Is Print Profiting?

"Times Company reports profit" is what the headline of this (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/business/media/23times.html?ref=media) article reads. It is correct, the article goes on to say that the Times Company, owner of the New York Times, did make a profit this quarter. They reported a net income of 12.8 million dollars this quarter as apposed to the same quarter last year where they lost 74.5 million. So how was the Times Company able to turn around so quickly? Cost cuts are one of the main reasons for this sudden turn around in the business, and saying the made a profit from last year is a stretch. Because of their cuts they cut their operating costs by 18 percent to $535.2 million. Their overall revenue actually fell 3.2 percent. One of the telling numbers is the amount made on ads. In the fourth quarter the print ads fell 14.7 percent, but the online ad revenue gained 18.3 percent.

The ad revenue is a huge indicator in media. Especially for things online because for the most part consumers do not pay to view the paper online. Advertising is how companies like the times company makes the majority of their profit. If the advertising companies are unwilling to put their ads in a newspaper then it has no choice but to shut down. The newspapers are unable to charge any more for the distribution of their papers so if they do not have the money from the advertising companies they will be forced to close down. The internet paper, in this case being nytimes.com, has only one source of income. They do not charge readers to read their site so they have to rely solely on the money they make from companies advertising on their site. Unfortunately the news is a business, and if the advertisers continue to see no profit in putting ads in papers then the papers will be forced to shut down. On the other hand, they will continue to advertise online, boosting the profits of the news company. Because of this we are seeing a disappearance in newspapers. Something that, for the last 250 years, has been a staple to our society could completely disappear off the face of the earth. Will this be positive for our society? only time will tell.
Jason

Business flying intoTwitter

The New York Times reported in this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/technology/internet/13twitter.html?ref=media) that Twitter is going to begin selling ad space to companies to make money. Much like Google, the inventors of Twitter have made a product that millions of people use, and now are trying to figure out how to make money out of it. Evan Williams, Jack Dorsey and Biz Stone, the founders of Twitter have seen their business grow exponentially since its creation in 2007. These ads will be significantly different then many of the other popular social networking sites on the internet. While sites like Facebook have the company ads appear on the side of the page with really no system concerning what ads will appear when, Twitter will be much different. The article describes these new ads like this, “The ads will let businesses insert themselves into the stream of real-time conversation on Twitter to ensure their posts do not get buried in the flow.”
This allows the companies a lot more control of where their ad is seen, and by who. The article gives the example of Starbucks being able to place their ad at the top of conversation streams concerning Starbucks or coffee. This can also be used if there is a negative response to a product, such as a movie. If there are a bunch of negative posts the company can slip their ad at the top of the stream and try to shift the public opinion. The advertisers know that the magic bullet theory does not apply here. Bernardo Huberman says this about the idea of influence people with the ads on Twitter. “Our study shows that the influence of those tweets was minimal compared to the conversation that people were having about those movies... Media like Twitter and Facebook are so enormous that it’s very hard to imagine it would be easy to manipulate the conversation.” Twitter is prepared for this and says they will monitor the effects of the ads and charge the advertisers accordingly. If the company posts are not clicked on or changing people's opinion then the cost will be minimum. If the ads are effective then the company will have to pay.
What we are seeing with this new development is a combination of many media issues. The two major ones are seeing media as a business and the affect media has on people. Advertisers are always trying to find new a subtle ways to reach people using media. With this new development on Twitter they have found one of the most subtle ways yet. If they appear on the conversation stream, to the normal user they seem like just another person adding their opinion. This way the company can subtly advertise without people seeing it as an add with an agenda. This goes back to the theory that position leaders and people that you interact with will have a much better chance at selling a product than an ad ever will. When it comes to the money these companies are paying it seems like they have reached a great deal with Twitter. If their ad is affective then they have to pay for it. If the ad is not affective then they don't have to pay. This is a good situation for both parties. Twitter has become such a phenomenon that putting ads up on it will not hurt the internet traffic on it, and because of the low risk of advertising on Twitter, everyone will want to put their ads up on Twitter.
Jason

Setback for the FCC

Recently this week the US court of appeals ruled against interent nutrality pertaining to broadband companies such as ATT, Comcast, and Verizon- a good article that you should check out about it can be found at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_internet_rules. The ruling took power away from the FCC who wanted to regulate that internet broadband companies allot universal action to all internet users using their networks. But now the court has given power to the companies who spend billions of dollars a year on their companies. The FCC wanted to prohibit the internent companies from favoring one type of website over another or disdaining certain ones.

The ruling is really interesting because in 2005 the supreme court and the FCC were all for deregulating interent neautreality. Now, the FCC seems to want it's power back. But it has failed to do so, and now the large companies who to some large extent control the internet, have the power to regulate as they see fit.

What that means for you and I is that the power is coming directly from the people we pay to us the internet on our computers. So they have the power to regulate and deregulate cetain websites that clog their networks and which they dont want people atttending too. So in the future of this year if we have problems with internet nuetrality we know who to complain to, the big internet companies and for once not the FCC.

