Sunday, December 7, 2008
The information in the article about OJ Simpson's trial is accurate according to court records. However, the information is undeniably biased. Simpson is receiving a lot of media coverage for a crime that wouldn't normally be covered at the national level if it were committed by an average citizen. His previous trial is brought up many times as well.
Is there missing context that might undermine the premise of a given article or television segment?
I don't believe there is context missing, but rather content that was included that should have been omitted. Covering a story on OJ Simpson is difficult because the memories of his infamous murder trial in which he was acquitted is fresh in the minds of everyone. Popular thought is that he should have been convicted of murder. Years later, Simpson is being tried on different and unrelated charges. His past charges should not be brought up to influence the vote of the jury. On the other hand, it was a significant trial and should not be entirely excluded when the media is covering this new story. Even before his trial, the media was painting Simpson as criminal. Although many believe that to be true, they should not let their personal opinion influence other readers.
Which experts are quoted--and, in turn, who isn't allowed to give their opinion what does this leave out?
The article appears to be rather fair and well balanced. There are quotes from Judge Glass who sentenced him, OJ's lawyer, Yale Galanter, and Simpson himself from the trial. Even though OJ's side of the story appeared to be well represented, the quotes chosen from him and his lawyer were not terribly strong. The lawyer was quoted as saying, "It could have been a lot worse.." and went on to say that they were expecting life and were grateful for the 9 year minimum. Coming from his lawyer, this already paints Simpson as guilty. Quotes from Simpson from the court room describe him as being naive by repeatedly saying he was sorry and that he was not aware that he was doing anything wrong while committing the crime. Judge Glass was quoted scolding Simpson for his "stupidity and arrogance" before sentencing him. Judge Glass was also quoted as saying that Simpson's previous murder trial did not influence her or the jury's decision at all. However, that trial was still referenced to repeatedly in that one article, proving that the media does give it much attention and it was difficult for Simpson to ever get a fair trial. Quotes from all sides of the story are included, however, the quotes chosen sensationalized the story because it was a celebrity and did not give a fair portrayal.
When TV news shows (or newspaper/internet editorials) feature a point/counterpoint debate, what political spectrum is offered?
Featuring a counter debate allows the viewer/reader to see the full spectrum and not focus in on one side that is being offered. The media tends to be harsh when judging OJ Simpson. Although he was convicted of being guilty, he deserves a fair and un-biased trial as much as any other man convicted of a crime. Seeing counterpoints may help the reader to understand that.
Is the selected media simply reinforcing the status quo on a given topic, even though there may be no reason to assume that it is correct?
Certainly the "status quo" for OJ Simpson is that he is a celebrity who was acquitted for a crime that many believe he committed and now he is in trouble with the law yet again. Simpson was acquitted for his last trial and although most of the country believes he was guilty of murder, he wasn't, and there is no going back to fix that. Therefore, his previous trial should not impact his recent one.
What are the consequences of not having balanced coverage in the media -
In this case, not having balanced and fair media coverage could have influenced the sentencing of a man's trial. The amount of evidence against Simpson was overwhelming and therefore we can only hope that he was sentenced fairly. The same problem occurs everytime a high profiled figure is on trial and the media needs to know how to cover the story accurately and balanced and not to let popular opinion influence their coverage.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Teens today spend hours on the internet, glued to their keyboard. Marketers are aware of their growing addiction and have constructed ways to personalize advertising on the web to appeal on the individual level. Cookies in one’s computer records the sites you visit. From those, advertisers know what you are or may also be interested in. MySpace is one of the more popular social networking sites. With it, users can create an entirely personal account, deciding what their name will be, what their photos look like, which features they wish to add, and who their friends are. In addition, marketers have enmeshed advertising banners and logos on the MySpace page. Some are for all users to view, while others are personalized to that individual. By seeing items that they desire, teens are roped in even more into their online lifestyle. Advergaming is a technique that advertises through video games. Throughout time teens have always been the target audience of advertisers. They are fully submerged in pop culture and entertainment and drive “the next big thing.” This is why marketers spend so much time trying to see how they can capture their attention when they are spending so much time getting lost in the World Wide Web.
