Ward's Kitchen

Marketing Prescription Drugs, American-Style

2008-12-03T00:01:00.000-05:00

by Camila Perez Gabilondo

Advertisement is different in every country and a powerful force in today's society. A particular type of advertisement struck me the most after moving to the U.S. and consuming American television, newspapers and magazines. In my mind, medicine was never before trying to break its way into the consumer's mind in such an aggressive way, but in this country, prescription medicine is sold to us every day through the media as if it were a new kind of soda or a tasteful snack.

The array of prescription drugs with dangerous side effects that we are urged to consume day by day when getting our news or watching our favorite show is abundant and diverse. From sleeping pills and birth control to cervical cancer immunization, medical treatments which must be recommended and prescribed by a doctor are directly advertised to the consumer, as if we could make such decisions on our own.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs is very common in the U.S. and audiences are therefore accustomed to making important decisions about their health on their own, which some argue leads to an abuse of prescriptions drugs and a preference for expensive treatments, which, of course, benefits drug companies. Drugs are advertised as if they were as soft a remedy as Vic's vapor rub when they are indeed medical treatments that should not be administered without the control of a doctor.

The dangerous risks of these drugs have to be mentioned in advertisements, but this is done in a way that barely leaves an impression on the consumer: the possibility of suffering from such conditions as blood clots and heart attacks is briefly narrated at the end of the commercial in a light-hearted way. However, for a viewer who is not used to this, such as me, the side effects are what resonates the most and what deters me from paying attention to the product.

This leads us to wonder whether the American audience is subject to danger from the media. The success of these products shows that perhaps the audience is too gullible. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates these kinds of commercials, but it may not be enough. In a January 2003 survey report, the FDA estimated that 88 percent of patients who ask their doctors for a prescription drug by brand name don't actually have the symptoms that the drug treats. With more and more products out on the market and more money invested by drug companies in commercials, this number could go down. Therefore, the far-reaching power of advertisement should be controlled when it comes to such a serious matter as the consumer's health.

(Photo by Adamos Maximus of Mesa, AZ via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. To see a satire from Saturday Night Live about such ads, especially those dealing with birth control, please check the video below.)

advertising
drug advertising
drug companies
Food and Drug Administration
fda
marketing
Add to Technorati Favorites

Are Girl Talk's Sonic Mash-ups Illegal Music?

2008-12-02T00:36:00.000-05:00

by Ali Golomb

One could ask, if the artist did not compose the lyrics or the beat, then how could it be considered their song? Girl Talk, the stage name for Gregg Gillis, makes this question a great deal more complicated to answer. Now on his third album, Night Ripper (originally released in 2006), Girl Talk compiles tracks on top of each other to create a new song. Pitchfork, an online music review site, talks about Girl Talk's way of trying to guess which song is next:

"Smash Your Head" glides into the siren keyboards of Lil Wayne's "Fireman" less than a minute in, then abruptly shifts into the crushingly dense riffs of Nirvana's "Scentless Apprentice" while Young Jeezy spits the familiar flames of "Soul Survivor," before it all tumbles into a Pharcyde-Elton John-Biggie somersault.

Many people think this is an illegal form of art, but I believe otherwise. Yes, Girl Talk is taking parts of songs from other artists, but he is engineering them in a specific way that is different from the artist's original intent. With the digital age, this is our generation's genre of music. It is still every bit as creative and innovative as the music of past generations, but its innovation lies with reconfiguring of past works rather than composing completely new lyrics or beats. While many artists' songs take inspiration from other artists; Girl Talk's inspiration is just more apparent.

(The photo of Gregg Gillis/Girl Talk is from the Wired Rave Awards in San Francisco in 2007; the photo is by matthew.hickey via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. To see a mash-up video inspired by Girl Talk's "Overtime," please check below.)

music
Girl Talk
Gregg Gillis
Night Ripper
mash-up
copyright
Add to Technorati Favorites

Milk Quenches Thirst for Social Commentary

2008-12-01T00:46:00.000-05:00

by Jordan Coughenour

An epic portrayal of the man who first embodied the word "hope," Director Gus Van Sant's biopic Milk, following the late Castro Street politician who became the first openly gay man ever elected to public office, is easily one of the most socially important and impactful films to arise out of Hollywood studios in recent years, and an undeniable contender for multiple Oscar nominations this season. Van Sant (Good Will Hunting, Finding Forrester) seems to have finally learned the essential skill of relinquishing complete control as a director, leading several of Milk's actors to execute masterfully unhindered performances, resulting in an engaging character study framed by the suddenly newly relevant gay civil rights movement in late 1970's San Francisco.

Milk's release date (although the film debuted in San Francisco on Oct. 28, before the fall elections, it did not go into limited national release until Nov. 26) tragically prevented the film from affecting the recent passing of California's Proposition 8. (For more on Prop. 8 please see: "California's Proposition 8 TV Ads" and "Proposition 8: Where's the Outrage?") That ballot initiative banned gay marriage in California. Moving in parallel, much of the movie deals with Harvey Milk's organization of protests against 1977's Proposition 6 in California, which would have fired homosexuals from teaching in the public school system. The film is one of the most effective framings of a social movement ever crafted; with screenwriter Dustin Lance Black working in an artful balance between historical fact, yet leaving spacious breathing room for the audience to follow the personal struggles of those involved in the gay civil rights battle of the time. One of the strongest of these decisions comes with Van Sant's frequent use of vintage newsreel footage and photographs to overlap the staged action; notably choosing not to cast an actor as the religious anti-homosexual warrior Anita Bryant, but rather to confine her presence to actual television interviews, leaving apt room for the film's central cast members to play.

Frequently falling victim to bloated speeches and weepy plot lines, Sean Penn (All the King's Men, Mystic River) is at his strongest point in years as politician Milk. Penn delivers a vocally and physically nuanced performance worthy of serious Academy Award consideration. He joyfully captures the hope and fervor of Milk, acting without fear or imposition in his portrayal. Penn's finest moments are the quiet pauses between the rallies and addresses; where he shows Milk's constant battle between his love of operatic theatricality and inward soul searching in an oppressive world. Neither Penn nor Van Sant ever shies away from the uniquely sexual lifestyle of Milk and those around him. From the first moments, as the film begins on the eve of Milk's 40th birthday and primary encounter of lifelong love, Scott Smith, viewers can expect to be invaded by a barrage of sensual portrayals, none lacking in psychological connotation or amorous necessity. These men who revolved around Harvey throughout his life make for a notable supporting cast to Penn throughout the film. James Franco as Scott Smith shows fluidity and able passion in a performance as Milk's sensual yet wary boyfriend, acting as something of a guardian angel throughout the course of the movie. Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild, Speed Racer) is a peppy and energetic presence as the young activist Cleve Jones, who in the years after Milk's timeline concludes, went on to create the AIDS Memorial Quilt. Hirsch is completely unhinged and nearly lunatic in his portrayal. In many of the movie's darker moments, Hirsch is a continuous shock of lightning, pertaining well to one of the actual Milk's frequent calls to, "Never blend in." One of Milk's more notable strengths lies in Josh Brolin (W., No Country For Old Men). Brolin plays City Supervisor Dan White, the eventual assassin of Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone. In making the wise decision to not leave White to the sidelines as a shadowy harbinger of death, Van Sant grants the audience a delicate view into the gradual formation of a bigot. Brolin's carefully constructed progression as a character should reap some possible benefits for Brolin come Oscar nomination time too. Though the basic subject matter of the film itself demands a liberal viewpoint, Van Sant uses White's arc to give the other side of the issue its due course of argumentation. It's nearly as much of a shock to a truly engaged audience member as it is to Milk himself when White does eventually pull a trigger on Moscone, igniting one of the country's most heart wrenching double homicides.

Given Harvey Milk's constant search for a stage and enough theatricality to keep the world enraptured, it's of considerable notation that Milk's core manages to be so subtle and pure. Past the grand narrative of a social movement, lies the heart of both the issue itself, as well as the basic grappling with humanity that ensures no matter what legal jurisdiction ensues, all men are still created equal. It's the intimate moments, such as when Milk and Smith enjoy a candlelight dinner with the pressure of political duty pervading the air, or when the previously aimless wanderer, Jones is handed his first bullhorn and enlisted to active duty just prior to Milk's death, ringing true to his signature speech-starter "My name is Harvey Milk, and I'm here to recruit you." You'll have a hard time walking out of the theatre without the need to pick up a picket sign and head into the streets yourself. Milk is, overall, a powerful testament that though over three decades have passed, the continuous struggle for equality continues in the gay community to this day.

(Editor's Note: This piece is also cross-posted on the iVoryTowerz blog.)

(Milk goes into full nationwide release in the U.S. on Dec. 5. The film is rated R. The promotional film poster is from Focus Features. To see a trailer for the film, please check below.)

films
Milk
Gus Van Sant
Harvey Milk
Sean Penn
James Franco
Emile Hirsch
Josh Brolin
Academy Awards
California’s Proposition 8
Proposition 8
gay rights
politics
culture
film review
Add to Technorati Favorites

Computers, the Internet & Desensitization

2008-11-28T19:24:00.000-05:00

by Althea Avice de Guzman

He smiles slightly, that person across the street from you. He is holding a sign that says: I am going to kill myself. There is a crowd watching him take the pills from his pockets. Now, there is a general murmuring as he puts the pills in his mouth. Still no one moves. Some scream for him to stop, others are trying to call his bluff by encouraging him. Most just watch.

His body topples to the ground and twelve hours later, the police finally come. But it's too late. Countless witnesses were unable to stop a young man from committing suicide.

Your first reaction: Outrage; maybe incredulity that no one was willing to stop him.

It did not exactly happen this way, but the death of Abraham Biggs, Jr. only differed in that instead of looking across the street, people were looking at a computer screen while he committed suicide live on webcam. And people responded to his action just the same.

In psychology, there is such a thing as the bystander effect, where people diffuse responsibility away from themselves and unto others when they are in groups. One would think that the more people there are, the greater the chance of him being saved, but it seems the contrary is true. However, I hesitate to give people even that degree of credit and this leads me to ask whether or not being online has desensitized us to such acts.

In addition to diffusing responsibility to others, there is also the lack of accountability from being behind a computer screen. What is the difference between the virtual world and that of the real one? For example, you suddenly have more courage to talk to a person online that you would not have in person. That way, you are not confronted with social pressures or expectations and also there is an aspect of detachment that comes with it. It is an alternate social reality. Repeating this situation over and over again may encourage one to prefer interaction through the internet, in other words, taking the easy way out.

Therefore, does overexposure to the internet foster the loss of empathy and thus desensitize us? To some extent, I must admit I gave up some of my humanity while trying to be more aware. After reading countless headlines about tragedy and disaster, suddenly, the shock of something so terrible happening wore off. Not only was I reading them online, I was seeing them too, on YouTube. And the worst part of being aware? I couldn't relate.

Also, admittedly, a bit of my morality has been compromised. While my conscience would hesitate to steal a CD from the store, online, I never had a problem using Napster in its existence. The existence of those file-sharing sites and their widely-accepted use by all my peers led me to believe that the virtual music store was not like the real store at all. Now the guilt from downloading a song has subsided, and who knows what else my conscience will allow me to do online but not in real life.

At the end of the day, as soon as you walk into my room and sign online, you are no longer a part of the real world. That computer screen protects you from the consequences of reality, and maybe even from the guilt of watching someone die right in front of your eyes.

(Photo collage by kuddlyteddybear2004 of Ashtabula, OH via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

internet
internet suicide
Abraham Biggs suicide
webcam suicide
file sharing
internet ethics
culture
Add to Technorati Favorites

A Conscious Consumer: An Oxymoron?

2008-11-26T19:27:00.000-05:00

by Melissa the Marinade Maker

From a tender age, we all have been told we are unique; we are individuals possessing special characteristics and skills not common to others in society. Although many refuse to define themselves as based upon consumer products, it is extremely difficult to enact a complete separation between products and who an individual "is." The blatant question is this: Is the individual simply a product? Many would argue no, as any human being with even a moderately functioning brain is able to distinguish themselves from the products they consume for the sake of daily life, yet others assert that society is very uncritical and lacks the proper analytical skills to create such a separation between the being and the product.

The media have employed techniques, efficacious techniques, that have created a "consumer frenzy" in every possible venue of life. Newspapers, magazines, the radio, and lo and behold, television itself, have all been extremely effective and extremely profitable modes of consumer-mania. Debate has raged about the quantity of advertisements each individual is exposed to on a daily basis, some claim roughly 1,500, while others claim figures in the hundreds. The actual figure is irrelevant in that the bottom line remains that commercials have invaded every crevice of life, with commercials assertively advocating products ranging from savory, delectable chocolate to shampoo that renders impassioned screams in the shower. It is unarguable that the very function of a corporation is to generate revenue, utilizing the means necessary to ensure a sustainable market demographic. However, what is bothersome is that the individual is unable to venture for themselves and find a suitable product without it being portrayed as an absolute "must-have." The psychological implications of such advertising are ostensible: consumers passively expect to have everything presented to them, as opposed to being an informed and pro-active consumer. Rather than unconsciously absorbing all the advertisements being propelled, the consumer ought to make purchase decisions based upon individual discretion, as opposed to simply what the commercials tell them. Thus, the lack of personal opinion has resulted in commercials hindering a conscientious consumer.

Historically, commercials have played a vital role in the U.S. consumer market. The early to mid-20th century consisted of commercials that revolved around the suburban lifestyle, catered specifically for women to purchase the newest, most desirable kitchen and cleaning appliances. With the onset of the 1980s, commercials reached a newfound peak and horizontally diffused into all possible marketable venues, developing even further demographic specializations on a global scale. Specific examples are not needed because advertisements ranging for any possible product, be it peanut butter to car models, all create a must-have frenzy for that particular product.

For those of you still reading, this blogger asks that you be a conscious, analytical consumer, for the sake of your wallet and for the sake of your mental welfare. Yes the latest model of this or that may seem alluring and highly appealing. However, think for a moment if it is necessary, and if so, if you are making an evaluated decision. After all, a conscious consumer can make for a less manipulative market. Thank you.

(Graphic from radicalgraphics.org, which offers its material for free.)

media
consumer culture
television
culture
advertising
Add to Technorati Favorites

Subscribe in a reader

Men, the Media & Sexism

2008-11-25T22:59:00.000-05:00

by Zack Huhn

You always hear complaints about how women have to deal with the stereotypical media roles that degrade how women are portrayed in society. Let’s discuss how men have to deal with the SAME stereotypes. Get over it — media glamorize being beautiful and powerful or important, regardless of sex. Many times, men often play one of a few stereotypical roles in media, which if the same reaction is taken to this as women, means they are expected to always act that way in everyday life. Be it the jock or the class clown, the superstar athlete or brave hero, this is obviously an impossible reality for almost any man to live up to. Be honest, how many shirtless, hairless, toned, athletic, tall, tan, intelligent, funny, interesting and entertaining male supermodels do you see walking around campus at American University every day? This nearly unattainable image affects men just as much, if not more than women; it affects our relationship opportunities, job opportunities, social circles and more. Men have to wonder: am I masculine enough, well enough dressed, tall enough, thin enough, muscular enough, athletic enough, smart enough, wealthy enough, funny enough, interesting enough, strong enough, caring enough, powerful enough — just like women. Are my teeth as white and straight as the guy in the commercial? Is my car as nice as his? Will people notice that my skin is slightly less than perfect? I work out, but I still have a little work to do. Will people understand? When we see images of women in swimsuits or underwear, we criticize. When we see images of men in swimwear or underwear, we don’t think twice. It’s ironic; the very girls complaining about the stereotypes they have to deal with are the same girls watching Gossip Girl and The Hills, reading Us Weekly and Cosmopolitan. Don’t get me wrong, I love that these shows encourage us to dress well and be hygienic. I’m not complaining about the images they portray, nor am saying one is wrong to complain; but we have to understand that men face the same media bias as women, and if people want to make a change, they have to stop supporting what they claim to be against through buying into the industry!

