Comedy Central censors "South Park" in response to Revolution Muslim

The adult cartoon “South Park,” which airs on Comedy Central, is known for its characteristic satirical humor. A recent episode of the show included caricatures of religious leaders, including Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad. The cartoon version of the Islamic prophet Muhammad wore a bear costume. In response to the episode, an Islamic group called Revolution Muslim posted a message on their website warning South Park’s creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker that they might be dealt violent retaliation for portraying Muhammad on their show.

The new “South Park” episode which aired Wednesday night included the Muhammad character for a second time. Yet due to censorship on the part of the Comedy Central Network, the character was essentially erased from the show. In addition to audio bleeps which altered the show, Comedy Central prohibited the show from being streamed online. In statements made on SouthParkStudios.com, Stone and Parker made it clear that the censorship of Wednesday’s episode was imposed by the Comedy Central Network.

There are several key issues at play in this story.

First is the representation of racial and religious groups in media. The members of Revolution Muslim warned that the creators of “South Park” would “probably end up like Theo VanGogh,” a Dutchman who was killed in 2004 after releasing a film which exposed abuse experienced by women in certain Islamic communities. Viewers of “South Park” should be aware that the show thrives on irreverent humor. While some may take offense to the content of the show, it is important to realize that “South Park” does not continuously single out one group as an object of ridicule. Rather, its satirical representation of different groups within society is fairly equal; they make fun of everyone at one point or another. I’m not making a judgment about the nature of the show, nor am I saying it was wrong for Revolution Muslim to take offense to the content of the show. However, on “South Park,” every group is an equal target. This is an important consideration for those who dislike the show.

The response of Revolution Muslim to the representation of Muhammad on “South Park” prompted the Comedy Central Network’s censorship of this week’s episode. In the text Media/Society, David Crouteau and William Hoynes often discuss the constraints which are present in the media business. On the surface, the actions of censorship on the part of the Comedy Central Network may be viewed as actions taken to protect the show’s creators from potential harm. However, from the statements made by Stone and Parker, it seems that they were not concerned about a reaction to the edgy humor:

“In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind.”

Even though “South Park” and other shows on Comedy Central are full of irreverent humor, it seems the Network was concerned about its image within the Islamic community. Media Networks must consider the implications of offending audience members. In this case, if a significant number of members of the Islamic community were offended, the network could lose viewership. If the network draws in a smaller audience, that could mean the loss of advertising revenues for the company. It seems Comedy Central’s choice to play it safe upset a large majority of its viewers who expect to be entertained by the satirical nature of “South Park.”

Women portayed as weak sex objects..

I've recently began to think about the exact same thing this article talks about. The Parent Tekevision Council did research on how women are usually the victimes of violence and sex on television. Storylines including violence towards women are also becoming an epidemic. Its becoming miore and more popular. In a PTC report, they focused on victimization among women in storylines and the depiction of teen girls becoming victims, and an increase in female victimization as punchlines in movies or stories. I feel as though this report is very true and a shock to our reality. I don't think many people pay much attention to these facts. Myself, being a male, i do not realize how shows portray women as weak sex objects.
This article relates to the media and how the media suggests our women to be weak. We have women portray poor roles in shows and make them look incapable of doing what a man could do. We discussed in class how women are used as sexy idols in commercials. This is kind of along the same subject, except they are using these women to lure men into watching their entertainment. There is difference among how women are treated now within the media to the past media. Nicole Kidman comments in the article about how this is becoming a big problem within our society, i agree.
This article says a lot to me about what is becoming of our society. In the article they show all the negative changes about how the media makes our women look. From 2004 to 2009, there was an 81% increase in partner abuse, meaning men are beating women. I think the media is portraying our women in the wrong way and at some point in time, our women will become the indominant ones in our society. It is still quite possible for the husband to take care of the children and the mother to go to work, but the way we are portraying our women in television suggests otherwise. Our women are much stronger then how the media is making them look.

