How to read the media

The first article I chose to look at was from last week after the Giants announced that they were suspending Plaxico Burress and placing him on the non football injury/ injured reserve list. This was done after Burress accidentally shot himself, and was one of the biggest sports stories of the week. What made it particularly interesting was that Burress claimed that he was not seriously injured and the he would be able to play this week. However, after being rexamined by the Giants' team doctor it was then determined that he would be out at least 4 weeks. By the Giants placing on the NFI injured reserve list that would not have to pay him his salary for those weeks. This article was from the teams' official website. http://www.giants.com/news/headlines/story.asp?story_id=32599

-Is the information accurate?
I would say that the information is fairly accurate however, it doesn't mention the fact that Burress initially said that he would be able to play this week and that the first doctor to see him said it was only a flesh wound, and that it was the TEAM physician who said he would be out 4 weeks. This again is important because it allowed the team to put him on the non-football injury list, allowing them to not pay him his salary for those weeks. So while the article was fairly accurate, it does leave out some important facts that could change people's opinions.

-Is there missing context?
There is definitely missing context, as it doesn't mention that placing Burress on the non football injured reserve will allow them to not have to pay him, and that is essentially what this story is all about. The most important issue is Burress saying he could play and the team saying he couldn't, which isn't even mentioned. Rather they just mention the suspension and then quote team officials who say how concerned they are for Plaxico. The true issue is money and its not even discussed, and that totally changes the context of this story as well as how readers might feel about it.

-Who is quoted and who isn't?
This is amajor example of bias here as the story is about Plaxico Burress and he isn't even quoted. Instead team officals, including the owner, and coach, are all quoted as saying how much they care about him and are worried for him, and then even worse yet, they say that Plaxico understands the severity of the situation and is sorry for letting down his teamates. Not only is this a story about Plaxico where doesn't even give his perspective, but then other individuals, with conflicting agendas, are then being quoted on his behalf.

After looking at this article, the new question that comes to mind for me is, Whose motives are being served by an article or TV report? In this case it is clear that the Giants are serving their own personal agenda as they are trying to show how well they dealt with the incident while at the same time justifying their actions. It would be interesting to see a story that gave Plaxico's side, or his agents, or the NFL players association. This just goes to show how the motives and agendas of a certain group can greatly influence a story.

The next story I looked at was from the Minnesota Timberwolves official website, and was about the recent firing of their head coach Randy Wittman. First of all, the article says that he was relieved of his duties, it doesnt say he was fired, which is a much gentler way of putting it. It then says that he will be replaced by Kevin McHale who was the current team VP and the man who hired Wittman, as well as assembled the miserable team that caused Wittman to be fired. The article then says how they feek that McHale will be able to get the most out of these players and that he has such great expericnce and knowledge. McHale has been criticized often for being a poor executive and many feel he is the problem, however this article shows a great deal of support for him, and portays Wittman as an unsuccessful coach. The bottomline is that the article is on the Teams official Website and therefore tries to show how they made a great decision. The fact is that McHale is probablly more to blame than anyone for the teams struggles, shades of Isiah Thomas with the Knicks, but the team is trying to act like he is the right mant for the job and show how much faith they have in him.

Who's watching the watchdog

The Spinning Door: This refers to the fact that their are many former industry executives and lawyers who then go and work for the FCC and vice versa. This means that the people who are making the policies to regulate these industries once worked for them, meaning that it is possible that they will not do a fair and unbiased job. If someone was the head of a company, and then left that company to work for the FCC he will probablly try to help them out as much as he can even if its at the expense of public interest. Also, if someone from the FCC, then goes to work for a large company, it is likely that they will use their inside knowledge and pull to benefit his new company. With so much controversy still existing especially over consolidation of owvership it is a bit concerning to know that the very companies who need to be regulate could potentially have so much influence with the FCC.