(The photo is from the Europa BSN Model Search competition in Irving, Texas from 2007; the photo is by SSCusp of Vancouver, WA via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

media
sexism
Gossip Girl
The Hills
Us Weekly
Cosmopolitan
culture
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Rise of Sports Media Networks

2008-11-24T22:27:00.000-05:00

by Abdullah Faisal

What is a sports fan to do if they missed their favorite basketball team's game? After 1999, a fan could tune into NBA TV and watch highlights from that night of basketball games. The National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA), and the National Hockey League (NHL) all have television networks broadcasting 24/7. The National Football League is by far the most profitable professional sports league in the United States. To tap into the profitable sports media industry, the NFL launched the NFL Network in 2003. The launch of the NFL Network continued a trend that NBA TV started in 1999. Sports leagues are creating and marketing their own networks and services to provide in-depth coverage to their fans and make a profit.

The creation of league-sponsored television networks and premium sports packages like DirecTV's NBA League Pass ™ and NFL Sunday Ticket ™ are a relatively new trend that benefits sports fans. These sports networks and packages benefit fans like me who live outside of their favorite team's market. I am a fan of the San Francisco Giants, San Francisco 49ers, and Golden State Warriors. Because I do not live in California, I cannot watch them play on a nightly basis. Before the creation of sports networks and packages, I would have to wait until there was a nationally televised game on the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN) or Turner Network Television (TNT). Now, I can subscribe to NBA League Pass and watch Warriors' games on my computer. And, if I happen to miss a game, I could watch extended highlight clips of that game on NBA TV. Watching your favorite team no matter where you are is revolutionary and sports leagues other than the NBA, NHL, and NFL realize that there is a lot of money to be made in the sports media industry.

Major League Baseball is currently the only major professional sports league in the United States without a network. However, that is going to change on January 1, 2009. The new MLB Network will be different from other sports networks because it is partly owned by cable and satellite companies. As a result, the MLB Network will reach the most households out of any of the other sports networks. On the other hand, the NFL Network is not owned by any media companies so distribution has been an issue. The NFL wants its channel to be offered in a basic cable package without any extra charges, but cable companies like Comcast refuse. As a result, the NFL Network is struggling to reach a large potential audience. Although sports networks like the NFL Network have had some issues, they are in high demand and will have a tremendous impact on how people watch sports and sports news.

(Note: For viewers at American University, NBA TV is Channel 33 on the campus television system and the NFL Network is Channel 81. More information on the dispute between the NFL and the cable companies is also available on the iVoryTowerz blog.)

sports
football
baseball
basketball
hockey
nfl
mlb
nba
nhl
NFL Network
NBA TV
MLB Network
Comcast
cable companies
cable television
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Computer Dating: True Love or Technological Whims?

2008-11-21T20:58:00.000-05:00

by Melissa the Marinade Maker

Millions of users on a monthly basis. Marriages and engagements come to fruition. And millions upon millions of net profits. Welcome to the world of online dating, where membership fees are minimal and the prospect of "true love" is unsurpassable.

To those of us unfamiliar with this seemingly enigmatic system, dating tips can be found en masse to help with navigation through the tangles of this lucrative expedition, thanks to media outlets found on the internet and television programs. A plethora of dating tip websites can be found to assist users from the most menial to complicated tasks, such as "choosing the right profile picture" to the posting of personal information. Some may find it humorous, and perhaps a tad pathetic, that an individual would turn to the realms of online dating, yet for those of society with chaotic schedules and incessant workloads, Match.com may serve as the sole outlet to the dating scene.

What makes online dating particularly interesting is that unlike the Stone Ages, in which two individuals would meet face-to-face and have conversations ranging from the weather to the stock market, members of dating services are able to scavenge through the thousands of profiles and pursue another on the basis of similarities. Members belong to a spectrum of all ages, financial statuses, religions, ethnic groups, and geographic locations. Thus, one is bound to find another with mutual interests and perhaps common identity linkages. Other beneficial aspects include a diverse and global membership, personality as opposed to physical features taking precedence, the safety of foraging through profiles in the confines of the home, and the ability to further relationships that conveniently revolve around one's schedule. Dating sites have also attempted to provide more innovative features, such as the use of instant messaging and extensive personal profiling, as well as the use of iovation to prevent online fraud vis-à-vis online dating.

Aside from the ubiquitous publicity dating sites have received online, television stations have realized the profitability of this market and have included advertisements for the most popular, and affluent, of sites. Daytime television in particular, has embraced the inclusion of dating advertisements, obviously in efforts of reach a certain demographic, particularly between the hours between noon and mid-afternoon. In addition, programs such as The Bachelor and Joe Millionaire have aggrandized the notion of finding "true love" with a "blind match." Regardless, the media have effectively tapped into a growing, prosperous market and they are reaping the benefits.

Skepticism of online dating obviously exists, and rightly so. Ostensibly, the first concern of online-daters pertains to truth; how truthful are members online? Common sense filtering between profiles certainly is a must, as is a careful solicitation of information with others of the same dating service. The question remains, however, if these sites are worthwhile. Aside from the well known Match.com, PerfectMatch, Yahoo!Personals, Chemistry, eHarmony.com, and Lavalife, at least 800 other dating services can be found on the internet. Essentially, the dating service is much like a filter, beginning with "generic sites" and trickling into the hundreds of "matchmaking services" available to computer users, worldwide.

Regardless of the rampant criticisms pertaining to online dating, the statistics are irrevocable. 20 million Americans visit at least one service on a monthly basis. About 120,000 marriages have resulted from such sites, and by 2008 online dating services expect to generate roughly $642 million in revenue. Thus, it is impossible to dispute the growing efficacy of online dating services, both domestically and internationally.

(Graphic by d70focus via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

internet
online dating
computer dating
iovation
The Bachelor
television
culture
Add to Technorati Favorites

Invisible Children: Exposing Humanitarian Needs

2008-11-19T22:37:00.000-05:00

by Emily Norton

As has been said countless times before, we of the global North failed our brothers in the Rwandan genocide. Unwilling to let another African catastrophe slip by unnoticed, three boys documented their trip through Northern Uganda and ended up launching a life-changing NGO, Invisible Children Inc. A completely grassroots non-profit, it has succeeded in raising worldwide awareness and support (nearly 3.5 million dollars in the last year and a half) for the thousands displaced by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda. While it began as a rough documentary, the organization's mission statement now accounts for "improving the quality of life for war-affected children by providing access to quality education, enhanced learning environments, and innovative economic opportunities for the community." The crazy thing is, they are actually accomplishing this goal. However, it's not necessarily just their programs that are doing it, but rather the mass support and attention garnered f by their excellent Western world-friendly media.

It almost seems as though we've heard it all before; the mantra of "stories changing lives." So what happened in Rwanda? Television was not entirely devoid of those scenes of carnage, and yet the desired active response was not elicited.

Invisible Children points to an adage frequently repeated by my parents (usually to quell heated words between my sister and me): it's not what you say, but how you say it. Sometimes a good hook or carefully repeated image will carry a farther reaching impact than a briefly distressing scene or statistic. The Invisible Children organization has displayed genius at marketing and presenting their cause. Their website is filled with photos of the shining faces of the young, hip activists and Africans, big-band name benefit concerts, well-constructed YouTube-style videos, and interesting advertisements of hands-on simulation events that bring the tribulations of Africans to American soil. I personally was greatly affected by their "Global Night Commute" a nationwide event in which thousands walked miles to sleep in outdoor locations, symbolizing the Ugandan children who commuted to hospitals nightly to escape abduction into the army of child soldiers of the LRA.

This on-fire group has developed a humanitarian aid teen subculture, perpetuated by the first positive media-induced domino/bandwagon effect I've seen in a long time. Once you participate in one of their events, you become a member of the cause (and their very thorough and enlightening e-mail list!). Though it could be said that they are trying to manipulate an emotional response, I don't think they're duping anyone. Currently, they are actually offering followers the opportunity to go on site and see the effects of their fundraising and petitioning. With their flashy website and appeal to the belief that youth can "make a difference," Invisible Children Inc. has sparked an international compassion movement.

(The photo of three Ugandan boys in a diplacement camp is part of the promotional materials compiled by Invisible Children.)

media
war
human rights
Invisible Children
Uganda
Lord’s Resistance Army
LRA
politics
Add to Technorati Favorites

Cyber-Attacks Threaten the IMF & National Security

2008-11-18T22:42:00.000-05:00

by Anthony Bouselli

In our present financial crisis, any security breaches and penetrations into international organizations, especially monetary organizations, cause rippling effects which can further plunge the world into economic chaos. This month, cyber-attacks were launched against the International Monetary Fund (IMF), based in Washington, D.C., which provides emergency loans and financial planning to economically troubled nations. Spyware had successfully been integrated into the IMF's computer networks causing the organization to take its computer systems offline for days to remedy the problem.

Each day the economic situation worsens as the world's leaders struggle to cope and clean up the mess. In the present crisis, no financial organization can afford not to be able to be running at full capacity. These attacks, though not directly damaging, resulted in adding chaos in an already troubled time. In the real world, time is money — and each day the IMF was down cost the world big.

The IMF was not the only financial organization attacked in the past few weeks. For more than a year the World Bank has undergone repeated attacks; the World Bank holds some of the most sensitive financial data collected from most of the nations in the world. The repeated attacks upon the World Bank create a sense of unease in present times. No one knows what information has been stolen and what the end result will be, but hackers gained access to the high security treasury server. The World Bank's treasury server manages more than $75 billion in assets for itself and other nations. As many as forty of the bank's servers containing contract negotiation data were also hacked. Any disruption in a financial institution is not only espionage but a terrorist activity. Although the attacks on the World Bank have not resulted in a shut down and system wide purge like that involving the IMF, the attacks have been monitored. The IP addresses from two of the attacks originated in China.

China, a growing country with an exploding economy, craves natural resources like an addict. Many of China's raw materials are imported from primary product harvesting, third world countries under the tutelage of the international financial institutions. By hacking these organizations, the Chinese can monitor who will be giving loans to whom and what the measures of those loans will be.

Chinese hackers not only attacked financial institutions, but this November they attacked the White House computers as well hacking into unclassified e-mails. Foreign hackers have also attacked the e-mail servers of the campaign offices for President-elect Barak Obama and Sen. John McCain; the FBI claims that the attacks are to understand policies enabling the hacking country to negotiate with the new president in the future. Spokespersons for the Obama campaign claimed that the attacks originated either from hackers in China or Russia.

The internet provides the greatest challenge to the U.S. Defense Department. Constantly, a cat-and-mouse game of espionage, the goal of internet security is to stay ahead of the enemy and defend against tactics not yet tried. No computer system is an impervious fortress in the interconnected World Wide Web.

Especially today, during the financial crisis, the world cannot afford these crippling attacks as experienced at the IMF.

(The photo shows security guards outside the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C. in 2006, as they anticipate a protest; the photo is courtesy of Matthew Bradley, under a Creative Commons license via Flickr.)

internet
cyber-attacks
cyber-terrorism
hackers
China
IMF
International Monetary Fund
World Bank
Barack Obama
George Bush
Bush
Obama
John McCain
McCain
economic crisis
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Media & Body Image

2008-11-17T18:14:00.000-05:00

by Anna Waterfield

The phenomenon of the media has always held a strong power over society since the beginning of its existence. From newspapers to television to advertisements to movies to radio to magazines to the internet, in today's world it has become virtually impossible to stray from the mainstream. While the mass media can be used for advocacy, enrichment, education, information, and entertainment, they are also capable of influencing the way we think in a negative fashion.

Thanks to the media, we are constantly bombarded with a series of images, most of which portray beautiful, happy, thin people. Seeing these people on a daily basis has the effect of pounding a standard body image into one's head.

Even though obesity is a growing problem in America, with the percentage of people who are considered overweight or obese due to their body mass index rising from 28% in 1980 to 64% in 2000, the models and actors we see every day do not reflect this progression. In fact, twenty-five years ago the average model weighed 8% less than the average American woman; now, the average model weighs almost 25% less than the average American woman. Basically, the average woman is getting fatter as the average model is getting skinnier, all while women and men across the country are being told to love themselves and their bodies as they are. These contradictory messages only serve to increase instances of things like low self-esteem and eating disorders.

So why do the media buy into this idea of a standard body image? The answer is largely economical. When consumers are convinced that they have to wear a certain size of clothes or have certain facial features in order to be at the so-called "normal," then they are more likely to purchase diet aids or cosmetic products in order to attain these goals. Therefore, cosmetic and diet industries are more likely to thrive.

Advertisements for these and other products also employ a standard body image in order to appeal to consumers. Ads on television and the internet, in magazines, or even on billboards frequently feature a thin, beautiful model wearing or using a certain product. When consumers see these people, they get tricked into thinking that if they wear the right clothes or eat the right foods then they too will be thin and desirable like the model in the ad.

There have been attempts to reform the perception of thin being beautiful. Unfortunately, many have failed. At Milan's Fashion Week, models were required to maintain a Body Mass Index within the healthy range (18+) to participate, but this spawned an outcry from models who said that their "natural" body weight could not be helped and designers who felt that their artistic creativity was being imposed upon.

n 2004, Dove launched its more successful "Campaign for Real Beauty," choosing to feature everyday women in their ads as opposed to models in an effort to widen the definition and discussion of beauty and thus make women feel more beautiful every day.

n terms of their weight, Americans need to find the right balance (no pun intended): not striving to be unhealthily thin, but not allowing for high rates of obesity either. In order for the image of health to become the new ideal body image, the media need to begin to promote it. Encouraging the media to follow the Dove company's example and present a greater variety of body types, with depictions of real people and more positive messages about self-image, will not completely eliminate the potential for eating disorders in the United States; however, the pressure individuals feel to conform to a certain body type will surely be decreased. If healthy men and women who celebrate their differences are portrayed more frequently in the media, then we will have a healthier country both physically and mentally.

(Photo by Christi Nielsen of Los Angeles, CA via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

media
body image
body mass index
models
Dove
Campaign for Real Beauty
advertising
Add to Technorati Favorites

Subscribe in a reader

The Hologram: Media Miracle or Cheap Trick?

2008-11-15T17:37:00.000-05:00

by Dan Sweeney

On election night, November 4th, a media phenomenon occurred that I did not think I would ever see in my lifetime. On CNN, the network beamed in correspondent Jessica Yellin to their studio for an interview about the crowds gathering in Grant Park in Chicago to see Barack Obama. My jaw literally dropped when I saw this and I thought there was no way that this could be happening right now. In a sense, I was correct.

According to CNN, the cable news network used 35 cameras to circle Yellin and film her, well, all 220 degrees of her. She stood inside a large circular room with green screens all around her and the cameras captured all of her movements blocking out other background factors. When she appeared it looked like she was from some science-fiction film, complete with the hazy blue outline. The technology comes from an Israeli company, SportVU. It looked like she was actually in the studio with Wolf Blitzer and he talked to her like he could actually see her. However, this was not the case. The cameras circling Yellin were synchronized with the cameras in New York to make it appear like she was actually there. Yellin could see Blitzer from a television at the front of the room where her live remote report originated. CNN has not discussed the technology much further.

Various technology savvy critics denounced this so-called "hologram" as nothing more than a cheap trick. It was not a real hologram because: it did not actually photograph her in the complete 360 degrees; Yellin's "hologram" not actually present in the studio with Blitzer, and there was no way for Yellin, inside the so-called "hologram" to see Blitzer without the aid of a television. Some criticized CNN because they superimposed Yellin's enhanced image on the picture of Blitzer in the studio, and called it a hologram although such green-screen technology to superimpose images has been widely used in television since the 1970s. In other words, there is still a ways to go before we have anything like a Star Wars' Princess Leia-type of hologram. CNN projects that it will take about ten to twenty years for their "holograms" to reach near that level. Although, the "holograms" on election night had their flaws, they set the foundation for future hologram production.

The benefits of possible hologram technology are huge. First, news has something cool to draw in more viewers and possibly tempting young people to watch it. Interviews can be given with a more intimate setting. according to CNN, by cutting out all the background of the one interviewed. People can have a more personable conversation without having to look at a television or just hear their voice on the telephone. If holograms are successful in the news industry, they could spread to other industries as well. In stores a pre-recorded holograms could appear and tell you about the day's sales, instead of having it listed on a sign. This makes shopping a more pleasant and friendly event.

I never thought I would have seen a hologram in my life, even if some say it was not a real hologram technically. Hopefully, as this technology evolves over the next few decades, it will become more commonplace. Needless to say, although present holograms have their flaws, it was really cool to see that on election night.

