MTV + John Edwards = Little Music, Lots of Teeth

John Edwards, in a media stunt reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s 1992 run, participated recently in the MTV and MySpace “A Presidential Dialogue,” in which he answered pressing questions from young voters. While Edwards had some good ideas, discussed in depth, on salient issues such as education and race (the direction the current administration is heading, black men will “end up in prison or dead”), this entry is not about Edwards and his blinding, JFK-esque grin.

No, no. This is a beef with MTV.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad MTV is finally picking back up where “Rock the Vote” and “Choose or Lose” left off- it’s nice to see the network taking its viewers seriously, treating them like thinking, breathing, political adults. But what does it say to the viewers when in between spots for “A Presidential Dialogue,” there are advertisements for PG movies and GameBoys? What does it say when the network allows Axe deodorant to sponsor Gamekillers, a show so horrible I can’t even describe it to you? What does MTV think of its viewers, then? Are they thirteen year-old boys? Are they too dumb to notice that the ‘M’ in MTV stands for music, when in fact they play little to no music and run The Hills seven times a day?

Either the network sees its viewers as children (and in many cases, they are), or they treat them like thoughtful, responsible adults by sponsoring more presidential debates and actually delivering music as alluded to by the network’s very name.

I'm not sure you can reconcile the two.

News That Matters, News That Isn't Really News

Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder found, not surprisingly, that agenda-setting exists in television news. Though the book was published in 1987, their findings hold true today. Through manipulations of newscasts in highly controlled experiments, Iyengar and Kinder found that:

Agenda-setting is successful in telling what people to think about, and reinforces beliefs already widely held. Agenda-setting can last for a time after consumption of the information, but also depends on the topic highlighted for staying power. Sometimes so-called “vivid cases” (that is, visual, personal, emotional) are ineffective due to some peoples’ perception of melodrama, but again, is highly dependent on topic and personal experience. Obviously, those with less education and little political inclination are the most effected by agenda-setting.

Priming refers to what comes first to mind when making a judgment about something or someone. Television news affects priming by highlighting specific qualities about, say, a presidential candidate, and because of the mere emphasis on the quality and its recency, it comes to mind first.

I don’t find any of this original; perhaps the idea of agenda-setting was more radical in the 1980s, or perhaps I’ve been overly-exposed to the concept in academia. I did find, however, a few poignant assertions I’d like to share with you.

The FCC defined broadcasting in 1949 as “the development of an informed public opinion through the dissemination of news and ideas concerning the vital public issues of the day” (122). On this, television news has utterly failed. Any educated, or at least analytical, person can tell you that television news is biased, in poor taste, and is not actually news. What is portrayed on the evening news or one of the 24-hour news networks is entertainment-based, and designed to scare. Honestly, who the hell cares if some people are injuring themselves on escalators because they’re wearing Crocs (they’re hideous and a crime against humanity anyway). There are better things to report on, like the thousands upon thousands who are dying in the civil war we’ve involved ourselves in in Iraq.

But obviously we can’t report on what’s actually happening around the world, because American “television news conveys representations of American society and politics that: (1) are unusually nation-centered in general and president-centered in particular; (2) are posed so authoritatively so as to discourage the citizen’s engagement in national life; (3) trivialize and demean elections; and (4) undermine the authority of political institutions” (124). Without accurate portrayals of what’s going on in the world, or real news in general, we have much to worry about for our national security.


“The quack, the charlatan, the jingo, and the terrorist [emphasis added] can flourish only where the audience is deprived of independent access to information” (3).

Uht-ohs!

Iran is Responsible for 9/11 (So is Iraq).

Obviously this is not true, but for many analytically-challenged Americans, denying Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, access to Ground Zero is an implication that Iran had something to do with September 11. This implication comes on the heel of the Bush's implication that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 through association.

What is frightening is many Americans do not know the difference between implication and truth, or even Iraq and Iran (and Afghanistan and Syria and Jordan and Lebanon).


Ahmadinejad requested permission to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center, but was denied for "security issues" surrounding the construction at the site. If we claim America is a great democracy, why are we denying a man a chance to grieve for the victims and their families (even if he did deny the Holocaust existed)? I'm sure there's something else here at play that we don't know about, but denying him access is just going to strengthen the rest of the world's resolve against the US.

And make our citizens, well, dumber-er.

Dan Rather Believes in "Real Integrity" (Oh Yeah, and Sues CBS)

Dan Rather is suing CBS, which shocks no one. He’s accusing the network of scapegoating him for the Killian document scandal. Aside from the issue of journalistic integrity- that is, not only believing what you are reporting is true, but personally confirming its accuracy – I am not interested in the suit in the slightest, at least not for the purpose of this post.