Frequent Flyers: This has to do with the fact that the FCC excepts money from outside sources espcially in the form of free travel and entertainment. The report "On the Road Again- and Again," found that the FCC had accepted nearly $2.8 million from outrside sources over an eight year period. This was during Michael Powell's tenure and is especially troubling because he was a huge proponent of deregualtion, which favors the large media conglomerates, and at the same time he and fellow FCC members are accepting gifts from these same media giants. I guess that's just how America works; so much for serving the interests of the public.

Behind close doors: This part describes how many FCC meetings take place "behind close doors" in which they are not recorded and minutes are not taken. This causes me to be suspicious as to why they do this and what exactly takes place at these meetings. While these meetings aren't ilegal, it still makes you wonder if there perhaps some type of corrupt dealings taking place.

As far as if anything has happened since 2003 to change how the FCC works, if not entirely sure but I do feel that corporate consolidation is definitely still a problem as fewer companies continue to have more power and influence. I hope that the FCC will be able to step up and do what is best for the public, and what better time than now, during the era of "Change" that Obama is sure to usher in, or at least we hope he does.

Merchants of Cool

We live in an increasingly commercial society and as a result advertising is becoming more prevalent. Companies must continue to find creative ways to appeal to their potential costumers as we have seen a shift away from the simple catchy jingles of years past and towards more innovative techniques. It is not enough to just sell the items any more, these companies must try to sell a culture. Consumers often catch on easily to more traditional marketing techniques thus rendering them ineffective. Companies must now try to tap into their consumers’ sub-conscious and convince them that their products represent more than just their tangible worth, but rather they represent a culture that is cool and desirable and something they want to be a part of.

In the second video we saw how Sprite realized they were struggling and that their straight forward marketing was ineffective and seen as “lame” or “uncool” by their target consumers. They were then able to increase their sales and popularity by launching an unconventional campaign in which NBA star Grant Hill, then of the Detroit Pistons, made fun of celebrity endorsement and basically mocked other conventional forms of advertisement. This worked at first as consumers appreciated the staright forward approach and the credit that they were being given by Sprite in acknowledging they weren’t stupid. However after a while they grew tired of these ads and Sprite was forced to adapt again, and they did by attaching themselves to MTV and the hip hop culture. Sprite hosted a huge party featuring many popular hip hop artists and co branded it with a popular show on MTV. By doing this, kids were able to see something they already thought to be cool and identify it with Sprite which proved to be very effective for Sprite.

We also can see similar tactics being used in the fast food industry, especially by Taco Bell and McDonalds, as both companies try to associate themselves with a party lifestyle and show that they are cool. Taco Bell went from using the Chihuahua, which was extremely successful for a while, to their more current ads where guys say they are going “clubbing” and then go to Taco Bell to get some chilupas. They also make sure to emphasize that they are open late so when young people return from a night out they can have what Taco bell refers to as “fourth meal.” McDonalds launched a similar campaign for their McGriddle sandwiches, which they said can be breakfast for some, or a bed time snack for others, encouraging people to eat McGriddles when after a long night partying. Both companies are trying to appeal to the college lifestyle and in my opinion have been successful.

The first video also mentioned how political campaigns are starting to use more of these marketing strategies. I would agree, especially in this last election as I felt like these candidates were being presented to me as brands. The issues seemingly took a back seat as Obama represented hope and really targeted the young generation of new voters, while McCain was presented as guy who appeals to the common man. In politics in general it seems as if candidates try to sell themselves to voters rather than focus on what is really important. We saw more and more narrowcasting in the 2004 Kerry, Bush election as both candidates tried to appeal to specific groups with a more personal and specialized messages. I personally don’t like that these tactics are finding their way into the real of politics as it tends to obscure what the true issues are but it’s probably unavoidable as that’s just the way our society is these days.