(Photo by zephyrbunny of Seattle, WA via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

media
television
cable television
CNN
hologram
SportVU
Jessica Yellin
Wolf Blitzer
Star Wars
technology
Add to Technorati Favorites

Facebook: The Impersonal Means of Communication

2008-11-14T17:59:00.000-05:00

by Alissa Scheller

I sign onto Facebook almost every single time I’m using my computer. As I’m writing this, I have my Facebook homepage open on my desktop. It’s how I keep in touch with my friends from home, it’s how I hear about events I want to go to, and quite frankly, it’s just a really good way to put off doing anything productive.

Facebook, the popular social networking web site, was created by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004. It was initially limited to college students, but currently can be used by anyone with an e-mail address who chooses to sign up. Users can join networks corresponding to their school, workplace or area, add friends, join groups, add a multitude of soc-called “applications” (ranging from “Which character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer are you?” to so-called charitable “causes” that the user supports) and “facechat” with their friends.

The web site, which has more than 120 million active users worldwide, has played a significant role in the transformation of communication. Over the past few years, we’ve see the emergence of Web 2.0, a new way of using the internet that encourages interconnectivity and interactivity. Users can now actively participate in media, in the forms of blogs, comments on news stories, or on social networking web sites like Facebook.

This change in communication can be seen even in the conversations of my peers and I. We talk about who “friended” us on Facebook, who changed their ever-important relationship status, and who wrote what on whose wall. Another slightly creepy aspect of Facebook is the knowledge that every single one of your friends — your oldest and dearest as well as that kid who sits across the room from you in math class — can see every picture you add, every comment you write and every person you’re friends with.

Facebook has certainly been a major player in changing how we communicate with other people. That is to say, impersonally. With the advent of new communication technology, people have become more and more interconnected — I can communicate with my friends and family across the country almost immediately, at any time I want — however, the cost of instant communication is that it is almost entirely impersonal. Entire relationships can be had without seeing someone’s face or even hearing their voice.

So, Facebook has succeeded, in my opinion, in helping me stay in touch with my friends, but in a completely impersonal way. But, for all my complaining about how totally dehumanizing Facebook really is, what am I going to go do after I finish writing this? Well, I’m probably going to go check Facebook.

(Cartoon by Geek&Poke of Hamburg, Germany via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

internet
Facebook
social networking
Web 2.0
Mark Zuckerberg
communication
Add to Technorati Favorites

Are Newspapers Headed to Extinction?

2008-11-13T23:59:00.000-05:00

by Chef LC

Every morning my father wakes up, puts on his robe, makes himself a cup of coffee, and goes to our front porch (depending on the aim of the newspaper boy) to retrieve the morning paper. He sits down at the kitchen table and begins reading the daily news. The crumpling and turning of the large and sprawling paper is a comforting sound during breakfast time. It's hard to imagine his morning routine any differently but as online newspapers are gaining popularity, the old paper alternative may be on its way to extinction.

The internet has 24-hour coverage that is easily accessible through a computer, not to mention that many online newspapers are free. These sites have provided a new breeding ground for advertisers. The switch from newspaper ads to online ads is causing a large plunge in profits for several companies. Advertisers are reducing the number of their print ads because it's costly compared to the rather cheap online advertisements. Although this transition is good for advertisers it unfortunately aids in newspaper's revenue downfall. The newspaper industry is resorting to lay-offs and spending reductions. Time Inc., the home of TIME magazine, People, Fortune, and Sports Illustrated cut 600 jobs and began to reorganize its staff. Gannett, the biggest newspaper publisher in America, announced that it would lay off 10 percent of its work force (about 3,000 people.) The Tribune Company said that it would lower the number of workers in the Los Angeles Times newsroom by about 75 people. And that's just to name a few.

With new and younger generations more inclined to go online for their news sources, paper news may begin to fade quickly. The online news has a greater audience already because it's free and easily accessible. But sadly, most of newspaper's revenues come from the print production, a base that continues shrinking every day. These revenues help pay for the news that we are able to read. What will happen if newspapers cannot afford to pay reporters? The country may not be informed about world events; that's a scary thought.

Now every morning I wake up, make myself some tea, open my computer and click on my home page, The New York Times, where I read the daily news. Yes, my father's classic way of reading the newspaper and my millennial generation's routine do differ, but in the end we are both informing ourselves about the world — but this may not continue. This online, free convenience may not last long as papers have to cut back on reporters and spending because of the downfall in newspaper sales. Something has to be fixed. The news is a key way for people to inform themselves about world situations and events. If journalists can no longer work for pay, then America will become less and less knowledgeable about the news. The original newspapers need to figure out how to re-work and re-vamp their paper sales and make them appealing again to younger audiences. And besides, just imagine all those poor, jobless newspaper boys!

(Editor's Note: This piece is also cross-posted on the iVoryTowerz blog.)

(The photo is by Cultural Savage of Portland, OR via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

newspapers
internet
advertising
New York Times
Time
Time Warner
Tribune Company
Gannett
Los Angeles Times
media economics
Add to Technorati Favorites

Computer Games & the Pirates

2008-11-12T22:29:00.001-05:00

by Charlie Wilcox

Most people know about the trouble in the music industry today with people pirating and illegally downloading songs for free, with no money going to the artist or the record company. But what is lesser known yet is equally important is the pirating of computer games. The pirating and illegal downloading of computer games costs the developers billions of dollars each year and is a major problem facing the industry.

Computer game pirating is this widespread for many reasons. The main reason is that with the internet, it is easy for someone to get hold of a computer game for free from a piracy web site. In addition, with the growing general knowledge of computers and programming among young people, more users have the ability to pirate games on their own: The ability to merely access a pirate site and download a way to get around the copy protection on a game

The second reason why illegal downloading of computer games is common is that many games usually do not have much replayability. This means that those who buy most games will most often play through the game once, then shelve the game and move on. The low replayability of most games may cause gamers to think that the games they buy are not worth the fifty or sixty dollars that they would pay were they to buy the game legally. One way companies can fix this is by focusing more on innovation in the core gameplay of their games and less on making pretty graphics that draw people into buying their games. The major offenders of the graphics over gameplay thought process are sports games. Every year new sports games are being sold that merely update the roster for the new season, and perhaps enhance the graphics slightly. These games add almost nothing to the actual gameplay, yet charge a full price tag for the game every year. If companies make games that are worth playing for more than a few hours and make true innovations in the ways one can play the game, then people would be more willing to buy them instead of downloading them illegally.

Another reason people will pirate games is sometimes the methods that developers will use to stop people from pirating their games. With piracy of computer games so rampant, developers say, they need to keep creating and using more effective ways to stop the illegal use of their games. However, this often only works to encourage piracy of their games. This is because the pirated version of a game uses methods to get around or not include the copy-protection devices, while those who legally buy the game have to deal with the measures which are often very inconvenient for the average user.

The prime example of this is the recent backlash over games that use DRM, or digital rights management, software. This software has been reported to cause issues with some computers and has created outrage because a user may not be able to play the game after upgrading their computer. This has caused great outrage among the gaming community, with some going so far as to pirate a game purely because of the DRM software on the game. It has become so widespread that the popular web comic, xkcd, has included the subject as a focus of one of its comics. The use of DRM in some games has also led to many gamers boycotting games that include DRM software and even pirating games purely because of this. This was especially strong in the recent release of Spore, which caused many users to lodge complaints with the manufacturer Electronic Arts. In turn, many sites popular among gamers claim complaints among those playing Spore about DRM are encouraging those users help those involved with game piracy. The issue grew to such an extent that it even caught the eye of newspapers such as The Washington Post.

Overall, piracy in the computer gaming industry is a major problem, but much of it comes from the developers and not the pirates. People do not want to buy something that they do not believe will be worth their money, and will often use other channels to get it. In addition, gaming companies are pushing their customers towards piracy by attaching copy-protection software that is annoying and inconvenient at best, and infringing and harmful at worst, while not addressing the real issue of releasing games that their customers do not want to pay the price that retailers are charging.

The major gaming companies need to get back to the basics of operating a business and use that time-honored principle: The customer is always right.

(The photo is from fffleisch at morgueFile.)

computer games
piracy
game piracy
Spore
Electronic Arts
DRM
internet
digital rights management
copyright
Add to Technorati Favorites

Subscribe in a reader

Changing the World of Warcraft

2008-11-11T17:57:00.000-05:00

by Brian Chang

This Thursday, the World … of Warcraft will change forever. That's right, on November 13th, the latest addition to the World of Warcraft (WoW) series, The Wrath of the Lich King is expected to be released. With more subscribers than the entire population of Portugal at more than 11 million, World of Warcraft's latest change is causing excitement to mount for the new expansion pack. Furthermore, some speculate that subscriptions will increase further with the release of The Wrath of the Lich King.

This Mass Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) seems to garner such a wide audience because it provides an alternate reality and virtual, social environment for gamers. In many ways, Warcraft presents striking similarities to our own world. There is customization of characters that allows for individual identities similar to the real world, there are voting procedures, auctions, and a common currency, the Gold. But Warcraft's huge success seems to lie not in its comparable parallels to our universe, but in its distinct differences from reality. Warcraft players, upon logging on, are immediately immersed in Azeroth, a diverse realm of magic and mysticism populated by rival factions of humans, elves, and orcs.

There are several advantages in playing the online game. Warcraft allows for a social environment through which gamers can chat and build relationships with other gamers. Critical skills such as teamwork and cooperation are encouraged under the guild (specialized team) centered missions and tasks.

However, the enchantment and fascination for World of Warcraft has given rise to an addictive brand of Warcraft subculture. Starting with the $15 monthly membership fee that allows only payers to be part of this exclusive community, this near obsession with the game series has resulted in the culmination of countless fan pages, forums, shirts, novels, and toys. Avid Warcraft fans even utilize game jargon such as "tank," and "undead," terms that have very foreign implications to those outside the community.

It is safe to say that Warcraft for many of the 11 million gamers has become something more than just a hobby, or social computer game. With its worldwide distribution and reasonable price tag of $49.99, Warcraft has become a craving source of addiction, comparable to porn, gambling, and drugs. I compare the MMORPG to the likes of porn and drugs with reason. Warcraft is probably one of the few publicized games in which there have been reports of players selling their updated virtual characters and items for real cash. Yes, that's in dollars, not Gold. In addition, there have been incidents of death related to the Warcraft series. In South Korea in 2005, a man visited an internet cafe for a marathon gaming session with World of Warcraft and Starcraft. He didn't sleep or eat for at least 50 hours and he died of fatigue and exhaustion. Last year, in a similar incident, Chinese authorities reported a 26-year-old teacher collapsed and died after spending 15 days mostly playing online games. Although the authorities did not specify what games had bewitched the teacher before his death. Satirical media outlets such as Onion News and Southpark have humorously criticized the addiction that has become too synonymous with the online game.

Aside from the near extreme cases with Warcraft addiction, obsession with Warcraft has been responsible for the disruption of people's families, jobs, social and even physical health. Even though Warcraft provides a temporary social outlet for human interaction, gamers' heavy dependence on the MMORPG displaces them from the reality of our world, not Azeroth. With the release of The Wrath of the Lich King, we can only foresee the ongoing damage Warcraft will continue to impose on its growing number of subscribers.

(Screenshot from the World of Warcraft by srp6685 via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. To see a trailer for The Wrath of the Lich King expansion pack for World of Warcraft, please check below.)

computer games
World of Warcraft
The Wrath of the Lich King
MMORPG
game addiction
computer addiction
online games
Add to Technorati Favorites

Subscribe in a reader

Korea: Kim Jong-Il & his Hermit Kingdom

2008-11-10T18:27:00.000-05:00

by Althea Avice de Guzman

In North Korea, foreign influence is prohibited. Media are barred. There are few televisions sets and limited uses for radio and the internet. Outside influence is so minimal, it seems as though the country alone exists in the world. And incredulously enough, the people's beliefs reflect just that: North Korea is the Garden of Eden while everyone else must be living contemptuously.
It is an inconceivable concept for Americans. The images we receive from that part of the world are emaciated children picking at the muddied grounds for any scrap of food. North Korean defectors are returned from China only to be executed. Human rights organizations have rallied for the United States' government to have an active role in intervening when such clear violations are being made to the human rights of North Korean citizens.

This is where American compassion can be misconstrued for arrogance because the real problem is that North Koreans do not believe there is anything wrong with their way of life. Why? Because it is the only thing they have ever known. Yes, they may acknowledge that difficulty exists, especially with the famine that continues even today, but it must be endured for the ultimate fate of the country.

If Freddy Krueger ever wore Mao's suit, it would be Kim Jong-Il, stalking the nightmare that George Orwell dreamt in his novel, 1984. Yet while Orwell dreamed of a government's pervasive control by totalitarianism, Kim Jong-Il takes it even further by establishing a theocracy, where he is God. The North Korean Constitution is essentially the Bible that is taught upon entering school, where its principles must be reflected in each class, from Russian to biology. As detestable as it may be, one must be in awe of such a perfect system of indoctrination.

In Orwell's novel, the government controls every aspect of a citizen's life, and it is no different in the reality that Kim has created: every citizen is his disciple, a fate borne from the womb. It is no surprise that for the past sixty years, there has been no documented sedition, no protests, coups or strikes. After all, a citizen is but a common believer who cannot possibly rebel against God.

All of this is possible because outside influence is not allowed and what modest media that exists in the country are controlled by the government as a means of intensifying indoctrination with propaganda reflecting the principles of Kim's Bible. Only 55 out of every 1,000 citizens even own a TV set and television only shows programs that the government approves of having patriotic principles, glorifying the leader. Reports are saturated with Kim's actions and ideals and thus do not have any room to report hardship. Even if any foreign media outlet could be accessed, there is a severe punishment for paying it any mind. Also, it seems that if ever the internet had a boundary, it would be found in North Korea. Such measures to limit media outlets like television, radio and the internet are easy because the country cannot afford any development in technology that even compares to the standard of living found in the West. All the money is invested in Kim's military ambitions including nuclear advancement.

Hence, the first step to be taken in aiding North Koreans is not through direct negotiations with the leader. There is some merit in the rest of the world criticizing America for its interference in other nations' sovereignty over their citizens. We may have good intentions, but what we need to realize is that the rest of the world has not been as privileged to know a better fate. The media saturation in this country allows for the proliferation of ideals in liberty and individualism; other countries are not so lucky.

So, where do we begin? Well, reading George Orwell doesn't hurt.

(The photo shows North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il meeting with troops; the photo was released by the North Korean Central News Agency in August, 2008, and is in the public domain.)

politics
North Korea
Korea
Kim Jong-Il
George Orwell
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Obama, Pakistan & the Media

2008-11-09T08:02:00.000-05:00

by Ali Golomb

The media are a public service, and they are supposed to report unbiased information through raising tough questions. The New York Times' Stephen Dubner reported that 67.8% of all daily newspapers, 98.4% of college newspapers, and 100% of alternative weekly newspapers endorsed Barack Obama for the presidency. Because the majority of the media supported Obama, they failed to ask follow up and vital questions that were left unanswered during his candidacy. Even though I myself am a Democrat and an Obama supporter, I see how the media presented Obama as a knight in shinning armor who will save the American people.

One of the ways the media failed was that they did not ask President-elect Obama to go more in depth with his foreign policy plans. Obama argued the war in Iraq has distorted U.S. foreign policy. Obama said he would withdraw troops from Iraq, and focus instead on Pakistan. However, the media failed to question Obama further. Obama said that if Pakistan does not comply, he will consider taking action. The media played down the fact that Pakistan's government does not support terrorism, and Obama is giving another sovereign nation an ultimatum — adhere to our policies or else we will take action against your nation. President George W. Bush has this same attitude with Iraq.

Even though I too would like to be assured that our nation is going to be safe, the American people do not need the media to continue to glorify politicians. Rather, the American people need the media to raise difficult questions, and demand difficult answers because we cannot trust the government totally; we need the media to serve as a watchdog. We saw what happened when we did not raise difficult questions out of fear: American involvement in an unpopular war in Iraq that the majority of the public opposes.

(Political graphic from StrangePolitics, a website that offers copyright-free political material.)

politics
2008 campaign
2008 election
Barack Obama
Pakistan
Iraq War
newspaper endorsements
George Bush
media
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

Subscribe in a reader

Proposition 8: Where's the Outrage?