Media trading cards

On April 8th the New York Times reported that there are three potential buyers for Miramax, a film company owned by Disney. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/business/media/09miramax.html?ref=media) The first bid came from three brothers. Tom, Alec, and Sam Gores. All three of these brothers are rich business men with media related companies. Tom has just recently bought the San Diego Union-Tribune, Alec owns Westwood One media, and Sam owns Paradigm, a casting agency that works for actors such as Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Another bid came from Ronald W. Burkle and Bob and Harvey Weinstein. The Weinsteins actually started Miramax and sold it to Disney in 1993. They are owners of the Weinstein company, another media company. The last bid came from David Bergstein, who owns Pangea Media Group.

What we are seeing here is concentration of media at work. Even though Miramax is being sold by the biggest media company in the world, it is being bought by other large media companies and their tycoon owners. The main reason being that they are the only ones that know how to run a media company and are some of the few that can afford it. Now there are some regulations in place but these companies are experts at getting around them. It is technically not legal for a film company like Miramax to hire actors from a casting agency like Paradigm if owned by the same people. Clearly this does not concern the Gores brothers or they would not want to buy Miramax.

So is this concentration of media good? Is it alright to have our media all produced from the same people and have media companies traded around like cheap baseball cards by the rich and powerful? This is not what I would want to see but we live in a capitalist society so things like concentration of media sometimes result. I feel that in the age of the internet the concentration of media will be less important. We live in an era now where people can get famous from their home video on Youtube, and people can get rich by starting their own website. Now anyone can broadcast media and this will keep the big media businesses in check.
Jason

The New York Times reported recently that AT&T is releasing a new add campaign. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/business/media/08adco.html?ref=media)This add campaign is much different than many of the other campaigns they have run through the years. Much different than the ads they are running now featuring Luke Wilson. In many of their other ads they advertised a product or a plan. For the new ads they are focusing purely on image. They are uplifting ads that do not have a product or a feature that they are advertising but they are just supposed to be inspirational. Their slogan is "Here's to possibilities". Their goal is to move out of the gloom of the economic downturn and to portray the image of a forward thinking company. In these commercials there will be no products advertised and the company name will not even appear.

The reason why AT&T has decided to spend so much on advertising that does not even promote their product is because they feel that good image is more important than telling people about the company. The Times says this, "as the company battles rivals in the intensely competitive telecommunications category because it can counter the negative effects of ads that use low prices to peddle products and services." Their name is out there. Studies show that almost every American knows the AT&T logo. What they think of the logo is what is important to the company now.

So will this new form of advertising work for AT&T? When I was watching the Olympics I saw one of their ads with the slogan "Here's to possibilities". It was actually my favorite commercial from the Olympics, but when I was talking about it later I could not remember who it was advertising. Many of these large cell phone companies have a bad image but the danger with image commercials is that no one will remember what company made the commercial and only what the commercial was.
Jason

Paying for the internet?

According to the New York Times, the London Times and the Sunday Times will soon be charging for their internet news site. (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/26/business/AP-EU-Britain-Times-Web.html?_r=1&ref=media) Now charging might be risky because advertisers are less inclined to advertise on sites that people have to pay to see. On the other hand, this would not be happening if the papers were making sufficient money from the advertisements on their sites. To many of us this sounds like an idea destine for failure. Rupert Murdoch would have to disagree with the masses. He is the owner of News Corps. witch owns many newspaper companies including these two. He also owns The Wall Street Journal. The Journal is one of the most successful pay per news sites in the entire world.
I, for one, do not think that pay for news sites will work in the long run. For sites like the Wall Street Journal, it is the best economic newspaper in America that hundreds of thousands of investors use every day. Other papers like the The London Times are easily replicable by the Daily Mail or another prominent British newspaper. With sites like google news that brings articles from all different sources to one page no one has the need to use just one news site. One way this would work is if all the major news sites began charging people for a subscription. This way people would have no choice but to buy it. For the average internet user this seems completely outrageous that they would have to pay to see a site, but we have to remember that there are journalist and editors who's job it is to report the news and post it online. So why shouldn't they be paid?
Jason

The next generation of reality TV is all celebrities, all the time

More and more celebrities are having reality TV shows for themselves. Ami Angelowicz, writer for The Frisky, reports, "I thought the whole point of reality TV was for some unknown Joe or Jane Schmo to have their 15 minutes of fame." The famous who want a reality TV show include David Hasslehoff and Sarah Palin. Hasselhoff will have a show on A&E about his life as a single father and his struggles with alcohol addiction. Palin wants a show that features her and her family in Alaska.
Why would famous people who are already in amazing financial condition want a reality TV show? Do they want attention, more money, or just have nothing else to do? Attention and boredom are decent answers, but I think money has something to do with it. Reality TV shows are very inexpensive to produce. This is why non-famous people can have their moment to shine. In the case of the already well-known, it's pretty much a winning scenario (and if they lose it didn't cost them that much).
I used to wonder why reality TV was so popular. As I was continually watching too much TV starting a few years ago, show after show started popping up on so many different networks. The shows used to feature people that had a quick stint of stardom then faded just as fast. It does seem there are more and more well-known celebrities (most of which are past the prime of their careers) being featured in a reality TV show. The answer to why these shows are popping up is now clear to me. The show is going to hit or miss, but either way the cost of doing the show won't make the stars wallets that much lighter.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/15/the.frisky.next.gen.reality.show/index.html