Originally I had scoured YouTube for footage of the Rather’s CBS report. Not surprisingly, it is nowhere to be found. What I did find in its stead is, I think, much more interesting:



Not only does Rather defend the very process of blogging that helped to end his career, he professes his hope for the future of even more hands-on investigative blogging. Rather blasts television for “entertainment posing as news,” but has found through his career that each advancing technology can not only supplement but improve the news reporting process. He urges, though, that internet journalism is “not a replacement” for traditional news media. In fact, even in their dissimilarity, internet journalism and traditional news media share the same fundamental values, those being “independence…[and] real integrity.” Internet journalism, Rather feels, will just enhance our understanding of the news in a more efficient way. But who’s to say something superior won't come along?

Brain implants, computer chips embedded in the eye?

I can see the irony in everything Rather says, especially when he talks about “real integrity,” but I think this clip really shows that even iconic figures of traditional media are really recognizing the power of “new media.” I suppose it’s just nice to see some people/mediums/corporations NOT resistant to change.

"We The Media" Includes Me Too, Right?

Quite honestly, I get my CCT readings mixed up. When reading Dan Gillmor’s “We The Media” I think I’m reading Lawrence Lessig’s “Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.” There are several reasons for this, most notably that everything is interrelated/interdependent (and Gillmor actually mentions Lessig throughout the text, so I’m not completely insane).

Grassroots journalism and traditional media are interdependent. Without the inadequacies of traditional media, grassroots journalism would not have flourished; without grassroots journalism, major news outlets would not be replicating “new media” techniques (see my previous post). Because traditional media are taking hold of these new ways to involve readers, one has to see citizen journalism- or grassroots journalism or new media or whatever you want to call it- as a viable source of information now, and for the future.

Something I think Gillmor would want you to come away with from his book is that YOU have the ability to hold news makers and sources accountable. The internet truly is about democratizing the media, turning traditional media’s “top-down hierarchy” on its head. It is very exciting, indeed, but also problematic.

The two most salient issues I identified over the course of reading Gillmor follow below:

HOW CAN WE TRUST THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVE ONLINE?
The internet is a veritable source of information, but how can we confirm its accuracy? Not surprisingly, Gillmor devotes an entire section to Wiki sites, the largest being Wikipedia. Though by and large helpful, Wiki sites are prone to inaccuracies and web vandalism, demonstrated by Stephen Colbert’s urging his viewers- the Colbert Nation- to literally change history. Wikiscanner has grown out of this concern of authenticity, but Gillmor clearly believes in the online community’s ability to self-govern, highlighting especially the Technorati site, which helps one authenticate information and identities through authority ratings.



HOW LONG WILL THE INTERNET TRULY BE FREE?
Honestly, who knows? Gillmor stands for participation and free access, demonstrated most graciously by his posting his book online for free. A growing trend of (attempted) regulation may make free access like this a relic of the past. Issues such as jurisdiction, libel, and copyright especially are being discussed in courtrooms right now. The culprit is not the government but American corporations that pressure the government into enacting legislation, and most mind-bogglingly, bully their own customers to make their businesses a little more profitable. Personally, I believe the internet will eventually be regulated. The infrastructure is in place already- login IDs, passwords, Cookies. Perhaps Gillmor is a little more optimistic than I am. Lessig is more realistic: “liberty depends on…regulation remaining expensive” (Code, 56). Unfortunately, technology cheapens and advances so quickly that regulation may be nearer than we think.

By and large, “We The Media” is the most reliable compendium of “new media” and its issues in existence. It also serves as a great how-to guide on everything from starting your own blog to subscribing to RSS feeds. More than anything, though, Gillmor urges you to question everything you read, do your research, and be responsible.

That goes for what you read here, too. You have no idea how much of this I just made up.

Wink.

News Corporations Let You Contribute (After You Tell Them Your Life Story)

*DISCLAIMER*
I am an idiot with HTML, but as with many things, with practice comes, um, minimum competence? My posts will be prettier in the future, I promise.

That being said...

News corporations are jumping on the “new media” bandwagon. On their websites, these news sources now allow the average viewer to determine what is news, to communicate with reporters, and engage in their own discussions about a topic. The only problem is these corporations need to know exactly who you are. Oh yes, and they reserve the right to do with your work what they will.



MSNBC has adopted FirstPerson, a riff on CNN’s iReport. What’s exciting about this is you determine what is news by sending in your own words, sounds, or videos. What’s not so exciting is they reserve the right to edit your work, broadcast it in whole or in part (or out of context), and there is no guarantee your work will be posted. In order to be eligible for submission, you must provide your contact info (including phone number) and sign a Terms of Agreement. You need all contact information (including street address) to even comment on a message board or blog, and even then, MSNBC has to approve it before it’s posted.