Family Guy Pushing Limits

Family Guy....hilarious, drop-dead funny, and ridiculous are three words that come to mind when i think of this show. Family Guy is known to push the limits of it's humor and do some ridiculous things on the thirty minute show. However, Fox is getting bolder in pushing the offensive content into the living room of American households. The animated comedy has recent episodes that have the daughter (Meg), showering with the father( Peter) after Meg returns from jail. The show caught criticism as some felt it was suggesting that fathers are in a wrong way attracted to their daughters. The episode also included a mother coming on to a 14 year old and a dog coming on to an infant, absolutely ridiculous circumstances. Some parent's feel its wrong as Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut are choosing to pay for it with their advertising money. The show pushes the limit with every week it comes out.
Why should we care about what Family Guy puts on the Fox channel? For a few reasons. Fox, is one of the biggest news channels, and during these news broadcasts, advertisers are advertising their favorite show. The show is a huge hit in American homes, and our kids are watching these shows and learning from them. I mean, i understand that it is just a show...but the average kid watches two or more hours of television per day. I don't even think the show is bad if the person watching is old enough to understand the jokes they do. But, If our youth is watching and observing ridiculous behavior, how can we be so sure that they aren't taking notes? Also, the media pushes Family Guy onto the audience. It's played at quite a coincidental time, usually being around seven or eight at night. What i mean by this is, football practices are done, homework is getting done, or dinner is being served. So, like a lot of American families, they like to turn on the tube as they eat. Our youth is being swallowed by some shallow humor.
It is inevitable that children will come across material that is not suitable for them. But i do think they should have the choice to do so. Fox pushing these shows upon them will not help them in the long run. Our youth is already subject to so many other things, i don't think it will necessarily kill them, but Family Guy does promote violence....Bid our youth good luck as i will!

Catholic Watchdogs Get Barked At By the Church

There are few things that make more interesting news than scandal—especially when it takes place within the world’s largest international institution—the Catholic Church. The sex abuse scandal within the Catholic Church has been on the media’s radar on and off for the past few years. Most recently, the current pope, Benedict XVI, has been accused of failing to report sexual abuse while he served as an archbishop and as a cardinal.

The Catholic Church has rebuked the media which have brought to light the injustices allegedly committed by clergy. The Church claims that the condemning media reports are part of a conspiracy which aims to defame the Pope and his aides. The most severe renunciation of the media reports is that they are “‘prompted by the Devil.’”
But it is not a popular secular news organization which has burned the Church the most. According to a story by NPR’s David Folkenflik, a low circulation, non-profit newspaper—the National Catholic Reporter— has been most consistent and critical in its coverage of the scandal.

The Reporter is a unique publication because although it is dedicated solely to reporting stories relevant to and about members of the Catholic Church, it is produced by independent Catholic journalists rather than an agency of the Church. This is a good thing for readers, because it means the journalists do not have to protect the reputations of the Pope and other important figures within the Church. Readers of the Reporter get stories from the perspective of others who share their belief system, who combine “faith with a desire to seek and report the truth — including things that reflected critically on the church.”

The Reporter’s critical view of the Church was especially evident in a recent editorial. The editorial content makes the Pope seem partly culpable for the continuation of the sex abuse scandal, if he did indeed know about and fail to report cases of abuse in the parishes he served.

According to the NCR’s editor Tom Fox, the question of what the Pope knew and how he chose to act “‘are questions Catholics around the world are asking.’” The Reporter thus acted to present a story of interest to its constituency, which is an important role of news media.

The right to Freedom of the Press gives the producers of the National Catholic Reporter the right to question the Pope’s credibility. Yet Church authorities have berated the assemblers of the Reporter for apparently betraying their loyalty to the Catholic Church.

Those who desire truth are not afraid to say when something is wrong. One of the major functions of news media is to serve as a “watchdog” for society; journalists have the responsibility to inform the public of misconduct of individuals or institutions which are relevant to society.

The Reporter staff members showed their commitment to seeking ultimate truth, even though they faced disapproval and resentment on the part of Church authorities. As both journalists and people of faith, they remained true to the aim of their religious tradition and their duty as journalists by questioning the Pope’s credibility. --MDW

Surfing the Web or Swimming in Pages

Quite often during this decade, we have been warned that the "power of print" is fleeting; the age of the internet and technology is upon us and we need to embrace this aspect to its fullest potential. Looking back just a few years ago, media consumers were getting much of their news from magazines and also the newspapers.Because that time is fleeting, magazines were supposedly going through a transformation specifically onto the internet. The article, "Magazines Team Up to Tout 'Power of Print'"counteracts this new dispute.

Many people were appalled by the threat of reducing magazine related news and producing more and more internet related news and advertisements. Recently, advertisements have been advocating a renewal to redefine the age of magazine advertising, reading, and news. Michael Phelps is animated with the slogan, "We surf the Internet. We swim in magazines." How true is it that we can be consumed with the medium of a magazine. Magazines as opposed to online articles contain pages which are flexible to the usage of highlighters, pens and sticky notes- simple media which can make a larger impression in this case. Magazines can be easily transported during periods when laptops are unnecessary.

The effects of advertising have sky rocketed causing magazine viewing to make a come back. The conventions and routines of the media depict the types of media mentioned as competitive. Because we experience the majority of our world through forms of news, it is our decision in which form we prefer it to come in. Print works for some, but technology suits others. We may even choose to view different types of news from different sources because news is always going to ignore certain aspects and embellish others. In order to decide which medium of news is most appropriate action must be taken.