The new gatekeeper and consumer

Everyone should read this article because it talks about the evolving times in media and it exciting. Think about it, who are the gatekeepers of todays news, and what system are they using to expose the happenings, transformed into promotions, which they make glow in a sort of natural, omnipresent, worthyness? This article found at , talks about the revolutionary tools in which media gatekeepers display their news, including the ipad, amazon kindle, and even the culture of blogging. The author, Lachlan Markay, made us privy to the times, that old news gatekeepers are dying out. Record newspaer lows have emerged this year with more people getting their news quicker and faster and freeer from places like google news. It seems as though apple is the gatekeeper for the format in which the news is being displayed. With millions of people around the world using iphones to check email, watch sports highlights, read up on desired news.

This article tells us that the times are changing. We as consumers might not even notice it because we are all doing it. Ask yourself, are you more prone to go to a news website for news or bye a newspaper? It seems as though apple and google hold the key to how the future of news will be displayed. With more and more consumers going to their applications it is evident.

Of course it matters to us because we consume it and we will be more prone to use one of the new applications than the old, but i think there is a subtly here that matters to all of us, news, in any form is ideological. Google just this year allowed christian and pro-life ads on their website, showing that they along with the progressive news media, are more liberal. So we will be consuming more liberal based news than conservative, or whatever. That means that we as consumers need to be active consumers. We should not just take our information from one bias. The new news media allow us to search in a myriad of places for news. So we should us that to our advantage in being a new generation of active news consumers.

Batman comic book beats Superman auction, sets record

A copy of 'Dectective Comics' #27 was sold for $1,075,500 in an online auction. This is a rare comic of Batman in 1939. 1939 was when Batman was first shown on the comic book scene. It was a big deal to a wide range of people, because seven bidders from three different countries were bidding. The comic book was sold from Heritage Auctions in Dallas to an anonymous and apparently wealthy comic book collector. The previous record for a comic book being sold was for one million dollars. The record was held for three days by Superman's debut in 'Action Comics' #1 in 1938. Vincent Zurzolo, who is co-owner of ComicConnect.com, said "Records are meant to be broken and this week will forever go down in comic book history."
I believe the reason a batman comic book was sold for more than a superman comic book three days later is because of the idea of hegemony. I believe this person who bought the batman comic book for $1,075,500 was making a statement. The person is actively trying put the idea out that batman is better than superman, and its the universal way of thinking. The anonoymous collectors' ideology might be that his/her culture should like an overall more realistic (tentatively said) superhero by choosing batman over superman. This theory is the only explanation I can come up for the buyer paying over a million dollars for a batman comic book.
I am convinced that in some way, shape, or form someone was trying to prove batman is better than superman. The online auction proves that either someone really likes batman, or that someone who very much dislikes superman was upping the bids to make the batman fan pay more. I believe the reason for the high bidding was the batman lover. This recent auction proves how much superhero's mean to some people. One should take note of how much the media pushes superhero's importance onto our culture. But for now, I am glad for batman beating out superman. I'm more of a Bruce Wayne kind of guy anyway.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/26/news/economy/batman_comic/index.htm

Google It

As Americans we are used to seeing Google everywhere. For years, as soon as we logged onto the internet on our computers we would see a product of Google in their search engine. People who still see Google as just a search engine would be missing the majority of what Google does. They also own Youtube, have their own web browser, and have Google news, maps, and many more internet sites. Now the genius of Google is that, to the consumer, their products are completely free. They rely on add revenue to make money. I personally use Google every day of my life. I have Gmail, Picasa, and I am even blogging on a Google's Blogger and I do not pay them a cent. In the recent years Google has been expanding to outside of their traditional internet realm. They have recently incorperated themseles into the world of smart phones and according to this NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/technology/18webtv.html?ref=media) they are at it again.
According to this article, Google has teamed up with Intel and Sony to create Google TV. What Google is trying to do here is stick their foot into a new market. More importantly to them is that they are trying to monopolize horizontally. If they have a branch of their company involved in computers, phones, and TVs they will have their bases covered in the world of technology. So why would they expand horizontally. One huge reason is that they now have the advantage of synergy. They can connect and integrate all of their different technologies and endeavors, making everything cheaper and easier for them.
The real winners in this are the consumers. Because Google does not charge their customers anything to use their product everyone with a computer uses some sort of Google product. With Google expanding it will be easier for the consumer to use Google's synergy for them. It will become so easy for us to jump from our computer to our phone and then to our TV because all the Google programs will be compatible with each other on all these different devices. Google's expanding empire will make it easier for us to use our Google technology anywhere.

