his “own.” Upon further investigation it was found that Kouwe had copied numerous passages from the Wall Street Journal and the Reuters’ articles and used them in his blog posts and articles. After attending a meeting regarding possible disciplinary actions against Kouwe, he resigned. The article ends with the following quote by Times spokesperson, Diane McNulty, “The Time has dealt with this, as we said we would in our Editor’s Note, consistent with our standards to protect the integrity of journalism.”

The first idea that comes to my mind after reading this article is…what was he thinking?!

Plagiarism can lead to suspension in high school, expulsion, fines, and a pretty cloudy future in college, and even worse in the professional world. An elite newspaper like the New York Times relies on its high scale reputation to sell copies to consumers. People purchase the newspapers and expect to find articles that are accurate and original. An incident like this could dramatically hurt this reputation. In addition to hurting the Times reputation, stories like this may cause the medium’s financial contributors (government, advertisers, and consumers) to wonder if they want to invest and buy something of this quality. Media has a huge affect on society and readers rely on reporters to tell correct information that is original. Will this little incident affect Times in the long run? Time will only tell.

Would you renew your subscription with the New York Times after this?
Ideas? Thoughts?

The Tiger is Talking!

This week we witnessed Tiger Woods issuing an apology to a selected audience. I'm still trying to understand what we've got to do with it. Why we as the public seem to feel we're owed an apology. We didn't know him personally. And although we see sports figures as role models, that titled was given to him by the public. That speaks volumes about we the people. We are so easily impressed. Just because someone is great at sports, doesn't mean they can give great personal advice.

Tiger's apology was emotional and thought provoking. His mother right on the front row giving

her support as mothers do. Doug Ferguson's article makes me think if he thought the apology was

real. He seems to point out how controlled it was. The setting and even the audience that attended.

Brit Hume's statement that Tiger needs to become a Christian. Yeah that'll keep him from cheating.

Well when it's all said and done we need to do a self examination. We seem to have it all figured out for

others. I will continue to keep Tiger in prayer. He's young. This too shall pass.

Rose

Murdoch's World

So apparently Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are still a happy and prosperous couple. According to the article I am reviewing Brangelina are in the news for suing a London Newspaper. In the lawsuit Brad and Angelina are accusing the newspaper, News of the World, for publishing a false testimony of the star-studded couple separating. The most interesting aspect of this law suit is that the newspaper is controlled by News Group Newspapers Limited. And who owns this form of media? None other than our friend Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation. Not many details have been released about the pending lawsuit but many implications can be drawn.

It is not surprising that Rupert Murdoch's long stretching arms could easily reach to a local Newspaper in London. Murdoch has always been known for his Horizontal Integration of ownership of the media. Most recognizable are Murdoch's ownership over Fox and its intensely conservative News Network but his reach extends much further as we seen in this article. The last thing Murdoch would want to do is offend two powerhouse actors who could provide him and 20th Century Fox with blockbuster after blockbuster. This is a serious issue in Horizontal Integration since Murdoch owns so much different media over the world it can become harder to keep every employee in line. While Murdoch's presence and influence coats the world with his media small instances like this may occur.

Does this mean that Murdoch could lose two world-adored actors? Most likely not but I am sure that he and his associates of the News Corporation are very much aware of the situation. Will the journalist of the article still have a job at the end of the month or year? Probably not. I am sure that an apology will be offered and both Rupert Murdoch and Brangelina will happily continue to hit some big numbers out of the box office together. I will be watching the development of this story just to see how News Corporation reacts and continue to watch as Murdoch's influence seeds itself deeper and deeper into the media on all facets.