2008-11-08T15:36:00.000-05:00

by Chelsea Ritchie

Last week, while voters were casting their votes in mass numbers for Barack Obama in the presidential race, a different vote was counted and pronounced. California’s controversial Proposition 8 passed, making gay marriage illegal in the state. (For more on Proposition 8 and gay rights, please see: "California's Proposition 8's TV Ads" and "The Story, the Truth and Fred Phelps.") Basically the proposition bans the right of same-sex couples to marry, nulls the bonds of those already married, and overrules Proposition 22. The vote was 52.5% in favor and 47.5% against, although those percentages don't include absentee and provisional ballots.

Why have the media covered so little of this topic? While my classmates argue over the future under president-elect Obama and whether his policies are adequate, I can’t help but to wonder why the media have said so little about Proposition 8. After all, this is the highest- funded campaign on any state ballot (a combined total of $73.4 million). Clearly the media frenzy for Obama’s campaign has been shown all over CNN, ABC, NBC, and other major television news networks.

Perhaps being a Californian, I feel compelled to research but I found that while I was in California I didn't see much information about what Prop. 8 proposed. ProtectMarriage.com, a major organization which sponsored the Prop. 8 ballot, cleverly made the campaign into voting for Prop. 8 to “protect ourselves and children.” Contrasting that position, the ads against Prop. 8 hardly used “gay,” or “lesbian” and I think the ads actually looked so similar that one could easily confuse what Prop. 8 did. Since May 15, Proposition 22 has allowed same sex marriages and I have never felt the need to “protect myself.” I did the research and saw what exactly Prop. 8 petitioned, but my fellow Californians may not have. My good friend Remie even told me she was proud to vote for Prop. 8 because she wanted to protect gay marriages. What she really did was vote to ban it. It’s this kind of confusion that probably changed the voter outcome for or against Prop. 8.

There needs to be more awareness about this proposition and I blame the limited coverage of the media to the passing of this petition. It is the responsibility of our news anchors, newspaper columnists, radio DJ’s and bloggers to spread the awareness. Yes, it is also the voter’s responsibility to research before you vote, but many people rely on the mainstream media to deliver the facts. Just because the media were occupied with the presidential election is not an excuse to barely show a proposition this big.

(The photo shows a post-election protest by those against California's Proposition 8 in San Francisco. The photo is by ingridtaylar via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. For more on this topic please see these posts on the iVoryTowerz blog: "Isn't Love All You Need?" and "California: Prop 8 Turns Back the Clock.")

politics
Proposition 8
Prop 8
California Proposition 8
gay marriage
gay rights
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Post-Election Analysis: What About Those Negative Ads?

2008-11-07T23:46:00.000-05:00

by Logan Ruppel

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Mysterious phone calls at 3 a.m. A little girl picking daisies who gets nuked. We are all only too familiar with the mudslinging negative campaign ads that gained popularity during the 1960's and have become ubiquitous on television during the past several presidential elections. Negative advertisements involve attacking a political opponent's policies, past voting record, or personal character to garner support instead of focusing on one's own policies and personal qualities. Sometimes the ads are used to impose opinions on the candidate's "good" policies compared with the opponent's "bad" policies, rather than allowing people to decide for themselves.

Negative ads that focus on policy tend to only promote the benefits of a candidate's platform, while ignoring any possible negative consequences. Not surprisingly, these ads present to the viewer only negative aspects of the opponent's policies and fail to mention any benefits. In order to make an effective, legitimate argument, ads need to accurately represent both sides of an issue, laying down credible facts and figures to prove one side while disproving the other. Unfortunately, it probably isn't possible to address all of these proposals in the small space of a 30 or 60 second advertisement. The only campaign-funded TV spot that came remotely close to achieving this during the 2008 campaign was President-elect Barack Obama's half-hour infomercial that presented his message in a clear, concise way.

Many attack ads venture into the realm of logical fallacy, in this case ad hominem. Political advertisements based on this fallacy, which literally means "argument against the man," ignore the real issues and policies at stake. These ads use personal criticisms of an opponent as evidence to disprove his own arguments. This type of reasoning is flawed because there is no connection between personality and stances on issues. One of Senator John McCain's advertisements in the 2008 presidential campaign compared Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, saying "He's the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead?" and "Higher taxes, more foreign oil." This ad characterized Obama as nothing more than a famous face with no substance just because he has become wildly popular in America and the world. Also, saying that Obama is for higher taxes was misleading, as he intends to lower taxes on everyone except the very wealthy and wants to lessen dependence on foreign oil, not increase it.

Most candidates who use negative campaigning are in a last ditch effort during the final weeks of an election to make up for falling behind in the polls and fundraising. Public reactions to excessive negative campaigning have been largely negative themselves. While the base of support for the attacker most likely will be rallied to support him or her, the more moderate or swing voters may be disgusted with the tone of the campaign. Negative ads force an emotional response in viewers, possibly prompting them to forgo intellectual opinions of candidates and reject them out of fear. By going too far or too personal with attack ads, candidates can actually provide a boost for their opponent's campaigns by turning people off to the aggressive and seemingly loathing candidate. Negative ads overall contribute to polarized politics by driving a wedge of animosity between already opposed voters and lessen voter turnout due to alienation of the centrist electorate.

(Photo by larilari of Goiania, Brazil via stock.xchng; photo discovered through everystockphoto.com. To see the classic "Daisy" ad from 1964, please check below.)

politics
2008 campaign
advertising
negative advertising
Barack Obama
John McCain
McCain
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Media & Today's Patriotism

2008-11-07T15:51:00.000-05:00

by Sarah Filley

After what seemed like the never-ending story of a fight for the presidency; the United States will soon have a new administration. During election, my network of choice was CNN. After a quick and painless vote count, floured with mostly ignored commentary by the likes of Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper, and, of course, Wolf Blitzer, I found myself saying to a friend, “Oh my lord, I love America!” and instantly I wondered, why have I never said this before election night. I attribute this in part to my upbringing in a nearly anti-right wing, raging liberal town where “Fuck the government,” and “Shit I better move to Canada,” are chants that were heard far too often throughout the past eight years. But I also think that for me personally, the media have altered my sense of patriotism.

Watching the news has instilled in me a resolute uncertainty about my country. There are too many conspiracies, too many plots, and overall too many analysts with frightening things to say about our leaders to always feel a sense of confidence or trust. News outlets exist to bring to light the little known secrets of the influential men and women of America. In February 2008, The New York Times falsely accused Sen. John McCain of having an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Skepticism arose through the media’s coverage of Barack Obama’s connection with William Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The media took a comment made by now Vice President-elect Joe Biden and implied it had racially insensitive connotations, potentially stirring up trouble. Investigative journalism wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the mistakes and discrepancies made throughout history.

The definition of patriotism has changed drastically with the emergence of the media. Since Thomas Paine incited revolutionary sentiment in 1776, the media have flourished by presenting the American people with the kind of information that makes it possible to lose faith. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of living in a cloud of ignorance. Having the power and right to question our authorities and be made aware of what’s going on at the national level is part of what makes living in America so great. But since the media began uncovering certain inconvenient truths about our government, there are fewer and fewer people who can, without doubt, say that they have full faith and trust in our nation and its leaders. So during this week, after history was made and a beautiful example of the democratic process was displayed to the world, I would like to take a chance to profess my love for this country. By next week there will be more scandals. Something new will arise in the media that might scare us or cause us to doubt. But in this pause for celebration, I will remember that I do have faith in my country. And despite the fervent scares that the media have maxed in on, I know it is possible to be informed as well as patriotic. I am proud, and always have been, to be an American.

(The photo of CNN Center in Atlanta, GA is by tanjila via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

politics
2008 campaign
CNN
Barack Obama
John McCain
Joe Biden
Thomas Paine
media
Biden
McCain
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Blockbuster Musical

2008-11-06T16:37:00.000-05:00

by Jordan Coughenour

Often looked upon with the polarizing lows of being either an enclave of elitist complications or a puffy, nonsensical frolic-fest, the musical has steadily grown more and more out of touch with contemporary media and society. Once a primary form of expression and popular sentiment, commenting on society with songs such as "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime" from Americana, Broadway also was a primary form of American social advancement, with African American actors such as Ethel Waters taking on startlingly nuanced leading roles before Hollywood even began to consider serious racial diversification. Even in the 1970's, when speaking openly about homosexuality was still taboo in many social circles, Broadway boldly showed its fearlessness in playing home to the dance musical A Chorus Line, which featured three openly gay characters.

Even a brief glance at the offerings on Broadway today however, and it's difficult to distinguish between the Great White Way and your local megaplex theatre. Offerings such as the ridiculously laughable Shrek the Musical, the soon to open Billy Elliot, and the recently closed Legally Blonde are all adapted from their successful movie counterparts. While such unoriginality might be excusable if the final product were in any way enjoyable to watch, both Shrek and Legally Blonde play out more like onstage puppet show versions of the cinematic predecessors than their own, stand-alone piece of creativity. Both are shiny, loud and admittedly, very nice to look at, but everything about them is superficial. The most distressing part of this entire situation is that audiences still pay a great deal of money to see them! Ever since the blockbuster sensation The Producers, and its creator, Mel Brooks, realized the marketable potential in name-brand musicals, ticket prices on both Broadway and the West End of London have skyrocketed to around $100 a pop. That is, until Mel Brooks came around for a second go with Young Frankenstein and had the gall to ask for $450 for a single ticket. Luckily, Young Frankenstein opened to horrendous reviews and failed to create the buzz necessary to entice, or rather, fool, people into shelling over nearly half a grand for a show.

These so-called "blockbuster musicals" are slowly but most assuredly causing the continuous downfall of Broadway as a legitimate artistic medium. As the Russian literary critic, Vissarion Belinksy, once stated, "If something true can be understood about art, something true will be understood about liberty too." American liberty must be in a sad state indeed if this is what is honored at the Tony Awards. Again, it all falls back on the shoulders of Mel Brooks. In charging such an astronomical amount to see a Broadway show, consumers began wanting to see their money onstage in ways that transcended pure talent, and so we are left with gaudy, flashy spectacle. The shows that are byproducts of popular movies also have roots in this monetary vein. Seeing a Broadway show is itself a gamble; you hand over your cash and hope that you will be moved and entertained. It only makes sense that familiar titles of established quality would be the most reasonable place to spend your money. The situation doesn't seem to have any end in sight, as an economic crisis makes people more wary of where they place their wallets than ever before, and the financial burden of producing a show with no viable headliner or previous following is too risky to even consider. Should a producing team have the nerve and pocketbook to invest in such a show, it's inevitably only a short matter of time before it shutters it's doors of originality and creativity forever, and the gargantuan monsters of corporate escapism and gall continue on. The most recent causality in this massacre was this summer's off-Broadway transfer, [title of show], which slammed spectacle up the kisser by using a set of nothing more than a few metal chairs, a table and a piano. The musical quickly built up a cult-like following of Broadway die-hards, with its inspirational, though financially unviable slogan and 11 o' clock number, which proclaimed, "I'd rather be nine people's favorite thing, than a hundred people's ninth favorite thing." The show closed last month after only 102 performances. Shrek the Musical continues on, and future adaptations of Hollywood movies such as Midnight Cowboy and Catch Me if You Can are already in the works.

(Editor's Note: This piece is also cross-posted on the iVoryTowerz blog.)

(Promotional photo of Shrek the Musical from DreamWorks Theatricals, a division of Viacom, by Joan Marcus.)

theater
films
Mel Brooks
The Producers
Young Frankenstein
Billy Elliot
Legally Blonde
title of show
corporate media
films
culture
Add to Technorati Favorites

America's Youth: Rocking the Vote

2008-11-04T21:19:00.000-05:00

by Liz Marjollet

Although it is usually thought that the youth vote is severely underrepresented in elections, I would beg to differ in this election. Youths are definitely becoming more involved in the democratic process. For example, as a college student, I spend my days on Facebook and my nights watching shows such as Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report, along with studying. Facebook has been advertising the election like crazy, with the ability to give your friends free pins endorsing either the Democratic or Republican candidates. Also, many people have been "donating their statuses" to one of the two candidates.

Much of the youth are also more excited about their ability to vote, especially with this election. The historical ramifications alone are reason to want to get involved. Either America's first black president will be elected into office, or Sen. John McCain may have the possibility of a big upset; not to mention McCain's running mate Gov. Sarah Palin, who would be the first woman in the number two position. As well, there has been more fuss over exercising one's right to vote. It gives power to the people, who take their responsibilities seriously.

The media have also used the election as an advertising point to great extremes. For example, Starbucks, McDonald's and Ben and Jerry's have all promised free product with a patron's sticker testifying that they voted. As well, the election has been the lead news story for weeks, if not months. Last night, SNL ran a special two hour program because of the elections. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report both have been poking fun at the candidates and the election in general for weeks. Even now, on my Yahoo! page, there is a poll asking if I voted, and there's an ad for Dodge Rams, with a blue truck and a red truck attached by a chain and facing each other with an American flag backdrop, stating, "Pick your ram. Click to Vote." Google's homepage is creative as usual, with all the letters covered by curtains, as if they were voting, and the second "g" has a "vote" pin on it.

Along with the internet, radio and television have also been a huge part of the hype. Radio stations spend their time reserved for talking discussing the elections. Television is also flooded with the ads put out by both campaigns. Because the election is now able to be everywhere, young people cannot feign ignorance about the issues both campaigns discuss, because no matter the medium, the issues are discussed, whether in serious or satirical terms. The current state of foreign and domestic policy, along with the economic crisis, only add to the list of reasons that youth voters need to get to the polls. But I have a feeling much of the youth already did.

(Graphic by Shep Fairey for ObeyGiant. To see a joint announcement about voting from Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report, please check below.)

politics
2008 campaign
rock the vote
Saturday Night Live
Daily Show
Colbert Report
Sarah Palin
John McCain
facebook
google
Palin
McCain
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

So Where's the Truth in the Election?

2008-11-04T16:14:00.000-05:00

by Irena Schneider

Looking backward now even before the polls close: the election is over. Somebody won and somebody lost. And the world goes on, promises to save the universe gone, tears from fervent supporters gone, silly half-truths in the demagogic limelight… well, perhaps those will never be gone. November 4, 2008 is the apex of a legacy left by a populace that has exhausted its frustration with the past eight years, filled with convictions incredibly sturdy, melodramatic, imbued with a prophetic tone beaming in quivering surety all lodged somewhere at the back of our throats. In twenty years, we will perhaps remember the magnetism under the dome of the Democratic National Convention, when Barack Obama stared ahead and waved, engulfed by a stage of crying supporters while the theme from Remember the Titans blasted across our TV screens and made us want to begin sobbing with hope. We will remember fellow diva Sarah Palin and her insistence to discuss energy policy when asked about taxation policy. Surely, we will remember our friend Joe the Plumber, a hero for a good couple of hours until someone leaked that the poor man doesn't even have a plumber's license. And while our favorite journalists in the CNN newsroom bemoaned the end of such a great metaphor to feed to unconcerned so-called "average" citizens (big compliment to the middle class, of course), at least we had the privilege to kick back and laugh at the process with Saturday Night Live.

It's been a good time. We will remember the agonizing attempts to figure out who's more "presidential," the panic from sexist and racist jibs and jabs, the lies, the ads, the comfortable commotion of establishment politics painstakingly picked apart, tossed around, and put back together by American punditry. Perhaps we will also remember the darker shades of this critical moment. There's the fear and uncertainty about what America has become. We may recall the bailout, for instance, but will we recall the rescue?

Unlikely. Just as unlikely that we'd remember July 12th and Ron Paul's march for freedom, where more than five thousand individuals clambered onto the front lawn of the Capitol and wondered how to become a "mainstream" voice. Neither will we remember the debates between Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader or the footage of Bob Barr responding to Obama and McCain during debate time. We will not remember the cancer in our monetary system. On the bright side, at least we might bask in our once-gloried intentions to apply a band aid (and bring back the wisdom of certain reporters at CNBC trying to figure out how to bypass the Constitution when the bailout was initially rejected). There was the housing boom, we might ponder. But what caused the housing boom? To suggest that federal reserve or government policies have been the motivation for our crumbling infrastructure would not only be considered preposterous, but it would be much too difficult to relay. Such is the reality of corporate media: the importance of today's political world is the soundbite and the bottom line. The point is not to encourage critical thinking and provide the populace with information necessary to effectively question the government (as the founding fathers intended our democracy to function). The point is to herd the populace into the realm of irrational responses and gut-provoked indignation and finger pointing spurting from headlines and pithy political drama. There is almost nothing behind the lines. And why would there be? People are much too busy with daily life to ask the deeper questions about root causes or discover the few brave souls struggling on the fringes of the bureaucratic-media-interest-Congress issue network. Within such recycled surface sentiment, journalists are simultaneously much too busy thinking of how they'll next grab the attention of that very busy public.