Jason

Ellen DeGeneres' 'Idol' performance draws mixed reviews

A year after Paula Abdul quit the show 'American Idol' Ellen Degeneres took the spot as the fourth judge. Her company includes Randy Jackson, Simon Cowell, and Kara DioGuardi. Speculation on Ellen's judging skills began well before the show began. "I knew it was going to be bad as soon as they announced it," said Brian Wheaton, who started a Facebook group called "Ellen is going to RUIN IDOL!" Also, Simon Cowell announcing that this would be his last season on the show did not help. The first two shows DeGeneres was a little tentative, not using her humor, which is her strong point. But now the final 24 contestants are up, and all comments made by DeGeneres will be heard, live and unedited.
By now it should be known that the show 'American Idol' is about more then displaying muscial talent, and valid critiques of that talent. The show is equally famous for displaying people who think they are amazing singers, but sound like horrible. The judging is sometimes brutal, but has tried to be as accurate as possible when judging purely musical talent. I understand bringing celebrities to the show brings refreshing, new personalities, and might help ratings. But aren't there enough extremely popular celebrities in american society today that have a background in music? The answer is obviously yes. It's true, Ellen DeGeneres is a fan of the show 'American Idol', and she is famous. But, she has no idea what she's talking about when she's trying to direct young, aspiring singers who are serious about pursuing a career in music.
'American Idol' needs to take a step back and realize why the show is successful. It is because audiences appreciate everyday people blowing them away with a beautiful voice. Yes, the judges are popular too. Simon Cowell's notorious comments probably equally as entertaining as the singers at times. But the reason Cowell is funny is because he knows what he's talking about. So 'Idol', stick to the music.
By Joseph Fuller

Curling Down Wall Street

With NBC holding the rights to air the winter Olympic games the network is trying to fit as much of the games in on as many channels as possible. One of the channels that is owned by NBC is CNBC. This channel is focused mainly around Wall Street and the stock market. As soon as the market has closed for this past week NBC began broadcasting an Olympic sport. Most of the time, curling was shown on CNBC. This created a strange phenomenon that many people did not expect. Many of the brokers, bankers and big shots began watching this completely foreign sport. Most people in America do not know what curling is, and definitely could not tell you the rules. This is evidenced by the horrible showing of the U.S. team at the Olympic games. They lost their first four matches and were one of the worst teams competing.
So why is curling so interesting to these Wall Street tycoons? Well in our media class we have been talking a lot about media and how it relates to society. Looking at it, it seems like the marriage between the traders and curling was somewhat of an accident. After a hard day of work and diligently watching the stocks go up and down, the station would change from the high pressure of the stock market to the grace and strategy of curling. Like chess on ice, curling has a very calming affect on the traders who have been under high pressure all day.

This is an example of how media can be a trend setter among certain groups of people. Because NBC put curling on CNBC it became part of a certain group of people's routine and it became something that quickly caught on. Now this is something that will quickly fade. The Olympics are almost over, this means curling will no longer be shown on TV, and with spring right around the corner Americans can once again focus on sports like baseball and football. So while this fascination with curling is clearly not here to stay, it is very interesting to see the fads the media can create. Sometimes by just a strange accident.

Jason

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/business/26curling.html?ref=media

Ever Changing News

Today I read and article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/business/media/19tribune.html?ref=media) in the New York Times about how Tribune Co. is filing for bankruptcy. This is slightly shocking considering this is the company that owns the Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and The Baltimore Sun. These are some of the most successful, and best known news papers in their respective cities. Now this company has a dept of billions of dollars.

How did this happen? How did one of the most successful news paper company in the world owe billions of dollars of dept. Just 20 years ago this would be completely unthinkable. For the last 100 years Newspapers have been the main form of news in America. After the invention of the radio, and even the TV, news papers were still an integral part of every day life. So how did something so important to American society lose so much money? The answer is the internet. As the internet advanced less and less people read the news paper. They were able to find their news online and therefor were not willing to pay for a newspaper. Because of this advertisers no longer found it profitable to place their adds in newspapers and so the newspapers sunk into dept. See it is not the consumer, or the person that buys the paper that supplies the company with money, that profit is minuscule compared to the money it makes by placing advertisements in the paper. Advertisers realize that it is more profitable for them to advertise on the internet because their add will be seen by so many more people. This is why so many internet companies, such as google and facebook are thriving in this internet addicted culture.

So is it good for our country that newspaper companies such as the Tribune Co. are experiencing hard times? After all our country has relied on newspapers to tell us the news for the last 100 years. I would say that it is just part of any capitalist country. Technology drives what is popular and if companies can not adapt then they fail. What I am afraid of is that all signs of professional news will fade and there will be an increase in "citizen journalists" reporting on news. I think the idea of citizens trying to report on news is ridiculous. I do not understand why this is excepted. We do not do this with other professions. No one will ever declare themselves a citizen doctor, but when it comes to news many people believe they can report better than the professionals. In this new world of the internet we have to be careful to not begin relying on uncredited sources with no accountability.