Advertising and the Internet

As the internet continues to tighten its grip on media, television broadcasting companies are struggling to make the adjustment. A recent New York Times article addresses this issue in relation to the (lack of) live streaming that NBC is providing of the Olympics.The article notes that NBC is providing significantly less live coverage than it did of the Beijing Olympics in the summer of 2008. NBC's response to this includes the fact that they "would prefer for viewers to watch the Olympics on television [rather than the internet]." A large part of this is due to "financial considerations." According to the various interviews in the article, the financial aspect of allowing television viewing on the internet (in this case, specifically live feeds) is taking its toll on broadcasting companies. These companies make their money by keeping the support of their advertisers, and advertising is much more difficult on the world wide web than in the TV set. The article continues by pointing out that advertising in online streaming is a continuing dilemma for broadcasting companies, and concludes with the fact that the boundaries placed on the live streaming for the Olympics is part of NBC's effort to steer viewers back to television, which is where they make the most money at this point.
It is no secret that making a profit is the main focus of almost any mass media business (Croteau and Hoynes, pg. 58). It is equally as well known that advertising is the main avenue by which any media business makes their profit (Croteau and Hoynes, pg. 64). In this type of industry, NBC's reluctance to risk a loss of television viewers to the internet, and therefore risk losing the support of their advertisers, is understandable. In the article above, their president of research is quoted as saying, "They [NBC] have to walk a very fine line between trying to provide as great an experience as possible and making business sense.” This "business sense" absorbs much of media production, and understandably so. Media producers are constantly trying to find a balance between what their audiences are interested in and what will make them money. In this case, their audiences would like live streaming of the Olympics (this is also made clear in the NYT article), but the expense and risk of losing the money gained from advertising has caused them to place restrictions on the live feeds to the internet.
This leaves us to ask, why is this important? Other than the fact that it may be more convenient for us to be able to watch the Olympics live from our computers than TV's, is there more significance to this issue? I will leave that for you to contemplate, but consider this: it seems inevitable that more and more television shows and productions are appearing on the internet, both live and not. How is this going to influence the relationships between advertising industries and broadcasting companies? It seems as though, because advertising and media are so directly dependent on each other, the continuing modernization of technology and entertainment viewing will require these broadcasters to continue to produce innovative ways of incorporating advertising into online viewing. Any thoughts?

Twitter Life Away

All right, so let's just get down to it and admit it. All of us, more than likely, are addicts. Drug of choice? Facebook and/or Twitter. They've both infected most anything and everything we do! I know that, personally, one of the top things I do in the morning is to make sure I check my Facebook, just in case I got a notification over night. I mean, this is right up there with brushing my teeth and taking a shower! And now, I suppose I may be on the track to becoming addicted to Twitter. I've never liked Twitter, but peer pressure has forced me to create an account anyway. I can't just ignore the site anymore--a sentiment that none other than John Mayer, platinum musician.

You see, Gary Graff wrote this article recently called "John Mayer's a prolific composer...of tweets". In it, Graff highlights Mayer's relationship with the social networking site in the past year. He didn't like the site at first, finding it to be silly and dumb. But, inevitably, he couldn't just ignore it. The site has become his top means of communication with all his fans, and he has become quite the expert at Tweeting. The entire second half of the article consists entirely of the best of John Mayer's tweets in 2009.

Though short and sweet, this article is truly disconcerting to me.

Facebook and Twitter, as well as all the other social networking sites that have led up to them, are both subjects of a process known as "normalization". Normalization is really a pattern of definitions and or narratives that are repeated so many times, no one can (or bothers to, really) contradict them any longer. How many times have you seen it been said that Facebook and Twitter have simply become part of our lives? That both sites are here for the long haul, so we might as well get used to them and benefit from them however possible?

The answer is probably a lot. The Facebook/Twitter vs. Real Life Interaction debate is almost everywhere today.

I think this article takes the normalization to the next step, though, practically installing Tweeting and Facebooking as a value in society. After all, if even a famous person can't seem to escape their clutches, how are we "normal" people going to avoid it? John Mayer didn't like Twitter, but it sucked him in anyway. He couldn't avoid it, if he wanted to stay in touch with his fans regularly. So, really...why should we avoid it?

Now this process of giving something value in our culture and declaring it a norm is a part of another process called socialization. In the Media/Society, socialization is the process by which we learn and internalize the values, beliefs and norms of culture and develope a sense of self. How long is it going to take before people start to define themselves through Facebook and Twitter?

That, my readers, is the question.

At this rate, it seems that people will soon be glued to their computer screens, tweeting about themselves every half hour or les and Facebook-stalking every second. We could be reduced to great, big lumps, sitting in front of a computer screen all day, intent on finding the next big fan page or the next big application on Facebook. Do we really want to let it come to that? Do we really want to even let it get close to that? I sure don't, but all these stories about Facebook seem to be okay with it. They seem to think we'll be just fine sitting in front of computers all day, because, hey, famous people like John Mayer do it. So...we should too, right?

I don't think so. But...what do you think?

Increasing Trends

I don’t know about you, but the long awaited premiere of the final season of LOST was much anticipated for me. This show combines thought provoking questions of time, faith, science, trust and betrayal with what I think to be an excellent cast of acting and directing. Each of the characters has intriguing backgrounds, as well as current struggles, that drag you in to the twists and turns of the plot. One of these characters that I find particularly relevant to our discussion of mass media is that of Kate. Her story is fascinating, largely because it defies much of the stereotypical, victimized, portrayal of women that some think the medium of TV tends to give us. Is this an increasing trend?