Wirelessing the World Quiz

1. CWNs are community wireless networks that are designed to provide users access to more bandwith, services and applications. They allow for open freely accessible, nonpropietary systems to be built within communities. The idea of CWNs is to provide an entire community with internet access rather than have people use individual networks. the idea of this is that it will allow for people who normally would not be able to access the internet, because they can't afford it etc., to do so. This would help to bridge the digital divide as a greater amount of people would be granted internet access. This would especially help resource poor areas where some people just simply can't afford to pay for internet services. By setting up a CWN, everyone would be able to use the internet. This would allow people access to more information, would help out with education, and could create a stronger sense of community. While CWNs would help a lot of people, I fear that the problem is that it hurts major service providers, which decreases the likelyhood of their existence. CWNs are great for the users but service providers such as Verizon and Time Warner would certainly oppose them as they benefit greatly from charging access fees to individual users. Open and free access is what is best for our communities, but if it hurts the "Big Boys" checkbook then I don't think we'll be seeing too many of them any time soon.

2. Major wireless companies created the WiMax forum which is set up in order to help them control the wireless market. They are said to be commited to open inoperability which is supposed to promote global broadband access. However, this also means that despite their interoperability, all other competing standards must be pushed aside, even those which might potentially benefit the public. WiFi is one example of an alternative that is being threatened by WiMax. WiFi and WiMax used to operate at different frequencies on the spectrum thus serving as a complementary technology to WiMax. However in 2003, a law was passed expanding WiMax's coverage to the entire spectrum thus allowing them to control the certifying interoperabilty of all technologies within this range. This means that the companies that are a part of WiMax are able to determine what can and cannot be used which gives them the power to deny new technologies if they see fit.

3. Corporate consolidation is very dangerous for consumers because it allows for fewer companies to control more and more of the market. When companies merge, that means there is less competition, which allows companies to raise prices, and also allows them greater control over available technologies. Less competion means that its less likely for new innovations that will benefit the users. When companies such as Cingular and AT&T merge than all of these customers must adhere to the standards imposed by one company. Corporate consolidation helps the large companies increase revenues and ultimately hurts the users. While corporate consolidation continues, the market will be controlled by a smaller amount of people which will greatly reduce the variety of available content.

Money as debt

I found this video to be very eye opening as it got me to actually think about the money system that exists in our country. It is often easy to be confused as to where our money comes from. In fact, the money that we use has no actual worth itself, it just represents worth. That is because banks give out more money than they have which allows for more money to circulate than we actually have. If you think about it, if our country has such a high deficit, I'm not sure on the exact number, than how do we still have so much many. That is becasue we have created a monetary system based on debt, and as long as people our in debt to the banks, than the banks will be able to continue to loan out "theoretical money" thus allowing the system to continue. However, if everyone tried to withdraw their money from the banks at once, chaos would occur because the banks wouldn't be able to pay everyone. This is what happened during the great depression as their were no longer any loans being given by banks and people couldn't get thei money back because the banks didn't have it, causing the system to fall apart. The banks can only lend money out based on the interest of the money that people owe them. So our system only works if people continue to be in debt to banks.

2.Why create money as debt? Why not create money that circulates permanently and does not have to be perpetually re-borrowed in interest in order to exist?

Continuing on what I discussed before, the reason we create money as debt is becuase it allows more money to circulate than there actually is. If money was permanent, than however much we had is all that we could use. But by creating money based on debt the banks can give out more money than they have based on the interest that will be paid back to them. This will hopefully help the economy is more money will be in circulation and will therefore be used. However as we have seen in the past, in particular the Great Depression, under this system if the Banks Fail, then everything fails. To me it seems like creating money as debt has us walking a tight rope and the consequences can be dire if things go wrong.