Jason

Media Linked to Children's Bad Health

People have been saying for years that too much television is bad for anyone's health. Well, Time magazine spoke with James Steyer from Stanford University, and his studies suggest that children are at risk. His study suggested that the more media a child is exposed to such as TV, movies, cellphone, or magazines, the more health risks they face. He suggested that they are more likely to smoke, drink, use drugs, or receive low grades in school. Out of thousands of studies, 173 were selected that had the highest results of poor behavior from too much media exposure. The areas graded the highest were obesity, drug use, and sexual behavior. The article also mentioned how the parents need to be more involved in what their kids are watching on TV. The average kid spends about 7 hours in front of some sort of media each day. That is a large amount of exposure, so it should be the responsibility of the parents to limit the amount of time in front of TV. They should also be aware of what their kids are watching for programs, and maybe ban certain shows.
This article discusses some great points that everyone should be aware of. When children are not performing well in the classroom and getting into trouble with drugs or alcohol because of media; that is an issue. I understand the media are filled with inappropriate things for children, but where are the parents? If they are responsible, they should be more interested in what their kids are watching on TV, and to set limits on the amount of time they spend with the media. If more parents were responsible, children could enjoy the media in a positive way, like it was intended.
Its really too bad that negative affects on children are coming out of the media. The problem is that media is consuming us and our lives, to a point where it is getting unhealthy. When children are experiencing terrible behavior due to media exposure, theres a problem. Pretty soon no generation will be safe and the media will just continually become more powerful. It is the job of the parents to monitor their child's media exposure. My parents did that when I was growing up, I had limits on how much television I was allowed to watch. That kind of lifestyle worked for me and it would probably work for most families as well. We want the media to be a great tool and something to enjoy; not to consume our society completely.


See also: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1864141,00.html

Parents, Time to Step Up and Eat the TV that Consumes your Child

I read an interesting artile by David Moore, who interviewed Jim Steyer about his new book "The Other Parent: The Inside Story of the Media's Impact On Our Children." The two talked about how Media has taken the place of the parent. For instance, childern spend on average 40 hours a week with media and only 17 with parents. Streyer writes to parents in his book, tellin them how they can overcome this phenomenon. He says that simply sitting with the childern when they watch TV and directing them to what is good and what is bad is crucial. Also from the start, parents should develop healthy media diets and habbits for their kids. He also thinks that government should step in and show public responsibilty. He thinks that positive TV has slipped out of the status quo and that no one has stepped up to be a leader in poiengering the postive change in TV media.
This article needs to be jammed into everyones cerebral cortex. Just think about the fact that media is taking the place of parents. The emerging youth is being parented by TV producer's ideals and ideology. David Moore is illuminating an important book and subject, how the media is teaching the youth how to be. Steyer is giving parents the tools to change this though, because it is a negative way to bring kids up.
We should care about this article because the future of our generation is being schooled by TV ideals that are there soley for entertainment and money. What will our childern be like who watch people getting drunk and picking up girls on MTV? What positive, extraordinary thing will come out of a generation educated on bullshit? I'm not sure. But if i was a parent i would raise my kids to the life lessons i learned and not what the TV teaches them. Parents should care about what their kids are learning about on TV. It is very easy to give up the role of "parent" to the TV. But the child will be that much better for it if the parent steps in and intervens.
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/jun02/jun17/3_wed/news4wednesday.html

The Winter Olympics have officially began, and like all Olympics, they started with an opening ceremony. Most of the articles about the ceremonies are about the glitch at the end of the ceremony. What happened is that there were supposed four poles that rose out of the ground to form around the Olympic torch. Only three rose out of the ground. The athletes that were supposed to light the torch just awkwardly stood there for a short time. They finally jst lit the torch with just three poles instead of four.

It is unfair for anyone to focus on this one glitch during the opening ceremony. With the daunting task of following the spectacular opening ceremony in Beijing, the Canadians did brilliantly. Instead of trying to compete with the 300 million dollar show in Beijing they decided to focus on the individual and show an intimate look at Canada. They began, before the parade of nations, with welcoming the native tribes from all over Canada. In fact the whole ceremony tried to show all of Canada. They had sections displaying all of the areas of Canada. From the icy Inuit to the french speaking province of Quebec, and back to Vancouver. They even had a youtube sensation read his poetry.

