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?