"The spark for the campaign was a "manifesto" Mr. Wenner penned last year, in which he said that just as TV didn't kill magazines, the Internet was a threat only to publications that lost focus on what makes magazines unique. "In a certain way, this campaign is aimed at the magazine business itself," Mr. Wenner.", The production and advancement of new media does not ensure an extinction of various older forms of media. There are some instances where consumers surely should hold onto the past.
Will we be swimming in pages or surfing the web in the days to come?

Iphone Applications...Good or Bad?

There is very arguable that the Iphone is one of the best phones to ever be on the market. With the intelligence and information it can hold, it is very marketable and media induced. The fact that i have an Iphone and know how it works made this article very interesting for me. I was not aware that Apple had to remove some 5,000 applications from itunes due to sexually explicit content. In fact, this shocks me. The Parental Teacher Council urged people to contact the Weekly Wrap and ask Apple to remove these silly and sexual applications from their selection. They did this because they felt these "apps" were too easily accessible by children. What child would have an Iphone? Im not too sure, but the question still remains whether or not these "apps" should be available. It is logical that Apple had removed these apps but it is known that many people do not agree. On a blog thats particularly used by app users, they said "Regardless of parental control ratings, 17+ rated apps show up when casually browsing the app store…Unlike music and movies, these apps typically have icons, names and screenshots that border on obscene just by themselves. It's gotten so bad that it's actually not possible to allow a typical young child to browse the app store by themselves without them being assaulted by various softcore porn apps".
I feel as though no application should be banned but the "smart phone" should not be used by children, its just not very safe.
I think that when it comes to the media, the Iphone is something that is mentioned a lot. It has an internet browser built into it, and makes it available to buy/download apps and music from the Itunes store. Some people fear the inability and limitations put put us by the media, and the Iphone allows us to access this information within a matter or seconds. There are arguments that since Netflix has made all of their movies available to the public, so it is believable that pornography producers will do as well. So why is it so bad that sexual applications are available on the Iphone? The Iphone is a big advance in how we receive media.
The Iphone, in my opinion, will be the phone that starts up a totally different type of phone. "Smart phones" will be in almost everybody's hand as they are knocking down the shelves at cell phone stores and making it almost essential because of the information they can withhold, that you need one. I believe Apple should make apps more family friendly, but on the same note, i do not think children or younger people should be using an Iphone. They are not meant for little kids as they could look anything they wanted up on you-tube. Problems with restrictions on apps are for the people who believe that since they own the phone they should be able to buy whatever they want, regardless of whether or not its appropriate for children. The Iphone is one of the best technologically advanced phones in history

Google and Gadgets

A few weeks ago, I wrote about an Italian legal battle that might lead to the imminent death of Google. Don't worry too much, though; even taking into account this bothersome court case, my personal belief is that Google is here to stay. And it this post I'll tell you why: It's everywhere.

And soon it might get even bigger.

Picture this: You're in your living room watching the news when, during a report about a protest march, you see a full-screen shot of your friend's son, wearing a very large panda costume. With a click of the remote, you open your email on the bottom of the TV screen and then, with the miniature keyboard built into your remote, tap out a short message to your friend, including a link to this news segment. By the time you finish writing, a news anchor is talking about some recipe contest you don't care about, so with another click of the remote you open up your browser, Google Chrome, to surf the web.

According to a New York Times article, "Google and Partners Seek TV Foothold," Google, Intel, and Sony are joining forces to bring the Internet to your television set—Google providing the software (i.e., the web browser), Intel bringing the Atom computer chips that will give TV sets the power to run Web software, and Sony contributing the actual TV sets.*

Now, I didn't realize this, but apparently the technology is already available to run certain websites, such as Netflix, on your television. But what the Google-Intel-Sony consortium is planning is so much more than just a few websites—it's the whole Internet, right there on your TV, accessible with a click of the remote.

Folks, this is what's called "horizontal integration," when a corporation sinks its teeth into another industry. This is also "synergy," when those parts in different industries support each other (ex. Google using its Web browser in televisions). But it's also something else: It's the fusion of two different technologies.

We've been seeing this happen a lot lately. Look at cell phones, for example. In recent years, they've become "smart," integrating such technologies as Web browsers, widgets (little applications), and GPS and navigation systems. The line between a phones and computers is becoming seriously blurred. And the same thing is true of MP3 players, cameras, and a host of other gadgets. Basically, if it has a screen, it's being given as many different functions as it can handle.

At the rate we're going, will there come a day in the not-too-distant-future when, instead of owning a TV, computer, camera, video camera, MP3 player, and GPS all separately, we'll just have one device for them all? My guess? Yes. But I don't think that this will mean the end of any of these devices. For instance, photographers will still need cameras that are just cameras, with interchangeable lenses and whatnot. And portable computers like laptops and netbooks (miniature laptops) just aren't as powerful as desktops—not to mention that, the smaller and more portable you get, the smaller and more cramped screens and keyboards get—so I doubt that larger computers will be leaving us any time soon.