So are these games as all encompassing as they seemed? There were men and women, native Canadians and french Canadians, young and old, and even a para-Olympian helped light the Olympic torch. How are these people treated outside of the Olympic games. Unlike these Ceremonies I doubt that the native Canadians are always the center of attention in the country. Most likely they are pushed around and mistreated like many of the tribes in America. On an international level Taiwan is still not allowed to march in the parade with their own flag. Is there really this peace and acceptance throughout the world? When a song like We are the World, by Michael Jackson a huge part of the Olympics in order to make money for Haiti many of us would like to think the world has achieved world peace and equality. I am still not sure we have, but events like this certainly do help.

http://www.timescolonist.com/sports/2010wintergames/Opening+ceremony+done+right/2560946/story.html

For big game, ads on tap

Beer companies do not care if the game being played takes a back seat to the commercials. An estimated one-third of all Americans watch the superbowl, and many of them drink beer while they watch. Anheuser-Busch, the maker of Budweiser and Bud Light, bought five miniutes of air time for nine ads. It is estimated that the cost for a 30 second ad is 2.8 million this year, down from 3 million last year. Whether the rates go up or down, it really does not matter to beer companies. The superbowl is the right place and the right time for beer commercials.
The biggest purchase of air time in this year's superbowl comes from the biggest beer company in the country. If people are seeing beer commercials all year watching proffessional football, why should the superbowl be any different? It has almost become an association, that when you watch football you will inevitably see someone drinking a brewski. The target audience will probably be hanging out with friends at a party, having a beer. Is there a better time to show that your product is the best? I don't think so.
Seeing beer commercials when a proffessional football is being played is pretty much a normalcy. Advertisers want to get in everyone's heads that when you watch football you have to drink beer, that its an American tradition. Anheuser-Busch, which is part of the world's largest brewing company, knows when to throw around their money. The Suberbowl is and will continue to be a stage for beer commercials.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/05/for-big-game-ads-on-tap/

Black Face Politcal Statement

I read an article by Robert Mackey on http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/turkish-tv-anchor-dons-blackface-to-address-obama/. The article talked about how a Turkish news caster, who was of white fair skin, painted his face black when addressing Obama’s speech to Turkish parliament. The news station was a witty, tabloid, sort of news station. Like it was not a serious prime time news program addressed to a vast population. The news caster painted his face not because he was racist but because of the myth “that a person who asks for a favor darkens his face, but a person who then refuses to grant that person a favor has an even darker face.” He was basically saying how Obama should be on Turkey’s side in fighting their Kurdish adversary’s.
The article is interesting because it talked about how Americans would take the painted black face differently than the Turkish people. It really hits on how America has different ideology. We would be more accustomed to completely condoning the notion when in reality it was not a racist gesture but rather playing off of a Turkish proverb. It also shows how America’s ideology has not penetrated to all corners of the globe. What we may think is wrong could be a strong political statement in another country; our view is not hegemonic.
The article is significant because it tells people to wake up to other cultures subjectivity. It makes us see the world outside of our eyes so to speak. We can get so caught up in our own worlds, so much so that when a political statement like that emerges our ideology immediately tells us that it is morally wrong when in reality it is not being portrayed that way by another culture.

The Whiter the Face the Better

There is a fascinating article titled Skin Whiter Advertisements Labeled Racist- the article is by Sara Sidner and you can find the article at http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/09/india.skin/index.html. The article talked about how in places like India and China face whitener is becoming more popular. In fact, skin whitener creams have peaked more than one hundred percent in India and the male consumption is jumping more than twenty percent annually. A recent commercial, featured in New Delhi, showed two Indian men on a balcony. One man with a dark face; the other, white. The dark faced man says to the fair faced man, I’m so unlucky that i have a dark face. And the fair skinned man replies, it’s not your face it's your dark skin. He then throws him a bottle of face whitener and the dark skinned man becomes light skinned and gets the hot girl in the end of the commercial. A member of India parliament, Brinda Karet, said that the Ad tells people you have to be white skinned to get a good job, to get a good girl or boy friend, to be socially acceptable.
This article is fascinating because in media history blacks were portrayed out of their skin so to speak. They just participated in roles that would be funny and amusing to white. They could not represent their own culture in the media; instead they had to assimilate to the white culture. Now, in India, people are going as far as lightening the color of their skin. It seems as though consumers have it in their head that being fair skinned is the way to live and be. The evidence is present, even men have a rising twenty percent consumption rate of face whitening products. The white, beautiful culture seems to be imperialistic in a subtle way. People think that looking whiter or fairer is looking more aesthetically appealing.
I think this article is a good lesson for us all. It shows how easily people can be influenced by the media to looking and acting a certain way. The media in this case, is even acting racist. It is promoting a fair skinned person as being better than a dark skinned. The dark skinned people are therefore left in the shadows unless they assimilate to the white culture and buy some face whitener. So be wary of what the media is telling you do be like, because it can be manipulative if you’re not careful.

