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?