Still, I think we're going to be seeing a lot more integration of technologies in the near future. And that means integration of the media that go along with them: Entertainment news with viewers' comments in a scrolling bar along the bottom of the screen is just one of the concepts mentioned in another article, "Old and New Media Coexisting Nicely, Thank You," which discusses the emerging synergy between the Web and TV. (Apparently, although initial predictions had the Internet more or less replacing television, it's actually served to boost viewership by make TV a more interactive experience.)

Having said all that, I must say that I'm having this really weird feeling like time isn't working quite right. Is it just me, or does it seem like we're living in the future?


Peace,
blogdor





*Technically, this is all still speculative—there hasn't been an official announcement yet, and all of the article's quoted sources are anonymous because, they said, they aren't allowed to talk about this yet.

Tupperware... Sexy?

Yes, you read it right. The makers of the little plastic boxes we keep leftovers in are rethinking their brand image, so now Tupperware is—I can't believe I'm writing this—Tupperware is sexy.

According to a NY Times article with the foot-in-mouth title, "Using the Kitchen as a Happy Place Where Couples Bond," the idea is that Tupperware products are so easy to use simple that anyone can use them—even men. And men would get a lot of credit with their women if they picked up cooking (wink wink). So Tupperware really is quite romantic.

This new initiative is intended to promote Tupperware's relatively new range of kitchen products. Over the years, the company has become a household name for its line of food storage containers, but, having gotten bored with plastic boxes, Tupperware has since expanded to food preparation products. The Tupperware-is-sexy campaign, with its focus on the romance of cooking, is one of the many ways the brand is trying to get people to think of it as more than just a storage container company.

But here's the catch: Tupperware doesn't run advertisements. Over the course of its 64 years, the main way it's reached the masses has been through "Tupperware parties," making clever use of research that shows that the main factor in influencing people's buying decisions is not the media (i.e., advertising), but instead a few influential people—usually people right in the community—who function as opinion leaders. It's kind of a bandwagon effect: "Hey, if she's buying Tupperware, if she really likes their products, maybe I should get some." Not only is this marvelously effective, it's also relatively cheap.

So how does a no-advertisement company go about quickly changing its brand image? Well, it sponsors a lot of parties, for starters. And it holds outdoor publicity stunts in Manhattan where famous guys are shown how to "prepare a meal using only food, Tupperware products, and a microwave oven." Interestingly enough, the press invitations to this particular event mentioned that most women find it more sexy when their men make food than when they take them out to eat.

"It would seem," writes Andrew Adam Newman in that article I mentioned earlier, "that Tupperware is making a typical marketing pitch to men, promising to help them seduce women." (Newman then notes that the real target audience is women: The plan is for them to see an event like this and think, "Wouldn't it be so nice if my boyfriend/husband did that for me!")

But that's not all that Tupperware is doing. It's also sponsoring fashion shows. Seriously, for fashion week, Tupperware connected with model Irina Shabayeva, capitalizing on the shock factor of having a kitchen products company involved in fashion. Oh yeah, and Tupperware also made parts for the dresses. Take a good look:
If I'm understanding this right, Tupperware designed and made the stiff part of this skirt, various pieces of most of the other dresses, all of the jewelry and accessories, plus room decorations (hanging strands of black plastic "feathers").

So. Tupperware is sexy. Now you know.







(For more on the fashion show—info and pictures—check out "BeautiControl and Tupperware Take Fashion Week By Storm" on Gary's Blog, from BeautiControl, one of the other sponsors of the event.)

Bye, bye Blockbuster: Video on demand will take over

Like something out of a tragic film, Blockbuster, the once-popular video rental company, is facing the reality that it may have to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On the surface, Blockbuster’s imminent erasure from the media rental business may seem like just another casualty of the recession. But more than likely, the factor which has contributed most is the change in the viewers' habits. The causes of the shift are explained in an article in the New York Times which quotes the senior VP at Comcast, Derek Harrar: “'Improvements in technology, the instant availability of the most recent box-office hits and thousands of library titles have fundamentally changed viewing patterns.'” Because the way information sharing is constantly changing, media companies have to keep up with advances in technology and viewing trends. While DVD rentals and sales have declined steadily, just last year, viewing of on-demand videos rose 20%.

The main concern for Blockbuster and the movie companies: turning a profit. There are two ways to make money in the media business: (1) to sell units (2) to sell advertisements.

