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?