So where's the truth?

Perhaps we might find it after our love affair with our candidates has subsided. After all, there is a limit to how much we can bandage a patient before we realize he's actually dying of something much deeper inside. But in the meantime, we're not intended to seek the truth. So in the final moments of this historical election, let us lay back and recall the jib jabs and the lies. Let us sob and point fingers. Let us be average joes. Relax, it's only about November 4th, 2008. Nothing new to say. We need not wonder.

(The political cartoon is by Thomas Nast of Harper's Weekly from the 19th Century. This cartoon is now in the public domain. To see John McCain's appearance on NBC's Saturday Night Live with Tina Fey, please check below.)

politics
2008 campaign
Sarah Palin
Barack Obama
John McCain
Republicans
Democrats
Ron Paul
Chuck Baldwin
Ralph Nader
Joe the Plumber
Saturday Night Live
Palin
McCain
Obama
corporate media
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Argentina & the Mainstream Media

2008-10-31T05:26:00.000-04:00

(Editor's Note: This piece is cross-posted on the blog, iVoryTowerz.)

by Rick Rockwell

The issue of how mainstream media frame reality and change the political landscape through their choices doesn’t end at the U.S. border. No. Recent experience reinforces the belief that this is an issue from here to Tierra del Fuego. And the problem flows east and west, globally too.

But let’s get back to Tierra del Fuego.

If you go there, you won’t find many imprints from the media, of any type. But if you do — likely they’ve flowed from Argentina’s capital of Buenos Aires.

One of the topics the mainstream media in Buenos Aires are trying to avoid is the one they like the least: media reform. The government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has set a goal to rewrite the country’s telecommunication laws by the end of her term in 2011. To that end, the government convened an international conference in Buenos Aires to gather ideas for the reform. (The author was among the invited and addressed the conference.) Hundreds of Argentina’s elite attended: members of Argentina’s Congress; bureaucrats; lawyers; influential academics and writers. Speakers from seven countries (including Spain and the U.S.) spoke to the group and the conference was conducted in three languages. Yet beyond public television, only one national network carried any news about the conference. And not one newspaper mentioned it.

If you depended upon the mainstream media, the conference and its message of reform didn’t exist or meant very little.

But if deciding for citizens that media reform is not necessary through ignoring debate and discussion of the topic, the media barons of Argentina show exactly why such reform is necessary.

Much like in the U.S., the electronic media are in the hands of a powerful oligarchy of businesses. The players are different. But they tend to act in familiar ways. Beyond the corporate media’s concentrated economic and political power, another concern is whether these corporations have Argentina’s best interests at heart or whether their international origins and need for increasing profits trump all.

For instance, Argentina's market is dominated by Grupo Clarin, one of the most powerful multimedia concerns in the region, which owns a television network, the Spanish-language world's most popular newspaper website, and the most circulated newspaper in Latin America. Although owned by Argentines, Grupo Clarin has significant minority ownership from abroad: Goldman Sachs in New York holds a key stake in the multimedia company. And many in Buenos Aires believe Grupo Clarin acts in the best interests of its investors in New York first.

Then there's the television network owned by Telefonica of Spain, which is also involved in cell phones in Latin America and Europe. One of Argentina's television networks is also controlled by a holding company that when you strip away the various shell enterprises is run by a Mexican businessman who lives in Miami. And Carlos Slim, one of the world's richest men, who owns Mexico's phone giant Telmex is also on the scene, controlling large swaths of the wired and wireless phone networks, and the internet service providers that are a natural outgrowth of such businesses.

What these giants of the media world are trying to avoid is a 21-point plan drawn up by civic groups and the Fernandez government. The plan would limit the control of huge media giants and promote diverse ownership and pluralism in the electronic media.

Will the reform work? Does it have a chance?

If the big media have any say, such reform doesn't exist. So why worry? Be happy. We now return you to your choice of corporate media entertainment channel.

(Graphic by saguayo of Mexico City, D.F., via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

media
Latin America
Argentina
media reform
corporate media
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner
Cristina Fernandez
Buenos Aires
Carlos Slim
Telefonica
Clarin
politics
Add to Technorati Favorites

Late-Night TV Satires and the 2008 Election

2008-10-30T09:58:00.001-04:00

by Anna Waterfield

Since the official beginning of the presidential campaign several months ago, John McCain and Barack Obama seem to be forefront on everyone's thoughts, including that beloved collection of late-night TV satirists. With the crucial day less than a week away, any show dealing with political satire is guaranteed to center the majority of its jokes on the upcoming election. Why? Because there are people like newfound celebrity vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin who make it almost too easy!

Anyone who considers him or herself an avid fan of political satire, however, has surely noticed the dearth of reference to Sen. Obama (D-IL) or Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE). According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, from the beginning of September through the end of last week, the Republicans were the target of 475 jokes just by Jay Leno and David Letterman. Obama and Biden, on the other hand, fell victim only 69 times. Throughout the month of September, John Stewart and Steven Colbert collectively joked about the Republicans 211 times, as opposed to a meager 29 jokes about Obama and Biden. That means the Republicans have been ridiculed about 7 times more frequently than the Democrats.

This could be for various reasons. The first possibility is that the Democratic ticket is a relatively dull one. In contrast to Palin's glitzy glamour-queen folksiness, Biden is just another aging Caucasian man in politics. When it comes to choosing who to spoof, Gov. Palin (R-AK) is clearly the more fascinating subject.

Another possibility, is that there simply is not a lot to make fun of about the Democrats . For the most part, Obama has consistently come off as calm, cool, and collected. The weak link in this argument, however, is Biden and some of his less-than-impressive remarks that have been passed up by the media vultures. If Palin had made Biden's recent comment, "Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television" after the stock market crash in 1929 (Herbert Hoover was in office and television did not yet exist) we would never hear the end of it; however, since it was Biden who made the slip-up, we've hardly heard it at all.

The logical explanation for why political satire has strayed away from the Democrats this election, is the race issue. A good majority of comedic writers are left-leaning Caucasians that in their own self-interest might be refraining from making even a reference to Obama's race for fear of a public backlash. A joke with only a mild racist connotation has the potential to be blown out of proportion or put in the wrong context.

Has this tendency to bash McCain and Palin helped the Democrats? It's a good possibility. Late-night "fake news" shows are more entertaining than regular news, so at least some fragment of the American public is likely to choose John Stewart over Anderson Cooper, and thus only see the political campaign through the eyes of those who consider the McCain camp an easy target. For instance, anyone who has watched Saturday Night Live recently knows that Tina Fey's impression of Palin makes her out to be more of a joke than an actual candidate for the vice presidency of the United States. One major upside, if the Republicans do win the election is that we'll have a very entertained nation for the next four years. Otherwise, comedians are going to have to learn how to toe the fine line between appropriate and inappropriate when dealing with issues of race as they adapt to an Obama presidency.

(Political graphic by Frederick; you can see more of Frederick's graphics at the blogs Guys from Area 51 and MCCS1977. This graphic is made available through a Creative Commons license. To see one of the latest satires from NBC's Saturday Night Live, please check below.)

media
television
late-night tv
satire
Jay Leno
David Letterman
John Stewart
Saturday Night Live
Election 2008
Sarah Palin
John McCain
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
Add to Technorati Favorites

A Film Called W.

2008-10-29T12:21:00.000-04:00

by Dan Sweeney

The first thing I noticed upon walking into the theater to watch W. was the small size of the audience. The movie first came out on October 17th and only a week later there were only eight people in the theater to watch it! This illustrates a definite lack of interest toward George W. Bush and his administration. The timing to show this film could not have been better, due to all the election hype and more people than ever becoming involved in the political process. However, this film shows that people today are not willing to pay money to watch a political drama and are still not fully involved within the democratic process. On the other hand, people might not have seen it, because they dislike George W. Bush so much that they do not even want to watch a satire on him. This points out that the film medium does not have nearly the political persuasive power as the other types of media out there.

The star of the film is Josh Brolin, as President George W. Bush. He does a great job imitating the president's speech and mannerisms. He quickly draws the viewer into believing that he is actually George W. Bush, even though he physically resembles Sen. John Kerry quite a bit. The other actors did just as well imitating the respective personas of the Bush administration. These personas are the only real comedy in the film, because they act in the way that they are stereotyped to be. (An old man in a suit, two rows behind me, was the only one who laughed multiple times throughout the film and mainly when these personas such as Karl Rove appeared.) Although the director portrayed these people in a comedic light, their perspectives on the war in Iraq should have been seen by the public before the war, especially Colin Powell's.

The trailer misleads people as to the genre of the movie. The movie is not a comedy, but more of a drama and biography. On a deeper level, one could argue that the trailer misleads the viewers as much as President Bush has misled this country. The film shows President Bush's life from his college days up to 2003 in the middle of the Iraq War. It follows his life truthfully taking only a few creative twists. Surprisingly, the film shows many aspects of his life that the public might not know about him and should know about him, with a major aspect being the relationship between George W. Bush and his father. However much that the audience might hate the story, the cinematography is incredible and explains why this film managed to achieve such rave reviews. The director, Oliver Stone, utilized incredible cinematographic effects that ended up being much better than the actual plot. Overall, the movie added a different perspective on the life of George W. Bush and his administration that should not be ignored. Although it might not be worth the ten dollars to see it in theaters, it is definitely worth renting. After watching this, you, like me might just end up feeling sorry for the guy.

(Promotional photo for the film from Lionsgate Studios. The film is rated PG-13. To see a trailer for the film, please check below.)

media
films
W
biography
satire
drama
Oliver Stone
Josh Brolin
George W. Bush
Add to Technorati Favorites

California's Proposition 8 TV Ads

2008-10-28T13:36:00.000-04:00

by Alissa Scheller

On May 15, 2008, California became the second state (after Massachusetts) to legalize same-sex marriage. So called “activist” judges, ruled that statutes limiting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Since June 17, same-sex marriages have been recognized by the state of California. Proposition 8 is a ballot initiative that would introduce an amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Both the Yes on 8 and No on 8 campaigns have used media outlets, such as television ads, to promote their viewpoints. One television ad sponsored by Let California Ring features a woman going to through various obstacles to reach her wedding, and concludes with the statement: “What if you couldn’t marry the person you love?” Other No on 8 television ads parody the Mac vs. PC ads, and focus on how leaving the state constitution as it is would have no effect on traditional families.

Interestingly enough, few of the No on 8 ads actually depict gay people — the very people the campaign is fighting for. The ads mainly feature heterosexual couples with gay children, friends, or family members urging voters to ensure that all people are treated equally. One ad has two women (who are very clearly not a lesbian couple) talking about the issue. Another has Superintendent of Schools, Jack O’Connell, telling voters that Prop. 8 has “nothing to do with schools or kids” (after a Yes on 8 ad asserted — falsely — that if the proposition failed, schools would be required to teach children about same-sex marriage). The entire ad does not mention the words “gay,” “lesbian” or “same-sex.”

One Yes on 8 ad features a child telling her mother that she learned about same-sex marriage in school (the impossible circumstance to which the No on 8 ad with Superintendent O’Connell was referring). Another shows San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom, proclaiming to a celebratory crowd (after same-sex marriage was legalized in May) that “It’s going to happen whether you like it or not,” and later — again, falsely — claiming that if Prop. 8 fails, its supporters will be sued for their personal beliefs. Again, there are no depictions of actual gay people.

I think that this exclusion of gay couples from the television ads is because it could easily backfire — use words like “discrimination” or “exclusion” and people are more willing to be on your side. Use words like “gay marriage” and, well, a lot of people will disagree with you. However, by not showing gay people in their ads about gay people, it seems to me as if the campaigns don’t want gay people to become the focus of an issue about gay people.

To be quite honest, as a Californian, I fervently hope that Prop. 8 fails, but I think both campaigns have made mistakes in their television ads. I understand the reasoning behind the exclusions of gays from television ads on both sides — to make the ads more appealing to heterosexual voters — but I find it interesting that in the ads, Californians rarely get to hear from the main benefactors of same-sex marriage.

(The photo of demonstrators in favor of gay rights and gay marriage was taken in San Francisco; the photo is by crichton91 via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. For more on the gay rights debate, please see: "The Story, the Truth and Fred Phelps." Also, please see the iVoryTowerz blog's "Isn't Love All You Need?")

media
television
advertising
television ads
gay rights
elections
California
Proposition 8
same sex marriage
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Media Cover for Obama

2008-10-27T18:34:00.000-04:00

by Camila Perez Gabilondo

With the presidential election only eight days away, Senator Barack Obama decided to leave the campaign trail for two days to visit his ill grandmother in his home state of Hawaii. This is a historical occurrence since no presidential candidate before him had abandoned the campaign this close to an election. Obama was absent at his scheduled rallies in Wisconsin and Iowa this past week, leaving his running mate Senator Joseph Biden and his surrogates on the trail. This could have been a chance for candidate Senator John McCain to make the most of the final stretch of the campaign in his favor, but Obama had an important player on his side: the media.

Thanks to media coverage of his personal hardship, Obama's absence was not felt at all. Over the last several days, countless articles on his grandmother's condition and the tragedy it entails for the presidential candidate were published in diverse media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Not to mention that his ads continued to run. We could say that he was just as present, or even more so, in the media than if he had actually gone to his rallies as planned.

Besides, the emotional note that many journalists included in their coverage of the story certainly helped strengthen Obama's image as a sensitive family man, as well as inspire sympathy in the public. Obama was quoted numerous times saying that these were probably his grandmother's last days, and in an interview with Good Morning America, he stated: "Without going through the details too much, she's gravely ill. We weren't sure and I'm still not sure whether she makes it to Election Day." Most articles also included quotes of Obama mentioning his grandmother's importance in his life during the campaign, or even the fact that he affectionately calls her "toot", the short form of the Hawaiian word for grandparent, "tutu."

The media have managed to make most of us sympathetic with Barack Obama's situation, and his current personal struggle has, even if mildly, tugged at our heart strings. If this has not helped Obama's campaign, it has certainly not harmed it.

(Political graphic © copyright Comandante Agi and used with permission; you can see more of the comandante's political graphics at his blogs, PIME and Guys from Area 51.)

media
elections
election 2008
Barack Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Story, The Truth, and Fred Phelps

2008-10-21T05:31:00.000-04:00

by Emily Norton

In the United States, it’s well understood that the media have a vast amount of power. With enough thorough coverage, any group can gather momentum for their cause. Obviously, the effects of this are not always positive (read: terrorism). Fred Phelps is a perfect example of the ramifications resulting from media manipulation.

Pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), Phelps is the leader of a gang of intermarried Christian extremists whose aim is to teach America that it is a doomed nation and to spread hatred for multiple groups (namely homosexuals). As one of their key goals is to gain publicity for their message of extreme prejudice and damnation, the group has assumed drastic measures to gain attention. The WBC has enjoyed extensive broadcasting of their highly disruptive picketing of soldier and celebrity funerals, as well as television interviews, and notice for their outrageous websites, entitled GodHatesFags.com and GodHatesAmerica.com (to name a few). Worse yet is that the 71 members are passing on their profoundly twisted message to their young children. With the attention they are getting and the way their parent-to-child system is structured, it seems unlikely that the foundation of the Westboro Baptist Church will be shaken anytime soon.

Undeniably, a primary focus of the media is to spread the truth. But what happens if that truth has an overriding negative effect? Although the Fred Phelps story is highly interesting and profitable, its widespread coverage only perpetuates the life of a hate group and extends an already tainted misconception of the Christian religion.

Consider, part of the stock market collapse was due to the panic produced by the media; it was not until the public discovered that the market was declining that they cashed in all at once and caused the greatest damage. Therefore, is truth always good? Is a “good story” always worth its consequences? Although I can posit no perfect solution or answer to these questions, I would hope that in the future either the media more aggressively fight manipulation, or the terrifying and detestable truths they share would only incite social activism rather than panic or hate.