TV News Bad

Are you sick of watching the same old, boring news? The news that only covers a certain amount of stories and is packed out with opinions as if you couldn't judge the current issue yourself. Well Mike Elgan is pretty sick of this news as well and he wrote a great article educating people on what the news does wrong and how it should be revolutionized. The article is titled Why Social Media is Killing(Bad) TV News and you can find it here http://www.internetnews.com/commentary/article.php/3803556/Why+Social+Media+is+Killing+Bad+TV+News.htm .Elgan discussed how the news only illuminates a few stories a night. But what is so bad about this is that these stories are usually propagated to "advance the careers of the people running the network at the expense of the public interest." It is not fair on the public part to sit around and see stories that only pertain to one type of class, obviously the upper, typically white, class. Elgan is also sick of listening to opinionated news anchors, such as Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Jim Cafferty, Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow. He says that the News media would be better off if all these people were fired. If the news covered about 20 news stories instead of just four, the news would not be so biased to a particular class interest as well. All in all, this article was hostile towards the present news media because of poor social attributes it picks up along the way.
This article was very interesting because it dealt with a lot of crucial elements that need to be dealt with. Like is it really necessary that we have opinionated news anchors. The news should inform us, educate us, so that we can make out own judgments on the situation. When news anchors present their opinions it becomes almost entertainment and belittles the American people's intelligence. But what is more fascinating is how the news acts as the people’s only source of news. People should in no way rely simply on TV news for their interests. Why? Because it is far to left or right? They act like answers to the world are either right or wrong, when in reality there is a whole array of possible answers and solutions and interests and opinions. It's not just what the News anchors say. When the News acts like it is the only power in play, they make it seem like it is normal, it is morally upstanding, it is American to believe what they say.
I think that people should fight this normalization of the news media. They shouldn’t just sit around their world be normalized to a certain upstanding standard. They should think of other solutions than what the news media offers and they should be active. That means turning off the TV and starting revolution. EAT YOUR TV.

Will Apple start another revolution?

Last week Apple came out with its newest innovation, the ipad. As many of the Apple creations before it, Steve Jobs came out on stage to reveal its name and design to the waiting public. While much of the ipad just looked like a large ipod touch, it did have several features that the ipod touch does not. One of the most hailed feature on the ipad is the creation of ibooks. Steve Jobs wanted to show how simple and easy this was so he sat back in a chair and showed the specs of the new ibooks. One of the features was that the ipad displayed a digital book shelf with all your titles displayed on it. This book shelf is connected directly to the istore so you could buy and read any book instantly.

This new Apple gadget got many different reactions because of their new ibook feature. Companies like Amazon and Barnes & Nobles are worried about this new innovation because it is cutting in on a market that they had pioneered. With Amazon's electronic reader called the Kindle and Barnes&Nobles Nook the ipad are trying to challenge these in this new found market. The publishers, on the other hand, are excited about this new gadget. They know that Apple has a cult like following and millions will buy the ipad with the ibooks feature. So will this new toy improve book sales? Christine Kearney in this article http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60R0GS20100128?type=technologyNews argues that the new ipad will not significantly add to book sales. She says that the Apple following and the new ascetically pleasing layout is not enough to start a book revolution. One reason is that the ipad is still back lit and will be hard on your eyes after reading for a long time. While the publishers hope the ipad will transform books like the ipod transformed music Christine Kearney is doubtful this will happen

I completely agree with Christine Kearney on this. Not only is the ipad not designed to be a reader because of the bad back lighting but we are in a culture that does not read any more. Most of you will not even read this sentence because you got distracted by facebook. People would rather watch a minute long youtube video than read a book. Even with the new Apple ibook the sales of books will not jump as much as the publishers think they will.

Cyber-Bullying

Bullying used to be a larger child stealing a helpless, smaller child’s lunch money. Today the subject is a bit more complicated. Cyber-bullying is becoming more and more of a problem for early teens, and many cases come from the popular social networking site Facebook. The department of children , schools and families revealed an eye opening study that states, “47% of 14-year-olds in the survey reported bullying. Its impact continues as kids get older: 41% of 15-year-olds and 29% of 16-year-olds report facing the problem.” Facebook offers helpful tips to keep children safe while online, including making sure your information is private, and reporting trouble to Facebook immediately.
This article is a brief and heavy dose of reality. I thought cyber-bullying was much rarer than what these new studies are showing. Today’s media allows perverts to: sit at home, hop online, and belittle their peers or whoever they please. This is simply a lazier version of bullies who hurt others physically. Cyber-bullying is an easier, more efficient way to bully for those who feel they must put down others.
I think Cyber-bullying isn’t going anywhere in the near future. It is too easy and too convenient. But one must also view a victim of cyber-bullying as someone who is either being oblivious, not careful enough, or just downright stupid about sharing their information online. Everyone, especially young teens need to be aware of the dangers of cyber-bullying and take caution when setting up a Facebook or Myspace page.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/nov/16/bullying-facebook-bebo-national-anti-bullying-week