Kate’s personality in LOST is captivating. She is beautiful, yet not overly concerned with her appearance (although, being stuck on an island is not exactly conducive to beauty products and perfect hygiene). She is an individual, she is tough, and she knows what she wants. Kate is often struggling, but she does not let it control her. She is intelligent and strong. She is capable of taking care of herself, and it is unlikely that anyone will get her to change her mind about something once it has been made up. A good example of this is found in the most recent season six episode, What Kate Does (episode three). After Sawyer leaves the rest of the group with a distinct command not to follow him, Kate decides to go after him anyway. Others tell her that she cannot go alone, and, as they are preparing to leave, one of the men remarks to her, “Better not slow us down.” She replies, “Better not slow me down!” These characteristics are part of Kate’s appeal.

I find Kate’s character interesting because I think it represents a changing stereotype of the women portrayed in media. An article by Gaye Tuchman, written in the 1970s, entitled The Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass Media, holds the distinct view that television often portrays women as inferior to males, likely to be victims of violence, and dependent on their family roles for success. It seems as though this portrayal, assuming that it was true at one time, is, in some ways, changing. Strong, female characters such as Kate, or the many detective type agents in our abundance of detective type shows, or actresses that often play those types of roles (Angelina Jolie comes to mind) seem to permeate our entertainment world. This is not to stay that some of the more traditional stereotypes do not exist, but there seems to be a definitive shift. We are, perhaps, creating a new stereotype.

A few questions, then, are worth considering. First, if the creation of this new stereotype is occurring, what is causing it? Have our society’s values and awareness of media stereotypes changed enough that there is a conscious effort from the producers of media to stray from the portrayals of women that may seem a bit trivializing of their abilities? Or is the media simply beginning to reflect a different culture of women that are emerging more independent and self-sufficient? Next we must ask ourselves, do we like the new stereotype we are creating? It is enthralling to watch women that are smart, independent, and sexy. As with any entertainment medium, we have a tendency to think those that are strong and brave are “cool.” Is this a good thing? It’s an honest question; I am not sure what the answer is.

What do you think?

Advertisment or Content?

A recent article in Adbusters, by Douglas Haddow, argues that, "the membrane separating advertising and content has been torn." The article begins by talking about the recent movie to hit theatres, Zombieland and how much of the movie is a whirlwind of product placements, such as Ghostbusters and Twinkies. The recent economy scare has led ad agencies to prove their importance to corporations, and print publishers, and TV producers to take up their offer due to their dire need for advertisement revenue. Newspapers and magazine covers were the first to crumble to this "consum-o-tainment", and then came TV news, such as FOX. US Television has always contained a lot of product placement, but this recent shift has caused even the most savvy and slick companies to succumb. The article goes on to say that, "The recession has proven ethics to be an expendable luxury." Viewers and audiences of these media products seem to not be affected by this dramatic shift. In the near future, the article predicts that products will no longer be simply placed amongst entertainment but become the focal point of entire movies, articles and TV shows.

Am I the only one who is annoyed by this conclusion and reality? Advertisement is not a new thing to us Americans and neither is the idea of consumerism, but have we really come to this? America truly is a country focused on consumerism and this is not a surprise when one can find advertisements everywhere and anywhere. I do not know about you but when I go to see a movie or sit down to watch a television show I plan on relaxing and escaping from reality for just a bit. We are constantly bombarded with ads wherever we go, and our "escape" time is no longer different. We are not only faced with multiple ideologies in films that we are expected to accept and take as our own, but we are also presented with multiple products that we are encouraged to buy. These product placements are sometimes put in so slyly that we no longer even recognize them but subconsciously acknowledge their presence and "importance." From the Coca Cola cups placed in front of the judges of American Idol (or this season Vitamin Water) to the various products placed in movies like in this clip, advertisement and the importance of being a consumer in today's world is seen everywhere.

Do you agree with this? Do you think we should have to be in consumer mode 24/7? We pay sometimes $10 to $13 to see a movie, are persuaded to buy overly priced refreshments upon walking in, and then are continued to be encouraged to buy various products during the previews, and now during the movie itself. One can't help but wonder what will come next. After advertisement has taken control of movies, TV news, magazine, and other media sources where will they turn? I once heard the absurd idea a corporation advertising agency had to project ads from space creating a logo in the night sky. I now wonder if that really is as absurd/impossible as I once thought. Keep your eyes open and your wallets closed; they want our money and they want their logo tattooed in our memory. What do you think?