(The image is from godhatesfags.com which allows the free reproduction of its media materials.)

media
freedom of speech
hate speech
hate group
Fred Phelps
Westboro Baptist Church
Add to Technorati Favorites

Internet: Anonymity is the Veil of Malice

2008-10-20T05:54:00.000-04:00

by Althea Avice de Guzman

One could argue that the internet is the most prolific medium and being thus, allows it to aggregate an immeasurable amount of information, while at the same time enabling access to everyone. Also, there are those who consider it the most decentralized system that exists, which means that freedom is virtually unrestricted. Such freedom is both a blessing and a curse because while yes it does foster growth, innovation and efficiency, there is always the opportunity to abuse freedom.

Web 2.0 arose from a growing sense of personalization within the internet. People now had a medium to project themselves — their personalities, interests and opinions to anyone and everyone who was willing to hear them. A prime example of this kind of social networking is Facebook, where one is given a template to personalize and share. In video sharing, YouTube allows for material ranging from "how-to-sew" tutorials to music videos to political statements. Also in existence are blogs, the soil of thought that allow for any opinion to take root and thrive. Blogs promote free speech with the option of anonymity, and yet with all of these trends that intend to foster creativity and collaboration, one must realize that as Peter Parker's uncle would say, "with great power must also come great responsibility."

Sites like Facebook and Myspace can victimize users as much as they connect them, with the intention of the user as the only determinant. YouTube videos can stream degrading material and blogs encourage anonymous free speech, where accountability is non-existent. Hence, the evolution of Gossip 2.0 should have been anticipated as a shoot off for this kind of freedom. Derived from Web 2.0, this kind of free speech is mostly patronizing and abusive to the point where even Google refuses to place support ads on the site. Why exactly is this the case?

Because anonymity is the veil of malice. While free speech is integral to democracy, an additional quality of anonymity permits harsh critique without fear of personal backlash. Is there a cost for such a freedom? Only to those victimized.

Hiding behind a computer screen, a person is no longer subject to the moral standards of society. He is thus bound only to his own ideals and with the results from this site, one may assume individual morality is fallible without the regulation of fear.

Epitomizing the effects of such a shield from accountability are the posts on juicycampus.com. Truly an overnight phenomenon at American University, the school was registered only two weeks ago and already has been the most active campus this month among 500 others. Threads on this site range from "biggest whore" to "hottest guys", using superlatives to describe people, or even starting threads with names and having them discussed.

The situation implies much about human nature: an inescapable sense of insecurity that can be overturned only by the degradation of others, an innate maliciousness suppressed only by societal demands, and ultimately the capacity of evil that can be reached without fear as a restraint.

So, while yes the internet has contributed to its share of miracles; it also has the capability to be used malevolently, like through cyber-terrorism (but that's another story). Think about it, what would you say if you knew there were no consequences? Fear is the true master of human nature. And anonymity on the internet with no accountability exacerbates the worst.

(Cartoon by London's Hugh MacLeod, the author of gapingvoid.com, used through a Creative Commons license.)

internet
media
Web 2.0
Facebook
YouTube
Myspace
Juicycampus.com
Add to Technorati Favorites

Outside the Box

2008-10-16T23:48:00.001-04:00

by Liz Marjollet

From a very young age, television affects a majority of Americans. Around the toddler age, there are all sorts of educational shows, from Sesame Street, to Dora the Explorer and Fireman Sam. There are now even channels dedicated just to children's programming, such as PBS's Sprout, which has programs running from six in the morning until twelve o'clock in the afternoon. After this age, when kids start to chose their own programs, cable TV offers never-ending options. There are channels dedicated to solely playing music videos and programs pertaining to music, such as MTV and VH1, while there are also a seemingly infinite number of channels pertaining to every sport imaginable, if you have the right cable. With all the options, it seems that today's youth are dangerously close to becoming permanent fixtures in front of their TVs.

And yet, there are still some Americans out there who do not have that magic box or cable. My two sisters, brother, and I all grew up without cable or satellite TV. Growing up, it seemed like we were at a disadvantage. But looking back, I'm not necessarily sure that's true. Sure there were plenty of times, especially in middle and high school, when it felt like everyone was talking about some music video or other, but even without cable we still had the possibility to watch all the network shows, like Lost, Grey's Anatomy, American Idol, or Survivor. Yet, I never felt the need to be home on a certain day at a certain time to watch a specific show. As a result, I watched very little television.

However, having encountered the completely new atmosphere that is dorm life, I am starting to slowly fall into a pattern of watching more television. I have started to watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report because that is what everyone around me likes to watch. And I enjoy them. But I still do not need to get my daily fix of TV.

Despite my feeling like a very small fish in a pond full of cable and satellite users, the U.S. Census Bureau says that as of 2006, there were still 37 million homes in the U.S. without satellite or cable. Although, as we approach 2009, with the new regulation requiring all households to switch over to digital signals, that number has probably shrunk drastically.

With the never-ending options available, some may argue that today's youth will be less interested in reading or interacting with their peers. Having observed from the outside most of my life, I agree with this argument, unless parents take control and regulate what their kids watch on TV and when. For most, the television offers a break or distraction for parents to have a moment for themselves, and I don't think this is a bad thing, I just think that it shouldn't be the focus of a parent's day. Kids shouldn't grow up on TV. TV should be a supplement that they are allowed to watch within reason.

The problem with today's society seems to be that many children don't want to read as much, but would rather watch television. I think part of this is the result of all of the options that television has to offer. As Sen. Barack Obama said during the last presidential debate, "parents need to turn off the television and start instilling that thirst for knowledge that kids need."

(Photo by Clara Natoli of Rome, Italy via morgueFile.)

media
television
cable television
children’s television
census bureau
digital television
digital transition
Add to Technorati Favorites

The American Media: The Best Friend of the People

2008-10-15T08:48:00.000-04:00

by Ali Golomb

The American media, now more then ever, are the people's best friend. With the United States engaged in an unpopular war, experiencing a downward shift in the economy, and increased government spending, a many are turning to the media with their questions concerning where exactly their tax dollars are going.

On October 7, 2008, a week after Congress' bailout plan was passed, The New York Times ran an article entitled, "A.I.G. Takes its Session in Hot Seat." It reported, that shortly after A.I.G. received a government loan of 85 billion dollars, it took its top agents on a $442,000 resort trip. The notion of A.I.G. using taxpayer dollars to take its top agents to a resort, when the company was in serious financial turmoil, was extremely unsettling for many Americans.

With many Americans out of jobs, defaulting on mortgage payments, and struggling to make ends meet, having their taxpayer dollars spent on a losing war overseas isn't a priority. On October 13, 2008, The Washington Post ran an article entitled, "Balancing Defense and the Budget." The article reported on various companies that were receiving millions of dollars in government contracts. In addition, it showed "the past eight years, the Pentagon's defense budget has jumped 86 percent, from $361 billion to $672 billion."

The media's reporting of exactly where American taxpayer dollars are going is provoking a great deal of anger. The American people's collective anger is leading to reforms in business practices. On October 14, 2008, The Washington Post reported Congress making reform progress already in the article, "U.S. Forces Nine Major Banks To Accept Partial Nationalization." The article said that companies that accept government loans, "could not offer their executives new retirement packages, though the old packages would remain intact." This means, tax payer dollars would not go into the pockets of top executive agents, but would be spread throughout, for the betterment of the entire company. This would result in a more favorable situation for the majority of middle class workers.

As the American people read and watch media for updates on the status of the United States, it provokes many emotions. The American people's reaction to what they see and hear from the media is driving Congress to create and pass policies more favorable to the people. The media are serving the people's interest by reporting to them what is happening in current affairs. The media are not actually changing policies in the United States. Rather, the media are encouraging the American people to act. They are reporting the facts, and the American people are then deciding what they want to do with the information. Thus far, the majority of the American people are disapproving of the direction of the United States, and Congress is listening.

(Graphic from radicalgraphics.org, which offers its material for free.)

politics
media
AIG
bailout
Bailout Plan
Business Reform
Add to Technorati Favorites

Bloomberg & the Strength of the Media

2008-10-09T08:23:00.000-04:00

by Brian Chang

It's been ages since the days when the news media worked as conveyors of balanced information, not the corporate profit maximizers they are today. As the news media began to emerge a powerful machine, they started wielding ever-growing influence throughout society, especially in the field of politics. Now, the news media generally work to best preserve their interests in government by relaying convincing, subjective information to the public and directly playing a hand in politics.

The regulation of information revealed to the public has worked wonders for the agendas of news media executives. News networks are powerful in the sense that they possess a wealth of information. With this wealth however, they limit some information while stressing other information. By doing so, these news networks possess the power to manipulate and misinform the public. The effects of this ability to sway the public have been observed from the large public support for an invasion of Iraq prior to the war. Many citizens seriously believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 terror attacks, while others were sure Saddam was a close ally of Osama Bin Laden.

The media's involvement in politics isn't new. According to Mediachannel.org, "media companies are among the highest donors to political campaigns" and "make up some of the most powerful lobbying interests in the capitol, leveraging their power as opinion-shapers." With strong influence and ties to the government, media corporations are directly able to shape policy views and push for laws and policies that favor the industry. Given the media industry's influence in politics, however, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's recent undertakings behind his search for a third term further questions whether the news media have become too strong.

Mayors in New York City by law are only allowed to serve two terms. Mayor Bloomberg, citing his skills in economic and business, desires a third term to take on the economic crisis in New York City. He has tried to persuade city council officials to allow for a temporary third term without the consent of the voting public. As unsettling as this sounds, this wasn't the most shocking news. According to The New York Times, to gain legitimacy and support for his third term, Bloomberg privately met with Rupert Murdoch (owner of The New York Post), Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The New York Times, and Mortimer B. Zuckerman (owner of The New York Daily News). These three media moguls, alongside other business leaders, have recently shown their support for the mayor in his candidacy.

The image is startling. Wait, a politician, a mayor, going before news media executives to ask for support? Isn't it the media corporations that traditionally go before government to ask for favors and support? How powerful have the news media become that politicians must (ironically) keep media executives satisfied and content?

The news media have always been seen as the middleman between politics and the public. This no longer seems the case. With the media so embedded in the world of politics, how do we keep media and politics in their respective roles? This leads to the question, have the news media gone too far beyond their role?

(The photo of Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City is from 2007; the photo is by laurence.thurion of Paris, France via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

politics
media
news media
New York City
Michael Bloomberg
Rupert Murdoch
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Benefits of Computer Games

2008-10-08T11:21:00.000-04:00

by Charlie Wilcox

Sid Meier. Will Wright. John McCormack. These are household names in the gaming community. But their accomplishments and inspirations remain relatively unknown to the rest of the world. This is because video games have gained a bad rap with controversial releases like Grand Theft Auto and Doom. But video gaming is actually very good for you.

Most studies on how video games are good for you focus on shooter and driving games. This is because these types of games are the ones that sell the most. They are also the game genres that get the widest coverage outside the gaming community. First-person shooter and driving games are beneficial because they help improve reflexes and force gamers to react quickly in intense situations.

A BBC study found that "by forcing players to simultaneously juggle a number of varied tasks, action video game playing pushes the limits of three rather different aspects of visual attention."

However, these are not the only types of games that benefit players. Strategy games also offer many benefits, but may not be as obvious to the average consumer. Games such as the Civilization series, improve a player’s critical thinking skills because the mechanics of the game make players multitask and manage complex situations at the same time. Specifically, the Civilization series has a gamer manage their economy, diplomacy, as well as their military at once. From my own experience of playing strategy games for over ten years, I can say that this can get very difficult, especially when playing online with other people. I have even lost a game due to my inability to manage all that was going on.

Strategy games also make gamers analyze complex situations to find the best way to counter their opponent. This is helped by the frequent use of a ‘rock-paper-scissors’ style for combat advantages. In this system, one type of unit may have an advantage over another, but it will also have a weakness against a third type of unit. A good example of this comes from Runescape, a tactical role-playing game. The combat in Runescape is set up so the three classes, melee fighters, rangers, and mages, have an edge over one of the other classes and are weak against another class. For instance, mages have an advantage over melee fighters but are weak against rangers. This forms a combat triangle and forces the player to analyze the forces of his opponent in order to build up the best counter against it. The rock-paper-scissors system is common in many other games, such as the Total War series, and Fire Emblem.

The final and most important way that less combat-focused games are good for you is that they can give you glimpses of the real world. While obviously not perfect representations of what goes on in the world, they provide simplified models that are easy to understand and can inspire children to explore that area as a future career or study option. Tycoon games like Railroad Tycoon and Capitalism get kids interested in business and help them learn about basic economics such as supply and demand. Games like SimCity teach about urban planning and developing a city. My own experience with grand strategy games such as those developed by Paradox Interactive is what got me interested in international relations and is what led me to go into international studies in school. The variety of games developed by Paradox Interactive such as their Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron immerse the player in the time period covered by the game. These have also been the games that I have found the most enjoyable with my great interest in history. These games most accurately portray the historical systems at work in their games, such as the Reformation to the nationalism of the nineteenth century.

Clearly, the genre of strategy games offer the greatest benefits to those that play them and should be praised as tools to improve critical thinking and management skills.

(Photo by Tojosan of St. Peters, MO via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

computer games
Sid Meier
Will Wright
John McCormack
Total War
Fire Emblem
Railroad Tycoon
Paradox Interactive
Europa Universalis
Civilization
Runescape
Doom
Capitalism
SimCity
Add to Technorati Favorites

Swing States & Presidential Elections

2008-10-07T07:17:00.000-04:00

by Logan Ruppel

In relatively close elections, as the past few have certainly been, it is the swing states — the battlegrounds that end up determining who becomes the next president of the United States. We all know which regions traditionally vote Democratic: the Northeast, the West Coast, and some of the Midwest, while the South and non-coastal West tend to vote Republican. Of course, there will always be exceptions to these generalizations with new swing states popping up every election, along with some perennials such as Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Due to the ever-shifting political landscape, states running tight races just an election ago can turn definitively to one party or the other in just a few years or even months. For example, New Hampshire was solidly won by President George W. Bush in 2000, while in 2004, Sen. John Kerry narrowly squeezed out a victory there. New Hampshire's erratic voting over the past few decades is largely because its voters tend to be socially liberal like the rest of the Northeast, but also fiscally conservative and libertarian.

The political alignments of states can change drastically even in the few critical months before an election, as is the case of Pennsylvania in the 2008 election. Early in the race, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) had a slight advantage in Pennsylvania. However, just a few months later, in October, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has gradually gained enough strength to sit on a comfortable nine-point lead in the polls. It's possible that due to Obama's loss in the Pennsylvania primary to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), it simply took some time for him to build support in the state.

Ohio has been an influential swing state for over half a century, voting for the winning candidate in every election since 1948, except for 1960. Ohio's battleground status is mainly due to its 20 electoral votes and relatively moderate electorate. This means that there is a significant number of independent voters and those with party affiliations don't always vote that way.

Florida has been another important swing state in recent elections, most notably in the 2000 election. I don't even want to get into the outrageousness of the Florida voting system and the Supreme Court's highly partisan decision to forgo a recount. The end result of these shenanigans was a margin of victory in Florida for Bush of only 537 votes more than Gore that decided the election. It is important to realize that a recount would have involved more than 100,000 votes, a figure that could easily have changed the outcome of the election.

The current battleground states in the 2008 election are Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado, all a bit tilted for Obama, along with Missouri and Indiana which slightly favor McCain. All of these states' polls are within the 3% margin of error, meaning that they could actually be tied or barely favor the other candidate. Make sure to keep a close eye on the races in these eight states, because they will make the vital difference in deciding whether America trusts McCain or Obama with steering our country in a better direction than it has been going for the past eight years.