All hail the balls of Harmony Korine's Trash Humpers

It seems that during every generation there is a kind of normal way in which to present the media, especially movies. Most times when you go to the movies with an important other or your family, you invest in a movie that has a big budget to incorporate cool and advanced special effects, to hire big name actors and actresses that already have their names out, and lastly to promote the movie extensively. High definition TVs, blue ray players, IMAX theaters- they all are the new, heady ways in which we watch (should watch) film. This being said, there are film makers out there who want to be as distant and distinct from that perfect, pretty, Hollywood order of making films. They want to highlight something more subtle, something more profound, and something lying in the arid frontiers of the shadows. Harmony Korine is one of those film directors who has attached a nuclear bomb to the conventional order of making films and in the wake of the chemical destruction, he hits record. Korine has come out with a new movie, Trash Humpers. You should be dismayed because its protagonists literally have fetishes with humping trash. I learned about this distinct movie from a positive article on indiewire.com (http://www.indiewire.com/article/trash_humpers_review/).
The journalist of this particular article, Eric Kohn, describes the movie cautiously all the while hinting at the poetry of destruction. The movie is shot in VHS and it follows a “psychotic family with shriveled mugs resembling Freddy Kruger live(ing) together in an undisclosed suburban setting, mulling about their deranged existence while engaging in eerie behaviors and the occasional murder.” Kohn tells us that the movie is shot quickly from scene to scene with an almost random feel. Korine will shoot one aspect of their lives and cut the movie to another. The flow of the movie does not seem to be in a linear fashion like most of the movies you see every day. For instance, in its trailer it shows a scene of two older type men with prosthetic faces humping trash cans, with great force, in an ally way with a single street lamp illuminating their thrusts. All the while they are humping, a young women sits on the side by a fence and looks off to the distance in boredom. Then after that scene, the camera brings us to a backyard where these men ride bicycles around in cycle, with plastic babies dragging behind the bikes on string. Writing the sequence of this movie is a very hard task and if you have the eyes to sit through the movie, then do so. But, the movie has not been distributed to your local mall movie theaters and such. Non-conventional movie theaters like the IFC in NYC are more likely to be open to such a bold movie.
I think the release of the movie is very interesting and great. I have a natural biased to liking Korine’s movies because they strike me with such a bold energy every moment I watch because it is unlike any other movie watching experience I have ever been accustomed to. Like the plot line is so skewed but it is interesting because the movie comes together like a scrap book of profound images. The boldness, the absurd, makes Trash Humpers a distinct movie. But I think there is even more to this movie that makes it socially compelling. For one, he shoots the film in VHS. In a generation that is anal about the high quality of the movie medium, Korine is more concerned with the effect that the viewer will take away from the film. That is a true auteur ambition. Korine is not a slave to the conventional order of making movies, much like how African Americans had to be obedient in their TV roles in the 50s and 60s. Korine will make a movie that deals in the shadows of Americaa with prevision that deals with the vulgar realties of the absurd. He should be praised for being ambitious in a time where movies are dominated by big budgets, and big actors with big white teeth.

Gran Torino: Racism

Ever since American History X, no other movie besides Gran Torino has captured the true racism among a “melting pot” society. Bobby Rice explained with his article, Gran Torino goes from a “haunting” movie to a sad, “heartfelt American tale.” He talks about how Walt Kowalski, (Eastwood) can be prejudice towards minorities, and then accept a group of innocent Hmong people. Walt seems to be prejudice towards anyone who is not white, but really, he only dislikes arrogant, asshole gang members. Rice explains how Walt’s racism is almost justified because the Asian gang in the movie terrorizes the Hmong group living next-store to Walt.

After watching Gran Torino and Color Adjustment, it seems as though there is a modern day war going on in America with racism. Color Adjustment is a documentary about television’s first shows and how blacks are subservient to whites. It is about their struggle to be on the air and create successful shows that the general public enjoyed. In Gran Torino, Walt fought in the Korean War and now, years later, he had to fight for the Hmong family. He literally died for them so they would not have to be harassed and attacked anymore by Asian gangs. In Color Adjustment, the blacks were fighting for equality on television during the civil rights movement. In both movies, minorities are struggling to be an equal part of society among whites.

Gran Torino expresses an issue that has been one of conflict in our society today; racism. Walt’s attitude towards minorities seems very prejudice and close-minded, however, how is he supposed to react when gang members attack his close friends? The gang justifies how Walt feels through their actions. Minorities who act like the gang members in the movie, do not help the cause against racism. If they want to be accepted by people like Walt, they should act like respectable, all around nice people. The Hmong group did, and they proved that if they come to America to embrace it and not to exploit it, racism will no longer exist.

http://media.www.mcquadrangle.org/media/storage/paper663/news/2009/01/14/ArtsEntertainment/gran-Torino.Eastwoods.Answer.To.American.Racism-3601765.shtml

Introduction Statement

Dear Internet, this is Joe, Luke, Mike, and Jason. We are representing Eastern Universities Com 105: Mass Media class. Our mission will be to illuminate unique news stories about the Media. We will do our best to show scholarly work on Media. It would be to your human advantage to come to our blog as often as possible. Awesomeness will be present.