The report in “Growing up Online” did not surprise me. The teens featured in this video remind me of myself when I was their age. Web 2.0 features had not caught on yet, but I clearly remember spending hours, much to my parent’s dismay, on different websites and AOL Instant Messenger. Parents do not understand this addiction because they did not grow up this way. They worry that their children are diving too deep into the world of the Internet and not protecting themselves against its dangers. One interesting point made in “Growing up Online” was that teens are not in fact the victims of online predators, but are participants. When surveyed, an overwhelming majority of teens were aware of who to stay away from when online. When teens participate in activities that put them in a position of risk, it is often because they consciously chose it. The internet is no longer a new and scary place. Those who grow up using it may be addicted to their computer; however, they know it so well that they know their boundaries as well.
Although I have never used MySpace, my friends in college and I all actively use Facebook, another equally as addicting social networking site. I agree with the teens when they say that they use MySpace to create a personal online life that is entirely for them. They do not want their parents to intrude, not because they are engaging in questionable actions, but because it is invading their personal space. Teens especially need an outlet. I remember being an awkward 14 or 15 year old, and it’s a period where you constantly question yourself, your identity, and who your friends truly are. While “Growing up Online” featured some of the downsides of creating MySpace accounts, it should be noted that many introverts have found solace by being able to express themselves online when they cannot in high school.
I do worry that the increased use of the internet will lead to society losing touch with key interpersonal skills. The important thing to remember is that as more and more generations grow up using the internet, there will be more regulations and parents will become more informed. When my generation has children, we will already know the ins and outs of the internet and how to teach our children to use it wisely. Even though the internet is becoming an increasingly significant part of teens’ everyday lives, I do not believe it is a trend that will continue into their future. It is easy for teens to become completely absorbed in the internet and obsess over its many features because they have minimal responsibilities. It is only natural that as teens mature their addiction will subside.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Government officials have always, and will always, be lobbied by outside forces. However, at some point one needs to say enough is enough. It’s personally disappointing to hear how extreme these actions are. FCC members should act with integrity and uphold some moral practices, whether they are technical legal within FCC guidelines or not. Taking extravagant trips, holding private meetings, and hiring those involved in the industry make it virtually impossible to regulate the industries properly. It’s disheartening to know that our taxes are paying for corrupt agencies. At the end of the article, Powell states that sometimes the lobbying gets out of hand and has gone too far. If Powell has publicly acknowledged this, then he is aware that the conduct of the FCC with the industry is inappropriate and should come to an end. This article was written in 2003. Five years later, I am not sure that anything significant has happened to change the internal workings of the FCC. I agree with Powell, however, that the FCC “needs to do their work rather than hear pitches.” I can only hope that future FCC regulations will prevent these questionable practices.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Branding is the way marketers develop descriptive attributes to associate with their product. There are a number of modern techniques they can use to develop this idea of branding, or creating a culture around a product. Neuromarketing is a new form of marketing that studies the brain and why consumers make the choices they do, whether they are conscience of it or not. This form of marketing reaches the cognitive level to determine a consumer’s preference. Emotional branding is a branding technique that makes the consumers have an emotional attachment to the product. It is not just something they like, but something they love. Narrowcasting, cool hunting, and product placement are just a few other examples of ways in which marketers try to appeal to audiences. They try to discover what is “cool” and then feed it to the masses.
The goal of marketers is to know what the next “big thing” is, or what is “cool.” Teens are often the most sought after audience and also the most unpredictable. Therefore, marketers follow teen trends and use different marketing techniques to reach them. Cornerstone Marketing uses under the radar marketing to understand what teens think is cool. Their workers go to parties and subtly promote their product, or enter chat rooms to see what the new trends are. This kind of marketing is not overt so the teenagers aren’t aware that something is being sold to them. Another example was a strategy used by Sprite. Instead of using a traditional commercial segment to advertise their soda, Sprite partnered with MTV to host an MTV televised concert and party with Sprite products used. In this way, Sprite is seen as cool because the MTV audience sees fellow teens on television drinking it.