Movie studios make their money by selling theater tickets and DVDs. Though the movie production industry is not ailing as much as Blockbuster, the drop in DVD sales motivated eight studios to collaborate in a cross-medium advertising campaign to promote on-demand video services called “The Video Store Just Moved In." Rather than pushing the public to purchase DVDs, movie studios are taking advantage of the new market niche created by the change in viewer behavior by marketing the on-demand service.

It may seem contrary to convention that competing companies would work together on this campaign; yet the companies are working toward a common goal and accomplishing more collectively than any single company could on its own. If the campaign causes an increase of on-demand views, they will all benefit. After all, most viewers don't care who produced the movie, so long as it is entertaining. Disney and Paramount, did not participate in the campaign; its likely that their movies will receive more on-demand views as a result of the ads even though they didn't pay up.

The on-demand video format is beneficial to the advertising mediums (as far as the promotion of the format), the movie companies, and the viewers.

A big portion of the $30 million movie studios are spending on the campaign is being raked in by cable companies (which make most of their money by selling the attention of viewers to the highest bidder, ususally without regard to the content of the commercial). To maximize the impact of their advertising investment, movie studios arranged for the TV advertisements to be strategically debuted during the prime-time broadcast of American Idol.
Even though DVDs are very inexpensive to produce, movie studios keep a greater percentage of profit from on-demand usage. Since the movie rental "middle man" (i.e. Blockbuster) is eliminated, in on-demand transactions 65% of profits are returned, in comparison to 25% from the traditional in-store rental.

The main benefit of the on-demand format for consumers is its convenience. Scrolling through a list of titles requires less time and energy than going to the video rental store to pick up a DVD; plus there is nothing to return (which means no late fees). Also, most new releases are available on-demand the same day the DVDs are released in the store. Although this practice has not been blamed for the decline in DVD sales, it provides an alternative to purchasing or renting a hard copy DVD.

In my experience with on-demand services, I've found the title selection to be limited. Certainly, this is an issue that will be eliminated as the services expand. Even though the number and genres of movies available on demand may be more limited than the selection available at a video store, growth of on-demand services has not been hindered. When it comes to media, consumers are conditioned to be satisfied with whatever is on TV, simply because TV watching is a habitual activity. If given the choice between going out to buy or rent a DVD and choosing from a more limited on-demand list, they're going to choose what is easiest.

The promotion of the on-demand format in advertisements on TV, in print, and online is sure to continue the trend toward its increased usage and the bankruptcy of Blockbuster.

~M.D.W.

Is the news reliable?

A September 2009 article in the New York Times titled, Trust in News Media Declines to New Low in Pew Survey, discusses the increasing lack of confidence in the news.

Results from a survey conducted by the Pew Research Company showed that since 2007 there has been an increase in negative perceptions about the news. Opinions regarding specific news organization such as FOX, CNN, and MSNBC differed depending on political affiliation, however Democrats and Republicans alike felt the news was inaccurate and biased.

Politics aside, there is some validity to these concerns. News is a socially constructed process that involves a lot more than just telling the truth. Media scholars Croteau and Hoynes (authors of Media Society) discuss the journalistic process and its unrecognized complexity.

Starting from scratch every day just isn't feasible for a newspaper. For this reason the general cookie-cutter outline for news coverage exists, with topics like sports, business, and international news highlighted regularly. The problem with this is that by default there are things that simply don't make the cut, and when we don't hear about those things, they don't have significance. It's as if those reject-topics aren't important, or even worse - don't exist. Past the initial inclusion or exclusion of a story comes further editing. News items will be reworded, or simply erased for a number of reasons such as:

1. to avoid controversy

2. to keep advertisers happy

3. to please the editor

Although there are many more aspects to the journalistic process, the long and short of it is that news is a business, and the bottom-line is a highly influential factor in its production. So the next time you read a newspaper or watch the news take a minute to think who the story is coming from and why. You may find that the truth has nothing to do with it.

Paying for News?

With the decline in newspaper sales in current times, newspaper companies are seeking to gain more revenue from their still popular online news sites. Currently, most of the companies revenue from online news comes from advertising. Currently, most news sites have left the news sites free of charge to the viewer.

However, according to an AFP article on breitbart.com, many news company leaders gathering at the Bloomberg Businessweek Media Summit are discussing changing the norms of online news sites. Organizations such as the New York Times and others are now considering requiring viewers to pay for certain content. Currently, the New York Times is not planning to make viewerspay for all of their news, they plan for people to pay for localized and specific news. Some critics blame news organizations for not requiring payed content earlier. They claim that by not requiring payment earlier, viewers have come to expect free news. Others argue that requiring paid news now would be the end for the news corporations, because people would just turn to alternate news sources.

Whether or not news sites require payment is still up in the air. Few corporations have tried it and they have lost many many viewers. So, while the News corporations have the right to charge for their news, it might not be the best way to increase revenues or viewership.