Kali

Now You See Us, Now You Don't!

I read this article by Darlene Lewis titled, "How Blacks are Portrayed in the Media". I felt she had somehow harvested my thoughts and written them down scream by scream. Oh how tired I am of the misrepresentation of the African-American especially when it comes to cable and network TV. We are placed in these stereotyped roles as though no point of reference was available. Here's a thought, if you want to produce an African-American show why not consult them. Wow! In some cases we are presented as professional African-American women with no husband, or if we have one he is not presented as head of household. If it happens, that an African-American male head is presented he is killed off, I don't know, maybe he'll reappear on Cops-!! You know how African-Americans are portrayed there. We are rarely presented in a positive light and if we are it is from a comedic stand point. As though a successful African-American, male especially, is rare and/or unheard of. Quite the opposite is true and it needs to be seen. What is media afraid of?

In the last 10 years there really has not been any tasteful sitcoms of color since Cosby. That is a shame. Men and women of color have had to put up with powerless portrayals of others imagery of what their imagination can come up with for us. Part of the problem stems from the fact the we are not the owners of networks, nor are we for the most part the decision makers when it comes to programing. Wouldn't you know it. If we were the movers and shakers the very medium that at times spews the poison of racial profiling, could be used to tear down the walls of racial prejudices.

So What Rose? Well here's so what. You had best be careful when one idea labels a whole race of people. When it becomes socially acceptable to categorize groups based on another groups opinion or perception. Maybe your group is next. Maybe this week red heads will be the new dumb blonds. Take a look at Darlene Lewis' article:

(http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewshortstory.asp?id=25552#reviews) Get fired up then get to doing something about it. Then

Hola Rose!

Objectifying Lindsey Vonn

Perhaps one of the most publicized events in the world, the upcoming Winter Olympics have, unsurprisingly, already becun to drum up a lot of attention. Possible competing athletes are currently being evaluated and interviewed as the nation watches to see who will be representing us in the 2010 Winter Olympics. It's an exhilarating time, the Olympics, but not all the attention is good attention. In fact, sometimes the attention can lead to controversial, if not outright negative, representations of the athletes we're hoping will bring the U.S. some fame and glory.

In his article, "Let the Lindsey hype begin: Vonn is Sports Illustrated cover girl", Chris Chase examines one such case of negative representation already in circulation today--Lindsey Vonn's Cover for Sports Illustrated. Vonn is expected to make a great showing in the skiing portion of the Winter Games, and Chase even speculates that she could become the Michael Phelps of the Winter Olympics. However, her pose on the cover does not come with such high regards. In fact, many have accused Vonn's crouched position of being slightly provocative and objectifying, according to Chase. While Chase disagrees, this claim is hard to disprove when there's a track record like Sports Illustrated's involved.

After all, who hasn't heard of their Swimsuit Editions?

Chase goes on in his article to say that we really shouldn't worry about whether or not the Cover is objectifying Vonn; the real issue here is what's going to happen to Vonn's career. She could be the next Michael Phelps, after all! While I commend him for trying to stop people from having so much sex on the brain, I don't think he's entirely right in doing this. Vonn's "semi-provocative" pose is no issue to just brush over.

Women have been sexually objectified in advertisements and mass media in general for almost as long as the business has been around. Especially today, it's not uncommon to see promiscuous images of women advertising anything from hair products to milk. (Got milk, anyone?) This repeated objectifying of women could lead anyone to believe that women are only good for sex, a kind of condemnation known as symbolic annihilation according to Gaye Touchman, a media critic and author of "The Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass Media." This symbolic annihilation makes women less valuable in society's eyes and belittles their achievements.

Reinforcing this idea, Sports Illustrated further trivializes Vonn through its use of gender marking in the headline of the cover. Meaning, they declare her to be America's Best Woman Skier, not just America's Best Skier. This gender marking only seems to occur in women's sports, according to the text Media/Society.

But...so what?

After all, Vonn may still go on to be the Michael Phelps of the Winter Games; her cover of Sports Illustrated won't change that if someone proves or disproves it to be objectifying. She may still win that gold medal. The only problem is, how much impact will it have if she comes to be known as the pretty girl on Sports Illustrated, or even just the prettiest skier on the skiing team? And what about all the gender marking? What's it going to do to young girls across America who are being subliminally told that, when it comes to sports, they can only strive to be the best woman athlete, and not just the best? It may not seem like a big issue to some, especially in comparison to where Vonn's career could be headed, but then again the objectification of women has always been ignored or at least pushed aside to deal with later, so why start worrying about it now?

Original Article