The Fight For The Future of Media

1. As fars as whether or not broadcasters effectively respond to local needs, I probablly was already leaning towards no and this chapter just served to reinforce this opinion. A great example in this book was when someone at the hearing in San Antonio conference said that their was a terrible flood in their town and the TV's were down and when they tried to tune in to the radio to find out more about the flood they could only find stations that were playing music. There was no flood warnings given and the people had no idea what waqs going on. This is beacuse these stations were all clear channel staions that were broadcast throughout the country and therefore had no knowledge of the flood. This is just an example of how people need local radio stations and TV sations so that they can find out about what's important to them. The sam thing happens with TV. Time Warner has become one of the remaining giants of the cable industry and viewers are only allowed access to the stations that Time Warner chooses. For example, Time Warner does not offer NFL Network as a result of a financial dispute with the NFL. There are certain games that are only shown on the NFL Network. I am from Buffalo and Time Warner is the only cable service offered. If the Buffalo Bills play a game on the NFL network than none of Time Warrner's Buffalo costumers will be able to see the game. They are not meeting the local needs of their costumers and this happens in cities all over the country. Later in the chapter it talks about how internet providers are attempting to get rid of open acces rules which would give them greater control over what we are able to access. Internet providers could then bar access to certain sites, or prevent the usage of certain spam blockers or filtering technologies etc. This would mean higher prices, fewer choices, and a complete loss of control for users. All of this shows how the needs of small communties don't matter to these media giants as they are only concerned with making money and bettering themselves rather than their users.





2. There are certainly types of local programming that should be provided that currently aren't. With all of the mergers and consolodation in the cable industry the focus is shifting away from localism and toward nationalism. This again is because it is more profittable for these large companies. When the city of San Jose wanted to back out of its cable deal with Comcast, Comcast said their actions were illegal and attemted to file suit against the city. The suit filed so Comcast then took away the public access channels and used them for something more profittable. At the public hearing in San Antonio, many people said that they wanted to see low powered radio stations within their community that were controlled by their community. They didn't want to have to listen to the national clear channel stations rather they wanted a say in the content they were provided. Again with televison, most local news staions share the same channel with a huge national network, such as ABC and News 7, and the local stations are often bumped in favor of national programs. For expample most local news is either on very early in the morning or very late at night, and if there is say a football game that runs long, sometimes the news gets bumped all together.





3. One public service oriented project is Utah's $470 million UTOPIA project (Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure agency). If Utah's cities could raise the money, then businesses in homes would be provided with fiber optics and cable that would deliver data up to 100 times faster than what they are currently offered. Another example can be seen in Jim Baller, legal counsel for the Missouri Municipal League. They want to encourage state and local governments to get involved so they can reach their goal of a rapid deployment advanced and affordable telecommunications services for all Americans. He feels that it will take a major legislative battle before the states are able to demonstrate the benefits of a more public-utility approach toward telecommunications. Another example can be seen in the Prometheus Radio project in Philadelphia, which helped to set up LPFM (low power fm radio) stations at a rapid clip. This group serves to provide a medium for local listeners that honors the interests of community groups and provides them an outlet for their needs to be met. This grass roots effort has gotten the FCC to listen many non commercial radio stations throughout the US.

The influence of media on elections

I feel that the media definitely has a negative influence on presidential elections. While it is true that these media make it possible for a much larger number of people to be informed on the issues and be more involved in the election process, it has much worse negative impacts. For starters it turns these candidates into celebrities and in fact tends to draw attention away from the core issues. Many people will tell you that when Bill Clinton went on Arsenio Hall before his first election, that that was as big a reason as any that he was able to win the support of many voters, especially young ones. His policies didn't matter, it was just cool that he played the saxophone on a popular TV show, although it wasn't a popular show for very long, but thats a different story all together. Now in this current election we see Sara Palin going on Saturday Night Live and make a fool out of herself and only serve to reinforce all of the negative opinions of hers. Because of the media coverage of elections it is now just important too look like a good president than it is too actually be qualified. Everybody complains about all of the attack ads that are out there but if TV stations wouldn't show them than they wouldn't exist, so they are as much to blame as the candidates. Many people have been particularly critical of the current direction the McCain campaign is taking but all he is doing is working within the system to try and win, and although I don't support him or agree with his tactics, I honestly can't say I blame him.