In mostly love and a little peace,
Blogdor the Dragon


original article: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8183c890097b4de5bad3e2314bcad683.a1&show_article=1

Do Violent Video Games Make Kids More Aggressive?

Yes, indeed violent video games do make more careless and aggressive kids. It was always a rumor that video games were bad for you, but i know i never took it too seriously, and kept playing. I'm sure many others did as well. But Craig Anderson, the Professor of Psychology at Iowa State University, said "We can now say with utmost confidence that…exposure to violent video games increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior in both short-term and long-term contexts. Such exposure also increases aggressive thinking and decreases pro-social behavior." So, regardless of culture, age, or gender, kids are constantly being affected, whether at school, in sports, or even on the couch. In March of 2010, the Psychological Bulletin reported that video games had a long term risk factor with thoughts and behavior. Video games are affecting our youth in more ways then we hoped.
With television and video games being the main sources of entertainment for our young, we should regulate what they do and watch. With regulators of television seeking all the programming they can contract, video games are being exploited to our young. With our youth being attracted to these commercials, sometimes it is inevitable that they find a place to play the most popular video games. Madden, a football game, is simulated to be like a real football game. I don't think Madden is as big of a deal as Modern Warfare, and you can tell what that involves just by the name. Now, I'm not saying there's a line that is crossed when playing video games. Obviously, an hour here or there isn't going to "kill" you, depending on your maturity. But for the couch potatoes who play for hours upon hours, those are the kids I'm worried about. So, no matter how big or small something is, like video games, our youth always has a chance to be affected.
In fifty years, who will be running the country? Our youth. This is the reason i find this blog to be important. I don't like that we have all this technology at our finger tips and our youth can access anything they want, not realizing the harm it can do them. They have no idea these video games can change their behavior, but they play for hours upon hours. It may not change their entire personality, but it does have the possibility to. How would I feel if i knew someone in the future with a major responsibility was affected as a child due to video games? I wouldn't be too thrilled about it, and i know others would not as well. Should we try and regulate our children knowing there can be affects? Or let them adventure off into the world of video games?

RIP Google?

That title ("RIP Google?") is a bit misleading. What I'm talking about is actually a lot bigger than just Google—I'm talking about the potential collapse of all search engines and content-hosting sites, from Google and YouTube to Facebook and Twitter.

(If you're curious enough that you want to skip the background info, start reading at the Google logo.)

Admittedly, government regulation of the the mass media has always been rather controversial—especially in the Information Age, with all of its new media-related technologies (perhaps most notably, the Internet).

But I think it's safe to say that, as the government regulates and deregulates (whichever way the wind is blowing), most people can get on with their lives without following this debate too closely. This is because most regulations and deregulations either don't directly affect the media product (for instance, a lot of regulations define what a corporation can own) or bring about really subtle changes (like what kind of advertising can appear in children's programming). So most people, myself included, don't usually feel the force of media regulation sharply enough to pay it much attention.

But, if certain Italian politicians have their way, that all may change.

According to the New York Times article "Larger Threat Is Seen in Google Case" by Rachel Donadio, in Italian courts, after a high-stakes battle—the Italian government vs three Google executives—the courts just declared a victor: Italy. (Doesn't surprise me too much, since there was an obvious home court advantage.)

Italy—and in particular its media-controlling Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi—had accused Google of being too slow to remove an offensive video (of teenagers bullying a kid with autism) from its system. And the courts ruled that the three executives were personally responsible for that video, even though they didn't make it, didn't promote it, probably didn't even watch it before this case brought it to their attention—they managed the site that listed it as a search result, and according to the Italian judicial system that was enough to make them liable for it.

As you may have guessed, the real significance of this ruling isn't about autism or discrimination, but about setting the precedent of holding a website accountable for the content that it makes available. In other words, what this case accomplished was to say that any site that hosts or searches content is responsible for that content.

And that's a big deal. That's talking about everything from search engines and file-sharing sites to blogging platforms and social networking sites. If this precedent is applied across the board, these kinds of sites will have to monitor every single video, picture, website, etc. that crosses through their systems. So the YouTube staff will either have to watch every single video that gets uploaded; the Google people will have to read every single website that you can find through their search engine; Facebook will have to monitor every single profile, video, picture, etc.; you get the picture. With the amount of content that gets added to these sites every minute, a job like that is practically impossible.

So, in order to conform to expectations like Italy is trying to set, websites like these would have to find some way to restrict their content. Maybe you'd have to pay to use Facebook and YouTube. Maybe Google would only search a few sites. Whatever would happen, it'd change the face of the Internet.