CNN operates along the same line as MSNBC. Using iReport, you can submit your own news, but again you need to sign a Terms of Use Agreement, fill out all your contact information, and allow CNN the authority to edit your work as well as give them full discretion as to whether or not your topic is important enough in the first place. The same is true for all comments and message boards. Finding the blog link is difficult (it’s at the veeeeeeeeery bottom).



Being from San Francisco, I read the Chronicle (sfgate.com, actually, which is an amalgamation of local sources) a lot. Compared to CNN and MSNBC, the Chronicle is a little more lenient with its user requirements. To comment on blogs or messages or any news article, you only need your name, e-mail, zip code, year of birth, and gender. They don’t ask for phone numbers or street addresses, and they don’t need to review your comment before posting. However, because the Chronicle is small in comparison to national media outlets, there is no iReport or anything of that nature, but I’m willing to bet, because it is San Francisco, that’s not far behind.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for audience participation. It’s a step toward true democratization of the media. But why does CNN need my phone number? And why should I allow someone to butcher my work?

I get all my CCT readings jumbled up, but I’m fairly certain that one of my readings addressed the issue of online identity and privacy and security, yadda yadda. Once I think of it, I’ll post again, along with a review of Dan Gilmor’s We The Media, which ties nicely with my rhetorical questions above.

---

11:39 PM Edit
Stephen Colbert just called MSNBC the "filet-o-fish" of TV news, since it rebroadcast original 9/11 footage yesterday. I'm too tired to be disgusted, so anyone else have any comments?


If You Know Someone Who Knows Someone

According to a recent New York Times article, telecommunications companies supplied FBI phone records investigations with community-of-interest information until 2005. This means that if you were associated in nearly any way with a terror suspect, your name could be included on an investigation list. The article states that the investigations were limited to “once-removed” contacts, though in many instances names and records would appear on national security letters but were “not necessarily the actual subject of a terrorism investigation and may not [have been] suspected at all.”

This is scary for several reasons.

Telecommunications companies have a history cooperating with the government and have been rewarded for it (think deregulation of monopolies). It is not surprising that they have supplied the FBI with community-of-interest information. However, telecommunication companies have been gathering this information for years. Why do these companies need to keep track of our personal social networks?

If the FBI investigates once-removed contacts now, what’s to stop them from investigating twice-removed contacts? Given that everyone can generally be linked socially in six degrees or less (especially Kevin Bacon), wouldn’t that mean that nearly everyone belongs to a terrorist’s community-of-interest?

Once your name is associated with a national security threat, it is nearly impossible to rid yourself of the stigma. This has many repercussions, not limited to professional, financial, and travel complications.

No bueno.

A First Attempt.

I’m hoping for some scandal to break so that writing this blog will be easier. Why is it easier to write about the negative, but more importantly, why does an event have to be negative to be considered newsworthy?

Also, why do four years of formal university education teach you only to memorize your social security number and ask rhetorical questions?

Lately, so-called loyal “Bushies” have been dropping like flies. This is no doubt a sudden emergence of conscience after seven years in the administration. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the desire to avoid litigious scrutiny or…[cough]…payoffs. No, it must be for the greater good of American society.

Much speculation has risen on how the Bush administration will be portrayed in the annals of history. Worst president ever?

Oh yes, before I go on any further, did I mention I was, um, a wee bit left-leaning?

Anyway, much speculation has risen. I get a sense that most people think this to be the dirtiest, most corrupt, most out of touch, craziest, even gayest administration in the history of administrations. Every new Bushie resignation lends credence to this perception. My best friend (who hopefully decides to comment on this blog so my grade goes up) believes that as soon as the administration leaves office, dirty secrets, BIG and little, will be exposed. Perhaps this exposure will lead prosecution (or pardon, dunh dunh dunh). Maybe the world will be a better place (prosecution!) or maybe we’re all, well, screwed. But somehow all this dirt and relentless law-breaking and utter disregard for basic human rights gives way to- dare I say it?- hope. And faith. Faith that no matter the outcome of the next presidential election, any administration is better than the Bush administration.

Recently I noticed an attempt to soften the president’s image. I don’t think he has an especially tough image. Quite to the contrary- he’s portrayed as a bumbling idiot. However, this article preceding a Bush book release shows us the pensive, sensitive side of the president. The motive behind this is to pave the way for the public to forgive the president, because, after all, you can’t hate a man who masks his self-pity and presidential isolation for the good of the American people. (This is the part where you sigh and think to yourself, what a brave man.)

I wish I had more profound things to say about media and politics today, but a) The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have been on hiatus, and b) after a couple of years out of college and in an excrutiatingly dull/evil job, your brain forgets how to function.

More later, as my brain re-solidifies from corporate mush (coffee helps).