(The graphic shows a map of the United States, adjusted for population size with a county-by-county breakout of the vote during the 2004 presidential election. The map's colors are in what have become the traditional colors depicting Republican votes in red and Democratic votes in blue. The map is © copyright M. T. Gastner, C. R. Shalizi, and M. E. J. Newman of the University of Michigan, who make this map and others available through a Creative Commons license.)

politics
2008 campaign
swing states
Barack Obama
John McCain
Republicans
Democrats
McCain
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

Biden & Palin Star in the Only Vice Presidential Debate

2008-10-03T22:02:00.000-04:00

by Zack Huhn

Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) and Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) entered the stage and met for the first time at the vice presidential debate in St. Louis on Thursday, Oct. 2. Palin was immediately confident and seemingly enthusiastic to be there. I felt that Biden was initially rather reserved, and he allowed Palin to control the first third of the debate; although he eventually kicked it in gear and overwhelmed Palin with facts and figures on everything from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the economic crisis that our nation is facing today. He ruthlessly called the governor out on Sen. John McCain’s voting record and policies — when Palin tried to do the same to the Obama campaign, Biden was ready with his facts and figures.

One might argue that Biden seemed too scripted or Palin seemed too much like a soccer mom, but the fact is that this debate was lacking any passion from either vice-presidential candidate. I wondered to myself if there was an unwritten rule or a simple strategy that said Biden wasn’t allowed to be his typical, condescending self since Palin was a woman? How many times did Palin reassure Biden that she respected him? Yeah, maybe they handled each other with class, but I argue that without emotional fire in a debate, the candidates are able to stick with their predetermined scripts and play the games of old politics instead of being raw and honest with the viewing audience.

I don’t think anyone will argue that Biden was the clear victor in this debate, but Palin certainly was able to hold her own and managed to surprise much of America in doing so. She did an excellent job of "talking up" John McCain, so to say, and was never left speechless — always referring back to one of her strong points, energy or Alaska.

(The photo of Sen. Joe Biden shows him at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in 2005. The photo is © copyright the World Economic Forum and is by photographer Remy Steinegger. However, the World Economic Forum offers this photo for use through Flickr, using a Creative Commons License. To see a segment of the debate, please check below. To see more videos of the debate and further analysis, please check: "Vice Presidential Debate Highlights" on the iVoryTowerz blog.)

politics
2008 campaign
Joe Biden
Sarah Palin
vice presidential debate
Barack Obama
John McCain
McCain
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Progression of Cover Music

2008-09-30T08:07:00.004-04:00

by Sarah Filley

Without collaboration, the musical world would be only half of what it is now. For every artist, there is an accomplice; every genre, a network of support; and every creative triumph, a coalition of colleagues in the background. It is, arguably, impossible to create good art without the influence of another source, no matter how minor or subconscious it may be. Thus, the question arises: where do you draw the line between synergy and a blatant rip off?

Through the 1950s and early 1960s, young, white Pat Boone hit the charts with 38 Top Forty singles. Most of these were covers lifted predominantly from African American artists such as Little Richard. Cover music originated on a rocky foundation, shamelessly taking the music of black artists and putting a white face on it to make it acceptable. It wasn’t until African American artists, such as Ray Charles, covered the music of white artists and topped the charts, that cover music relinquished its blatantly racist overtones.

If one looks at cover music today it can show how the work of some of the most esteemed and respected artists is passed along and used to further musical innovation. Artists, such as John Mayer, have recreated famous tracks, like Tom Petty’s "Free Fallin'" or Ray Charles' "I Don’t Need No Doctor" (first covered by Humble Pie) and made them new. Nirvana shone a new light on David Bowie’s song "Man Who Sold the World" and Jimi Hendrix took Bob Dylan’s "All Along the Watchtower" to the Top Forty charts. David Bowie and Iggy Pop both succeeded in making "China Girl" a hit. Joni Mitchell’s heartfelt protest ballad "Big Yellow Taxi" also found success and air time when recorded by the Counting Crows. Guns N' Roses peaked when they re-recorded Dylan’s "Knocking on Heaven’s Door." Dylan, himself, one of the most frequently covered artists, along with Hendrix, has reworked countless Woody Guthrie tunes, as well as, some of the songs that made Elvis Presley and Johnny Cash famous.

Cover music can also, however, undermine the creativity of the original artist. For example, who remembers that Janis Joplin’s "Piece of my Heart" was originally recorded by Erma Franklin? In the case of Roy Orbison’s "Pretty Woman," many people identify only with Van Halen’s recording. UB40 took Neil Diamond’s "Red Red Wine" and made it truly their own. The song "Hallelujah" has been covered so many times; I challenge you to find someone who knows the original artist.

When artists take music that isn’t theirs and improve it to the point where listeners don’t even realize it is a cover, we see the artistic license at work. Arguably, there is always the potential that cover music will damage a musical career or mentally defeat an artist. But the fact is without it, the music we love would not be the same. The results of musical collaboration are portals for the emergence of the tracks we consider to be genius. However, covering another artist’s songs should always be done out of respect, not for selfish purposes.

(The photo of Bob Dylan performing at the 1963 March on Washington is from the U.S. Information Agency and is in the public domain. To see a video of Humble Pie performing their cover of "I Don't Need No Doctor" from a concert in 1971, please check below.)

music
cover music
Little Richard
Ray Charles
Jimi Hendrix
Bob Dylan
Humble Pie
John Mayer
Add to Technorati Favorites

ESPN a.k.a East Coast Sports Programming Network

2008-09-27T08:12:00.002-04:00

by Abdullah Faisal

"East Coast bias means every Red Sox-Yankees showdown, even a meaningless series in the middle of May, is treated like the entire season rides on who wins the series."
- David Schoenfield, ESPN Page 2 Writer

ESPN or "Entertainment and Sports Programming Network" claims to be the worldwide leader in sports coverage. This claim is somewhat accurate, considering ESPN has channels in Asia, Latin America and Africa, along with its main channel broadcasting from Bristol, Connecticut. However, as a former resident of the West Coast, I have a bone to pick with the "Entertainment and Sports Programming Network" or shall I say the "East Coast Sports Programming Network."After watching ESPN's programming for the past seven years on the West Coast, I have come to the conclusion that ESPN has an East Coast bias.

ESPN's East Coast bias is even more transparent than FOX News' claim to be "fair and balanced." Although, ESPN does not claim to be fair and balanced, they haven given themselves the title of worldwide leader in sports. With that title comes some responsibility. A responsibility to cover world sports not just what happens on the East Coast, more specifically, East of the Hudson River.

My issue with ESPN started with the 2002 Major League Baseball (MLB) World Series. The coverage of the World Series was average at best, perhaps because both of the teams in the World Series were from the West Coast. You would assume that the top sports story of the night would be the World Series, but the Red Sox and the Yankees were still covered extensively. This annoyed me because the ESPN should cover events according to their importance.

The 2002 MLB World Series coverage was not the only thing that annoyed me about ESPN. SportsCenter's unequal coverage of specific sporting events (SportsCenter is ESPN's nightly sports highlights show) upset me as well. On September 13^th 2008, Tim Lincecum of the San Francisco Giants pitched a shutout in San Diego and won 7-0. For those unfamiliar with Tim Lincecum, he is a 24-year-old phenomenon who is major candidate for the National League's best pitcher award, the Cy Young. I saw the score on Yahoo! Sports and waited for SportsCenter to show the highlights. I waited exactly 54 minutes for Stuart Scott and Scott Van Pelt to show the highlights from the San Francisco Giants game. Sure enough ESPN showed a whopping thirty second clip showing Lincecum dominate hitter after hitter. Then, they briefly commented on his Cy Young candidacy and concluded the show.

Throughout the show, there was no shortage of New York Mets coverage or Boston Red Sox coverage. Now, to be fair, these two teams are in line to make the playoffs in October, but I think fifteen minutes of coverage is far too much for just two teams in a league of thirty teams. This incident and many others have added me to the ranks of people who believe ESPN has an East Coast bias.

media
sports
ESPN
East Coast Bias
2002 MLB World Series
Tim Lincecum
television
Add to Technorati Favorites

Genetic Testing + Media = The Commodification of Beauty?

2008-09-25T07:19:00.000-04:00

by Chef LC

Choices, choices, and more choices. Our society prides itself on having vast varieties for its consumers. We have the ability to choose what newspaper we read, what television channels we watch, and what political parties we support. We have a multitude of electronics to choose from in which, most of the time, we can pick out the color. From the intricate to simple things in life, we almost always have an option. And as new technologies arise, the choices expand to unprecedented heights. With Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) testing, doctors are beginning to talk about parents’ future capabilities of possibly choosing traits for their unborn child. But where do we draw the line with our array of selections? As our options begin to impinge on ethical values, what comes next? And are the media partly to blame for desiring to change the appearance of a human being?

Now, PGD testing is used to diagnose abnormal chromosomal disorders before the implantation of an embryo. But doctors believe that, with more research and testing, in a few years one may be able to control every feature of their unborn child by manipulating natural genetic traits. Parents will be able to choose traits like hair color, eye color, and height.

The Abraham Center of Life in San Antonio is an embryo bank which allows parents to choose the physical traits and even the personality of the donors. Parents who are unable to naturally have children believe the bank is a "dream come true." The center is unique in that it is a one-stop shopping trip; they offer fertilized eggs which worries some bioethicists. According to a report from ABC News, they let their clients "choose the education, race, appearance, and other genetic traits of individual sperm and egg donors. So far all the embryos made by the company are white, from young, healthy, college-educated donors."

PGD testing is rather expensive, thus mostly wealthy families would be receiving the procedures, in the beginning. With a wealthy class full of disease- free and ideally "beautiful" people, great prejudice may occur.

Changing the genetics of an unborn child may cause great problems in the psyche and behaviors of children. We would ultimately have a society full of more paranoid and self-conscious people. Even more so than we have now, due to the media's portrayal of unblemished people.

Not only would we be rather confused about our true identity, but our society would also lose its individuality. The media tell us what to think is attractive. Because the media are so ingrained in our culture, ultimately people would begin to look alike. For example, if today parents were to chose their children's characteristics most boys would probably be tall and athletic where as the girls would most likely have blonde hair and blue eyes. Some may think this would be an ideal situation; always looking at visually appealing traits. But who really wants a bunch of mini- Paris Hiltons or Brad Pitts running around? No matter how attractive you believe these two are, undoubtedly if everyone looked like them they would lose their appeal. It's the unique characteristics of each individual that makes human beings truly beautiful, not shallow media mocking appearances that many would strive to have.

The media constantly force certain types of body images into the minds of their audience. Women are supposed to be slender with curves in the “right places." Men should be tall, muscular, and handsome. With these images constantly shoved into our faces, a phony sense of perfect arises in our mentality. Many do not realize the great lengths make-up artists and computers go through to get the flawless looking product that we see. Several health-related issues come to the surface as people get overly caught up in trying to be flawless; anorexia and bulimia being two major issues. With PGD testing, our society may be more encased with false senses of beauty. Parents may become so preoccupied with having the perfect child that they will be utterly disappointed if, perhaps, something goes wrong. They may not be able to handle the idea of an ugly baby. This mentality is scary and may percolate if PGD testing is used to modify genetic traits.

Although PGD testing is useful in preventing abnormal genetic disorders there needs to be a line drawn between where it is helpful and hurtful. Using the procedures to change the natural traits and appearance of a person is wrong. People are not commodities and therefore should not be treated like products. Individuality should be treasured by every society.

(Graphic by sweets74 via Photobucket.)

media
genetic testing
PGD testing
body image
ethics
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Iraq War: Where Did the Media Go?

2008-09-24T08:02:00.000-04:00

by Anthony Bouselli

The United States has been at war in Iraq for the last five years, but you wouldn't be able to tell by the media coverage of the war today. All coverage of the war has seemed to stop after the surge, ignoring the stabilization of Iraq.

Starting with the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, the media provided nonstop coverage of the war. The "Shock and Awe" campaign provided dramatic, action movie type spectacles of the American military fighting the weak Iraqi forces. American casualties had been extremely light and on May 1, 2003 President George Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" aboard the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. The Iraqi army of Saddam Hussein had fallen and the coalition forces were in control of Iraq. It was time to rebuild the country into a democracy. America was headed in a good direction and media coverage was consistent and positive.

Shortly after Saddam's military was defeated, Iraq erupted into civil war. The country was torn apart by sectarian violence and America was caught in the middle of a war it wasn't prepared to fight. As debts and casualties began building, the war quickly became partisan and the media coverage transformed into skepticism and criticism of the Bush administration and the war.

As war politics polarized, the media coverage became more and more cynical. No longer was the mainstream media reporting the good things happening in Iraq. Instead, on the evening news one could only find reports on suicide bombers destroying checkpoints, the casualty count, and how funds were being misused.

In 2007, the Bush administration appointed General David Petraeus as the commanding general of the forces in Iraq. In lieu of this promotion came the troop surge: a deployment of 20,000 more American troops to Iraq. The media and general public fueled an outcry against the Bush administration's decision to send more of "our boys" off to war. The surge sparked an enormous political debate and greatly divided the country from Congress to the classroom.

The surge worked. Period. Violence in Iraq has plummeted and major tribal leaders have agreed to support American efforts. Iraq has come around, but where is the media coverage? Do the media not feel the need to report upon the tremendous progress made there over the last months? The media rightly reported the American casualties, suicide bombings, and chaos; but the media also have a duty to report the good things happening in Iraq. Schools have opened, which girls are now allowed to attend. Women walk the streets without veils. Markets and stores are doing business. There are free elections with massive voter turnout. Iraq has a functioning and democratic government.

The four main media networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX, have far fewer reporters in Iraq today than they did as little as one year ago. As of July 2008, there were only 59 reporters imbedded with the troops in Iraq as compared to the 193 reporters there prior to the surge at the peak of the violence (Those figures are from Kevin Mooney of the right-wing blog CNSNews). I suppose there is more profit in smearing a war than reporting its progress.

I talk as an average American, a casual observer of the media. I try to stay well informed by watching the news and listening to the radio. The majority of what I've been fed these past years has been negative coverage of the war. The four main media networks are guilty of having biases. ABC, CBS, and NBC are left leaning and overly critical of the Bush administration. FOX, on the other hand, is right leaning and tries to overcompensate for its three competitors. Media must be fair and impartial. No media network should ever adopt a political agenda. The job of the media is to report facts — all the facts, not just the politically convenient ones. Opinions are to be left to the consumer. Throughout this war the media have been feeding the American public their opinions — that is wrong.

Mistakes were made in the lead up to and throughout the Iraq War. But that does not justify the actions of the media. Today, the war is well on its way to being over. Because of the surge, Iraq is free and ever growing in security. Iraq is better off today than it was six years ago. The American media should be ashamed of their biased coverage of the war. Americans are intelligent and should be left to make their own opinions formed on clear, consistent facts.

(The photo shows U.S. troops deployed in Sadr City. Department of Defense photo by Cpl. John Wright, U.S. Army; the photo is in the public domain.)

politics
Iraq War
surge
George Bush
David Petraeus
Iraq
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Watchmen: The Darkest Night

2008-09-19T06:59:00.003-04:00

by Jordan Coughenour

"You stop believing heroes, and the hero inside you dies."

— Nemesis in "Wonder Woman: Love and Murder"

Within The Dark Knight, Batman took down The Joker and Two Face. In March of 2009, the Watchmen will arrive in theatres and tackle the Soviet Union and Vietnam, but in the course of these battles, will they additionally destroy the superhero movie?

Recovering in the past decade, after the fatal deathblow delivered by Batman Forever, superhero movies have ascended to become one of the most powerful and monetarily successful of contemporary film's subgenres. Summer has become synonymous with capes and high tech gadgetry as in 2008, movies such as Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and Hancock raked in the profits for studios. The debate continues as to whether director Christopher Nolan's masterpiece, The Dark Knight should be classified in the realms of the superhero flick, as many have noted that it bears more similarity to crime dramas and city-centric pieces than its comic book based predecessors. For the sake of the rest of the heroes in the universe, it seems best moved into the sect of detective thrillers and away from the soundly quashed competition. Between The Dark Knight's anticipated Oscar season buzz, allowed by its mature themes and progressive statements, and the anticipated March release of graphic novelist Alan Moore's (V for Vendetta) Watchmen, a film already being declared the "Citizen Kane of Superhero Movies," an allegation spurred by its medium-defining source material, fans are worrying that caped crusaders could meet their demise for a second time in Hollywood's cycle, as bubblegum heroes such as Superman and the recently deceased Captain America are exiled in favor of more malevolent and troubled protagonists.