Now, personally, I don't really think that anything so drastic is going to happen. Since Berlusconi is essentially trying to control Italy's media, Italy seems to be a bit of a special case—I don't think many (or any) countries will follow suit. Maybe I'm shortsighted, but it seems to me that, at least for the forseable future, websites like that are here to stay.

And as for the ruling itself, I honestly think it's absurd. Whenever I see something I find offensive in a search engine, I don't blame the search engine—I blame whoever put it online! And, for goodness sake, if someone writes something rude on Facebook, I don't hold Facebook accountable.

I don't think search engines and sites that host users' content should be any more liable for what you can find on them than a TV set is liable for the programs you can watch on it.

But maybe you disagree. Do you disagree? Agree? Feel free to have your say in that comment box below.


Peace,
Blogdor

“Pay to Play”?: Proposed Performance Rights Act

Despite the popularity of personalized Internet radio and portable music technology, traditional radio stations maintain great audiences. Compliments of advertisers who pay for air time on commercial radio (or listener donations for non-commercial radio), it remains a valuable source of free entertainment and news for the general public.

However, the dynamics of the radio business may change if the proposed Performance Rights Act is put into play. Under the legislation which was proposed in February 2009, radio stations’ budgets would take a hit, in order to broadcast the big hits.

In an April 2009 article in the San Antonio Business Journal, W. Scott Bailey explains that the proposed legislation and the controversy surrounding it stem from the conflicting interests of the music industry and the radio broadcast business.

First and foremost, they disagree on whether or not there should be a performance tax, a measure which is in the interest of the recording industry. If passed, the Performance Rights Act would change copyright laws to require commercial and some non-commercial radio stations to pay a tax to play recorded music. Representatives of the recording industry demand that the legislation be passed; they argue that radio is the only medium not required to pay royalties to artists.

Counter legislation has been drafted, known as the Local Radio Freedom Act; if passed, the bill would exempt local radio stations from paying fees to air recordings. Supporters of the Local Radio Freedom Act say taxes on recorded music would cause the downfall of small-scale radio stations, which largely would not have the revenue to stay on the air if required to pay royalties to artists in addition to the royalties already paid to songwriters.

An underlying issue Bailey highlights in the article is that of government regulation. The question here is whether it should be within the jurisdiction of Congress to create and enforce legislation that would change the way business is conducted between the recording industry and broadcasters.

I can understand the viewpoint of artists, who wish to be fairly compensated for their work. However, I wonder if the benefit of the use of public airwaves should suffice for artists’ compensation. If it were not for radio broadcasts of their songs, musicians would be significantly less visible (or rather, audible) to the general public. Advertisers pay for airtime in order to advertise their products. Since music is marketed as product, why should broadcasters pay to promote the product, when the broadcasts benefit the artist? The more airtime the music gets, the more popular it becomes, and the greater the number of albums or songs the artist will sell, for which they will receive revenue. Also, if the main concern of a musical “artist” is to make money, they should reconsider their motivations for being in the business.

Also, if local radio stations cannot pay to stay on the air because of the new tax, the repercussions might actually be detrimental to artists; if local radio stations cannot stay on the air, then listeners would have no choice but to listen to national radio. This could significantly limit the public’s exposure to diverse content, creating an even more narrow popular culture and a smaller pool of successful artists.

As for the issue of government’s role in the dispute, it comes down to one’s ideology of the role government should have in regulating business in general. As a supporter of a more laissez-faire government, I think in this situation, the negotiations should between the recording industry and broadcasters.

Perhaps my ignorance of the complex business models of the recording and broadcast industries and their relationship to one another is limiting my view, but it seems to me that the demands of the recording industry are motivated by greed. The recording industry and musicians already have a myriad of money-making opportunities. The government should be an advocate for what is in the best interest of the general public. Legislators who support the Performance Rights Act seem to be perpetuating the growth of the recording industry and imposing upon the ability of broadcasters to provide a valuable public service.

Ultimately, if radio stations have to pay to play, broadcasters, the public, and many individual artists will lose the game.

"When you think you see the truth, think again"

"Information and its truthfulness is a weapon being used against us and only the truly ignorant should be fooled by its bad intentions."

Bob Farnham's (of The Daily News) article 'Insights: A lie, told often enough, becomes truth' describes the increasing monopolization of broadcast airways and its detrimental effect on society. Increasingly, consumers of media (i.e. us!) are less and less critical of media information. We see or hear something, and assume it's true. Farnham describes his feelings regarding this increasing ignorance and naivety of the general public, saying,

"...it was then that I began to realize this is not happening just somewhere else in the country, happening to ignorant and educationally denied people. It was right there on my own doorstep, unrelated to ones' position in society or otherwise in any way associated with mere demographics. In fact, it is endemic to our population."

