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

The United States of Google

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05google.html?ref=technology

In the above posted article, the New York Times discusses Google's current issues with the Country of China. Google has apparently contacted the National Security Agency to see if they would be willing to monitor activities by users on Google including their e-mail and search engine. Due to electronic attacks on the company by who Google claims to come from China; Google is seeking the help from the N.S.A. so that they can avoid regulations that Homeland Security would have to enforce. They are midst secret agreements currently that could possibly place the privacy of Google users world-wide at risk. The electronic attacks were to infiltrate the g-mail accounts of Chinese human right activists. Google is confident that these attacks originated in China and are hoping to find help from the U.S government to take preventative measures.

Google, as many are aware, has redefined the medium that the Internet is to the world at large. Being the world's largest search engine and such an important aspect of the Internet, Google has become almost its own Nation. Google is influencing American government directly, not to mention dealing directly with China, the highest populated Country in the world. This form of Media has become a national asset for a our country that has attempted "hands-off" policies with internal companies. It is very interesting, and sort of appalling, that this stream of information (which is just another American company) has as much influence world-wide. This truly depicts the power that the Media hold over this world.

With the possibility of Google teaming up with the N.S.A., it has become apparent that civilians privacy may be at risk. This directly affect million upon million of users world-wide and will call many questions of civil liberties into discussion. The most intense part of the surveillance that may take place through the N.S.A. is that it world have the planet Earth as its new Venue. Google's hands reach out across the nations and that means so can the N.S.A.'s and American government's. This is still a developing story but it is one that I will be watching carefully, in the next coming weeks and months. I am sure as more develops more and more provocative ideas will be realized concerning the general public and their privacy.

Matt