Television has developed cultural characters to appeal to younger age groups. Men are perceived as crude, rude, loud and aggressive. Shows such as the Tom Green Show, Jackass, and South Park perpetuate these stereotypes. Women are viewed as premature adults and are consumed by appearance. They are proud to reveal their midriff and flaunt their sexuality, even if they are too young to understand it. Fruit of the Loom often seeks models as young as 13 who embody sophistication. These images are often not representative of the teenagers. However, teens are trying to become these icons.
The consequences of these marketing tactics are a culture where TV and brand icons begin to blur with reality. Audiences are receptive of the images and are feeding them back by embodying them. They are becoming what the marketers were selling to them. Some teens and older audiences fight the images of marketers by influencing counter cultural movements, such as non traditional looks or music. Perhaps in time, more teens will catch on to these new marketing schemes and the counter cultural audience will grow. This will pose a new challenge to marketers, to have to reach the teens at a different level and appeal to them in different ways, and the cycle will be never ending.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
1)CWNs are community wireless networks that promote and develop decentralized, community owned networks. By offering wireless networks that are open to communities, CWNs can help bridge the “Digital Divide.” This divide is the gap in societies between the wealthy with quick access to the internet and those who do not. Creating a wireless network that can span an entire community will allow internet access to those who normally do not have it. This type of a community can be paid for through tax dollars. When everyone can access the internet, communities can promote more local content and a more democratic culture.
2) Wireless companies are set out to protect their monopoly by eliminating competition. Companies are preying on public ignorance to sell poor products and maintain control over a wide range of electronic and wireless devices. For example, the Centrino notebook bundle is advertised to suggest that a consumer must buy the entire bundle to receive its advantages. However, many of the laptops have superior wireless services provided by other companies. The consumers, however, buy the bundles because it is convenient and they believe they must buy the same brand to have the advantages of the laptop. Often times tech companies will make their hardware not compatible with another brand's hardware to force the consumers to buy their products. Bundles do not guarantee the consumer the best services.
3) Through corporate consolidation, fewer companies are controlling more of the wireless market. This consolidation is creating a dangerous monopoly over wireless networks. When companies buy out each other and consolidate into one, they set the prices and rates over both networks, eliminating competition. For example, Cingular now includes AT&T under its umbrella. Cingular now sets the price for former AT&T customers. Oddly enough, they are alsso using Sprint networks. When competition is removed the corporations have a dangerous advantage over the customers where they can raise the prices to provide poor service.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Paul Grignon created a video in a simple, cartoon form to explain the complexity behind our monetary system. His video traces the history of money back to the era of the goldsmith. Money used to be tangible. Then bankers began the interest system to generate more money to make a living and maintain bank operations. This simple system has spiraled into our society and others living in perpetual, accelerating debt. Banks are using debt to create loans. They are essentially creating money that is not backed up in paper. When the loans are paid back with interest, the bank profits and seemingly no one is affected by this trick.
If I wasn’t shown this video in class I would have continued to live a life of ignorant bliss, completely unaware of the corrupt, damaging system around me. As a communications and journalism major, numbers are not “my thing.” I pride myself when I balance my checkbook and cringe when I think of my own personal debt I’ve accumulated. I’ve taken out many loans for my education and haven’t given much thought as to where this money was coming from. I assumed my lender, Sallie Mae Student Loans, was this wealthy lending tree handing out large sums of money to students each year. They too are apparently handing me worthless checks that I’ll be paying them back for over the next ten years of my life. It’s a difficult concept to grasp how businesses can sustain with the constant cycle of loans, debt, and accumulating interest.
3. How can a money system based on perpetual accelerating growth be used to build a sustainable economy?
As radical as it seems, society and the economy could not do without debt. This perpetual cycle of debt, loans, and interest is needed. However, this system is effective in moderation. When the loans are paid back in a timely manner with interest, money is created and banks profit. The loans are used to help citizens further the economy either by using them for educational or business purposes. It is a win-win situation. However, when too many loans are given out and not paid back in a reasonable time span, the debt that is created grows exponentially. A sustainable economy is dependent upon using resources properly, increasing investments, promoting stability along with competition, and developing skills. Debt in moderation can promote these factors of a sustainable economy. However, when it gets out of control, the nation will cripple and it will be up to the government to make the money, not the elite group of dominant bankers.