This mindless process of information can be dangerous. What if what we assume to be true actually isn't? How do we make sure we aren't foolishly accepting information? Normally, the answer would be to review multiple sources of information, however, this isn't fool-proof. As the FCC has relaxed ownership regulations, there has been as increase in media monopolization.


What is Media Monopolization??? --> basically, a corporation's ownership of multiple medium (more than one of a certain medium, or different types of medium). As these 'Media Giants' expand their ownership, they increase their potential influence.
Why? Because the public will see or hear their message more often and in more than one place... and repetition makes an impact! When we see or hear something over and over again, especially from different sources, we often take that to mean the message is true, or held by a large consensus.

Media scholars Croteau & Hoynes (authors of Media Society) discuss the evolving FCC regulations regarding monopolization. As developments in media occur, so do changes in regulation. Over the years, the FCC has relaxed the rules regarding ownership limitations. Essentially, corporations can own more media and reach more people.

For further information regarding FCC regulations and monopolization, check out:
'Whoever Owns the Medium Owns the Message' by Harold Feld (Focus on Law Studies).
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/focus/fall04.pdf


So what's the next step???

The next time you watch the news, think about where it's coming from... Who is sending the message? And more importantly why are they sending it? Is there a political or economic agenda behind it?

And, as Farnham concludes his article, "We must all make an effort to broaden our knowledge, study things a little more before deciding the truth of things. Only regret and remorse can result from knee-jerk reactions."


Article Information:
Insights, A lie, told often enough, becomes truth
http://www.thedailynewsonline.com/articles/2010/02/20/opinion/columns/insights/doc4b7f8e78d9e50876128873.txt

Facebook Credits?

It seems that Facebook wants to make a bigger profit off of its highly successful social networking site. Ari Levy, Brian Womack, and Joseph Galante have written an article at Bloomberg.com revealing this interesting story. Facebook already recieves huge profits from advertising on the site itself. However, the owners of Facebook are now looking to reach into new areas to make a profit. Namely, they desire to cut into the profit of the many popular games presented on their site. These games can be put on Facebook for free, and some games have options for players to purchase items in-game to help them. Facebook is now looking into taking up to 30% of the profits of such items through the new Facebook Credits system. This move is made presumably after the success of Iphone apps, where Apple also takes a 30% profit off apps.

Players would be able to buy Facebook Credits directly or through systems such as PayPal. The article also comments that in-game purchases will rise due to Facebook's "trust factor." Basically, more people are likely to purchase items through Facebook, because it seems more trustworthy that third party companies that produce the games. Facebook has also mentioned that the Facebook Credits may extend to other appliations besides just games. Many third-party game producers seem to accept this idea as long as Facebook Credits is not the only payment option for in-game items. Many producers actually welcome Facebook Credits, because they believe that this system will convince more people to buy in-game items.

This is an interesting and eventful choice for Facebook. To date, Facebook makes it's profits primarily through Ad revenues. However, Facebook Credits will drasticly change this. However, some Facebook users might feel threatened by Facebook Credits, predicting that the site might start asking people to pay for use of the entire sites. Such fears are unfounded, and the majority of Facebook users will be affected.

With a Sunshine of Rainbow Fire,
Blogdor the Dragon

My Thoughts are Up in the Air

Who's in the film? When does it come out? Why would I want to see this movie? Does it relate to me?
All of these questions run through a viewer's mind when he or she is faced with the choice of spending ten dollars out of pocket on simple entertainment. The movies are a place we go to not necessarily to see the ideal movie, but the cinema has a knack for bringing together common interests and sharing a laugh, tear or thought.
Is star status really the main focus of movies?
In most cases, yes. Advertisements before a movie come out with a headliner of a certain actor or actress and the immediate reaction is,"YES! I do want to see this movie because George Clooney is in it!" Is that the current case for Up In the Air? I believe so. The initial thought when a well known actor such as Clooney enters the scene is, "Will this movie be another success or a bust?"
The New York Times addresses a movie review in which most of these questions are answered.
The premise of the movie, Up In the Air is based upon elements of the media. George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, and Anna Kendrick portray a fast paced world including a main focus on the gadgets of today set on an airplane.
"There are different ways into “Up in the Air,” which can be viewed as a well-timed snapshot of an economically flailing America, appreciated as a study in terminal narcissism or dismissed as a sentimental testament to traditional coupling." This quote sums up the significance of the plot and premise of the movie. It critiques our ever-changing America and criticizes marriages and long term relationships. This depiction of present-day America also criticizes the aspect of heroism in movies, specifically Up in the Air.
Can films accurately predetermine the economic outcome of the ticket sales and DVD sales? No. No one will ever know exactly whether a film will entirely appeal to a given audience. Directors can target a film for a certain audience, but the result will always be, "Up In the Air."