Watchmen, though advertising the exterior shell of a typical superhero movie, is more of a comment on the political and social ambiguity of America in the midst of the Cold War. Did I mention that of the six leading crusaders only one has actual powers? With the exception of walking nuclear bomb, Dr. Manhattan, the rest of Watchmen's players are merely masked vigilantes, patrolling the streets out of a warped sense of personal entitlement. It bears wondering whether audience members may emerge from Watchmen altogether turned off by the newly egotistical institution of superheroes. If fighting crime for self-gain isn't enough to accomplish this, the most intriguing characters in the movie, Rorschach and The Comedian are subsequently a Nazi-sympathizer and a rapist; using patriotism as a guise for their superhero duties. While the graphic novel, now one of the most praised pieces of contemporary American fiction managed to portray these traits in an artistic and masterful way, on the big screen, explanations are always abbreviated.

With The Dark Knight's pessimistic views of self-sacrifice, and Watchmen's upcoming cynicism and egotistical heroes, by next summer, it may be almost impossible to any longer accept that any man or woman would take up the mantle of a superhero without some underlying grievances. This poisoning of sorts is disturbing in that through our cinema, it is becoming more and more apparent that we as a society can no longer accept our heroes in a time where we seem to need them more than ever.

(The promotional graphic for Watchmen is from Warner Brothers Studios. To see a trailer for the film, please check below.)

films
Watchmen
Dark Knight
graphic novel
comic books
Christopher Nolan
Alan Moore
superheroes
culture
Add to Technorati Favorites

Sarah Palin, the Interview & the Controversy

2008-09-18T06:22:00.000-04:00

by Chelsea Ritchie

The interview between the infamous anchorman Charlie Gibson of ABC News and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin sparked loads of controversy. The interview aired September 11 from Palin’s living room in her town of Wasilla, Alaska. Humble, looking terrific and perky, Palin answered the questions of Gibson with poise and assertiveness. At least, she tried.

The three main points that created the controversy were over her answers on the Russian invasion of Georgia, the Bush Doctrine and her viewpoint on who is involved in the Georgian conflict.

Her answers on the Russian-Georgian conflict seemed indirect at the least. And then she gave conflicting signals about Russia.

PALIN: “And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next-door neighbors. We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next-door neighbor.”

Many wondered what Palin meant with her comments concerning relations with Russia. She was condemning the actions of Russia but also trying to maintain good relations with them. However, the real controversy was over whether Palin, the governor of Alaska, plans to help the Georgians whilst maintaining good relations with our neighbor (Russia) for fear of starting another Cold War.

The other big topic was over the Bush Doctrine. Gibson asked, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

Palin's response: "In what respect, Charlie?"

Palin said several times that she agrees with how the president does his job and that they (Palin and Republican presidential candidate John McCain) have the job to defend the American people. When asked again by Gibson if she supports the right of nations to use anticipatory self-defense Palin merely responded, “the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

Does Palin actually understand the Bush Doctrine because she never fully answered the question? Later, TV commentators said that there are probably very few voters (some mentioned “hockey moms”) who could explain the Bush Doctrine. The fact is that the American people know what the duty of the president is, and I believe that is why we have these debates or interviews, because it is essential to giving the country a fuller picture of those we choose for a higher job. “In what respect, Charlie?” does not cut it.

Palin was criticized severely for her indirect answers. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert said, “For those who haven’t noticed, we’re electing a president and vice president, not selecting a winner on American Idol.”

The Washington Post said: “Ms. Palin's responses were disappointingly shallow.”

Saturday Night Live aired a skit depicting Palin and Democratic Senator Hilary Clinton this past weekend. Former SNL cast member Tina Fey came back for the skit that made a comical mockery of Palin as a shallow, beautiful pageant-sashed MILF, just a heartbeat away from the presidency, and the idea that anyone could become president. The comical aspect came into play when Palin's political opposite Hilary Clinton (played by Amy Poehler) standing next to Palin (as played by Fey), appeared so close to the candidacy, and was mocked as ugly and smart.

Anchorman Gibson also got several responses about his interview. He was seen as aggressive towards the politician. He was criticized by Washington Post columnist Tom Shales as "shoddy," "despicable," and "prosecutorial" in the Democratic debates between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and his interview with Palin got the same feedback. United Press International said Gibson “was out for blood” and “was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go.” Palin seemed surprised at Gibson’s aggression and despite her efforts to be assertive in her answers, fell short on camera.

What I took away from this interview is that clearly Palin is not ready for any vice presidential role anytime soon. I agree with Bob Herbert of The New York Times. He said that Palin’s major problem “is not about agreeing or disagreeing. She doesn’t appear to understand some of the most important issues.” She dodged most of the questions and as most politicians do, brought the focus back to her history in politics, her earmarking requests, or to her hockey mom image. Gibson may have been criticized for being too aggressive, but I believe someone needed to ask those critical questions. After watching her speech at the Republican National Convention, I left feeling “great speaker, but what is she going to do on the economy and national security?” I certainly agree that Palin was capable of being a mayor to a small town, yet having that small government out for the interest of the American family is much more difficult considering the issues of the 301,139,947 Americans in the United States.

(The photo of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska is from 2007 and is by Tricia Ward; it is used through a GNU Free Documentation License. To see the Saturday Night Live skit satirizing Palin and Sen. Hillary Clinton, please check below.)

politics
2008 campaign
Sarah Palin
John McCain
Republicans
Charlie Gibson
ABC News
Saturday Night Live
SNL
Tina Fey
Amy Poehler
Palin
McCain
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Low Culture is the New High

2008-09-17T07:32:00.000-04:00

by Irena Schneider

"Roll Over Beethoven", sang Chuck Berry in 1956, heralding the era of rock, punk, psychedelic epiphanies, jolting closeness, and the unfettered emotional journeys of tragedy and self-discovery. Come mid-20th century, no longer did society confine itself in the prim and proper decency of the past, so long coated in the polish of culture, propriety, and all such delicately acquired tastes as Verdi's seasons or Degas' ballerinas.

Retrospectively, our high school years of history class have left images in our minds of people's revolutions against privileged upper classes, and we recall the rather demeaning self-importance of the world's monarchs and imperialists living in fleeting empires of gold and soft French-spoken indolence. Yet what was one culture's privilege was another's resentment, and the global demand for freedom, resonating from the voices of workers, serfs, peasants, and farmers was too loud not to be heard, uplifted, strung into the mainstream voice and perhaps, eventually, considered the superior of the voices in society.

Indeed, democracy has proven to be a highlight of human history. Culturally, however, when regarding old wisdom from the height of the 21st century, classical music, dances, literature, and art are becoming relics of history's unwelcome elite. From Victorian etiquette-styled waltzes and balls to the tango from the streets of Buenos Aires, the flappers of the twenties, the jitterbug, Armstrong's "cheek to cheek", to today's hip-hop, locking, grinding and spooning, social culture has extended away from black-tie elegance to the cries of the oppressed and restless in urban back-alleys and the angst-ridden minds of rebellious teens. They all want freedom; they want a cry of their injured sentiments to flare in the mainstream. All the while, each succeeding generation seeks more intimate physical, sexual, and emotional closeness, perhaps as a means of better understanding the human condition. Not surprisingly, it is the urgency for self-expression in the democratic world that catapults one generation's resentment towards another. Cultural rebellion, just like its political counterpart, is considered "cool." It is legitimized and paraded in disenchanted post-World War One literature, in the media-hyped '60s hippie revolution, in the cries of the civil rights movement, in James Joyce's Ulysses, and in many other similar movements.

The condemnation of racism, sexism, discrimination and the civilizing impulse to include all cultures and embrace all life-styles have been ever-present messages to a society that is steadily growing more self-conscious and inter-connected. The message infiltrates all our senses. At one moment, Dove's campaign for beauty is tearing down the long-held conceptions of established modeling; the next moment Katy Pary's "I Kissed a Girl and I Liked It" is stirring controversy about its appropriateness in the homosexual community, and the next moment the popular reality show So You Think You Can Dance crowns an untrained street performer as America's favorite dancer. The lights and flashes of open coexistence and the acceptance of movements long held underground seep through every media venue — TV, movies, radio, albums, blogs, personal videos, and even bumper stickers.

Ultimately, however, today's culture is only outwardly "open." Hip-hop, for instance, has followed the revolutionary path, moving from the street to the mainstream, and even to the pedestal of superior cultural music and dance. The past, meanwhile, is left in the dust. A teen in today's world interested in Mozart, Frank Sinatra, or impressionism (all formerly held in an elite cultural circle) is stereotypically deemed to be pretentious, a teacher's pet, someone who thinks he or she is just too smart for everyone else. The suggestion that a high school should host a '50s dance in today's world won't easily go down with the student government, which is merely being practical in suggesting that students would much rather be preoccupied with Soulja Boy.

We've come to view the past with the subtle resentment of our rebellious generation, which has, since its conception, fed from this sensory-loaded time — the ads, the TV programs, the music. All such media have shaped our liberal world view in the most democratic sense. Yet, for a second, we may look to the seemingly ancient conceptions of beauty and morality, and the elite culture of the past, like an old authority figure, spins on the back-burner, the "uncool" stigma yet attached.

"Roll over Beethoven," Mr. Berry demands. The question remains, though: What did Beethoven do to deserve such treatment?

(Graphic by TaranRampersad via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. To see Chuck Berry perform "Roll Over Beethoven," please check below.)

culture
Beethoven
Chuck Berry
Add to Technorati Favorites

Anatomy of a Political Dissident

2008-09-16T08:27:00.000-04:00

by Melissa the Marinade Maker

Through the mere click of a button, ___ could face a 10-year imprisonment, jeopardize his entire family, or be sentenced to a tortuous death. Yet, ___ does it nonetheless. It’s posted, accessible to millions, and now ___ is susceptible to whatever may lie ahead. This is the anatomy of a political dissident blogger; one willing to sacrifice both life and limb so that a few hundred words may be enshrined on the world wide web — sometimes only until the government intercepts the highly critical, even incendiary post. Why would any human being be willing to make such a sacrifice for a few paragraphs? Clearly anonymous postings inhibit both fame and fortune. The lure must come from the ability to connect with the new community of global citizens, disseminate ideologies and concerns that otherwise would go neglected and provide an insider’s perspective untarnished from profit incentive and mainstream media influence. Through a Western lens, the significance of this blogging phenomena may seem trivial, yet for a populace riddled with warfare, political instability, and government corruption, these blogs may serve as the only means of public outcry. This is the human voice in its rawest form.

Political dissent has evolved to incorporate the revolutionary phenomenon of blogging. Thousands of political dissidents take to the streets, not through mass protests and violent demonstrations, but through daily, weekly or even monthly blog posts. While globalized mass communication allows such blogs to be accessible to virtually all of mankind, authoritative governments are catching on to the new trend. Countries such as (surprise, surprise) China, Vietnam, Tunisia, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Egypt are intercepting the blogs and often arresting and/or torturing dissident bloggers for months, even years. Through the use of filtering, forum censorship, cyber-policing and government agencies, bloggers are being apprehended. For the past five years, roughly 65 bloggers have been arrested for reasons spanning from posting satirical comments about political figures to revealing how Iran's president is guarded by some high-priced and high-pedigree dogs.

Although mainstream media continue to be primary sources of credible news, due to their longevity in existence and wide range audience (among other factors,) grassroots journalism of which blogging is a part has revolutionized mass communication. The Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents, published by Reports Without Borders in September 2005, points out that with the lack of profit motive in political dissident bloggers allows for an unmediated first-hand perspective which the outside world can contemplate and become engaged. Issues which governments work diligently to conceal ought to become transparent and bloggers have the capability and the resource for bringing the limelight to the incessant struggles of the world’s people. Alas, this is where the new global community of conscientious citizens must step in. I am not advocating that citizens take to their pitchforks and demand government reform; rather I advocate reading blogs and expressing support for the justifiable concerns of political dissident bloggers. Find a blog that captivates you, and read it. Research for yourself and find the truth behind the words; some blogs may exaggerate, others may be less concerned with political outcry. Regardless, get out of your comfort zone and read. What do YOU have to lose?

(The graphic collage shows material from dissident Egyptian bloggers and is from the blog Global Voices.)

censorship
blogging
dissent
political dissent
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Kitchen Table

2008-09-15T19:49:00.000-04:00

by Rick Rockwell

This author has sworn not to reveal the nature of this blog’s name. No matter what you might think, this post is not about that subject.

This post is about “the kitchen table.” Not “the kitchen sink” (which has also shown up a time or two in political discourse this year). Not “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen,” a saying that at least dates to the Truman era, if not beyond. No. This is strictly about the phrase “the kitchen table,” which these days seems to be a favorite of speech makers.

The phrase showed up prominently in the convention speech of Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as he accepted his party’s nod to serve as Barack Obama’s running mate. Biden used the line to set up a zinger about how does Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) decide to have a conversation of importance around the kitchen table, if he has to choose from all those tables in all those houses he owns.

Immediately, the phrase is meant to evoke the middle class heartland, a place of home and hearth. Literally, the phrase is a political and cultural tableau. Families gather around this piece of furniture to dine, to pray, to toast, and to discuss the hard times we see confronting the nation. It’s a nice piece of speech-making because it is evocative. But will it soon become the political cliché of this very political year?

Biden, someone who’s not above lifting a clever line, is not the first to use the term in political parlance this year. This month, Ted Anthony of the Associated Press noted “the kitchen table” seemed to be the one image in almost every speech supporting Sen. Obama (D-IL) and his presidential campaign. Perhaps marketers for the Obama campaign gathered voters for a focus group and that seemed to be the phrase that touched those voters best. Perhaps they were at a kitchen table during the focus group. Using the kitchen table as the centerpiece of a campaign is also a not so subtle way, apparently, to approach disaffected female voters. Although it is certainly open to question if doing so is also unintentionally sexist. (No, this is not an invitation to re-open the tempest in a teapot over Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” remark.)

Perhaps playing off the power of the phrase, two professors at Princeton maintain a blog called The Kitchen Table as a place to discuss politics. Certainly, many American families do that. Growing up, that's what this author remembers: the kitchen table was where all the great family debates happened.

Actually, Biden is not the first one to inject the phrase into the campaign. The roots of the phrase can be traced all the way back to the 2004 debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and the now disgraced John Edwards. Edwards had used it as a way to say the Democrats believed in middle class family values. In this election cycle, Jim Gilmore, the former governor of Virginia (a Republican, and someone few remember was in the race) was the first to use the kitchen table line at a candidates’ forum in the summer of 2007. Two months later at a forum for Democratic candidates, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) responded to a question that used the phrase and he talked about the kitchen as a place where families hash out problems like health care costs. Obama finally used the phrase during a debate in April of this year.

Gov. Janet Napolitano (the Democrat who runs McCain’s state of Arizona) notes there’s another reason for the kitchen table imagery: "In my kitchen, that's where I pay my bills." She notes that the Democrats feel the image resonates as a reminder of a poor economy. Of course, the further subtlety here is that the image will also make voters blame McCain for that economy.

Sadly, these days, in this author’s house, no one debates, pays bills or even eats at the kitchen table. That piece of furniture has long ago been covered by mail (mostly bills); old copies of The Washington Post waiting to be recycled; and an assortment of toys and children's drawings. All those important discussions about the economy, the war, the environment, politics and the sad state of affairs still happen. But they’ve moved to the dining room table. Does that make us elitists, or just messy?

(Photo jreichert37 via Photobucket.)

political communication
Joe Biden
John McCain
Barack Obama
Dennis Kucinich
Jim Gilmore
Janet Napolitano
Obama
McCain
presidential campaign
kitchen table
Add to Technorati Favorites

Welcome

2008-09-14T21:18:00.000-04:00

Welcome to Ward’s Kitchen where the Global Media/Global Politics Learning Community of American University will begin the process of becoming active consumers of media! We will have at least two substantive blog entries a week and every student will cook up a post twice during the semester. The subjects of the posts will vary, of course, but will mainly deal with the media and their relation to culture, society and politics.

Students, get ready to challenge yourselves and others on the topics that arise! There will be a diversity of views and opinions you are bound to learn from. Visitors, stop by often to see what is cooking in Ward’s Kitchen!

To the right, you will find links to other blogs addressing political, cultural and media topics. You will also find links to the top news stories of the day! If there are cool blogs you would like me to add for others to have essay access to let me know!

(Photo by ericericnshee1987 via Photobucket.)

media
global media
Add to Technorati Favorites