Teaching kids to like tv

In a great victory for media and consumer activism, Disney was successfully sued by consumer groups over the Baby Einstein dvd series.  The NYT reported today that Disney was found to be practicing deceptive marketing strategies concerning the supposed educational benefits of having children under two years old watch television (any sort of screen time for kids under 2 years is not encouraged by the American Academy of Pediatrics).  The Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood has been working for many years on this issue so it’s nice to see a victory.  What does it mean if Disney is admitting that there is no education benefit for children to learn to watch tv? The questions for media effects and consumerism are swirling.  And for anyone reading this who bought Baby Einstein dvds in the last five years, go get that rebate!

the escape begins, again

So really, I swear, this is time this blog will actually be updated on a more regular basis.  School started today – rain and a bit of sunshine, hello Oregon.  Second year as a doctoral student – more work than ever and the countdown begins for exams in a year. Excited about working on J201 again this fall.  A required class for the J-school, Mass Media & Society offers students a great opportunity to explore the wild and wacky world of media and communication.

Returned from the void

After many months, I am returning to my blog.  Since, I’m quite positive that I have nearly none or actually no readership, I’m sure my absence has not been too horrible.  However, as per my initial goals for this space, I return to write, publically, about aspects of media and journalism that interest, bother or confuse me.  So here it goes – Act II, of Escape from the Libary:  Where Brenna finally figures out time management in graduate school.

Are media effects measurable?

Since we’ve been discussing media effects theory in J201 this week, I thought I’d post this great report from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.  The report examines election coverage of the four candidates and the tone of coverage they have received over the past six weeks of the election.  The key question Pew seeks to investigate is “Who got the better coverage, and why?”.  This is a great question to think about regarding some of the topics we’ve been discussing in J201, especially the lecture on news frames and media roles.  The report notes that the horse-race frame for the past six weeks of election coverage is the dominant frame the media has been reporting.  Pew notes that during elections, the horse-race frame often dominants the coverage and that the study demonstrates that the effects of the coverage, negative and positive, is often reflective of the polling numbers (and constant coverage of polls), noting this is “reinforcing- rather than press generated- effects of media”.

Check the full report out…and explore the Pew site for other resources about media coverage and impact on the 2008 election!

Live stream of SMS questions for McCain/Palin?

Check out this link to watch an interesting use of technology by the California Democrats. They set up a live streaming billboard near a campaign rally of McCain/Palin and people could send questions via text messages (also known as SMS protocol)  Thanks Boing Boing for finding this!

Election ‘08 Media Policy: Where do those candidates stand?

I’ve never claimed to be a policy expert, or even a policy geek.  I’m more interested in the process by which policy workers and activists translate policy into terms and concepts that people, from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, can understand and relate to.  This is not an easy task and it’s particularly difficult when the policies cover abstract and seemingly far removed issues like “the media,” “the internet,” etc.  So I’m glad that USC Annenberg has created a site that examines the US Presidential Candidate’s positions on a variety of media policy issues.

Media policy topics include:  Concentration and Consolidation, Media Ownership by Women and People of Color, Public Service Media in the Digital Landscape,  Universal Broadband Internet, Network Neutrality, and Copyright, Public Knowledge.  Wow, that’s a bunch of stuff!  What’s it all mean?  And why is it important that we know where the candidates stand on issues relating to the media, the internet, copyright law? Well, for one thing, have we heard much about these issues in the media?  When the media cover pertinent, hot button issues, how many questions do we hear about a candidates position on network neutrality or why media ownership rates (especially in broadcast media like TV)  for women and people of color are still abysmal?

One thing that I’m going to look for is a state by state assessment of where Senators/Congresspeople stand on media policy issues, because the power of the Congress to pass and block legislation is very important as well.  Additionally, local municipalities have certain power regarding local cable and wireless policies, as well as the funding of local public access television stations, so it’s also important to know where our local politicians stand as well.

Do you think there will ever be a public debate where the candidates discuss their stance on issues like wiretapping, net neutrality, copyright and public domain issues in software and hardware development, or what about the role of locally owned newspapers and radio stations in communities?  Hopefully so, but I’m not sure if the big media outlets would cover it.

RIP TV

I grew up with television. I started watching MTV when I was eight, which nowadays is not that unusual, except that I was eight in 1983. I remember vividly the first time I saw a Depeche Mode video and though I didn’t have the words to articulate this, the experience, ‘blew my mind’. However, despite my early formative relationship with television (and cable tv) I have since come to feel that television has strong addictive qualities and can be a huge time suck. However, since I study media and the role of journalism in our democratic society, it’s important that I keep up with what’s happening with television.

I’m not a fan of activists saying just get rid of your television, “kill your television” as Ned’s Atomic Dustbin said so many years ago. This tactic assumes that people have recovered from their addictions to television, and makes activists seem quite irrelevant. I’ve always found it more useful to actually be able to engage people about television, media, news and one of the ways to do that is to know what’s happening on television.

Thus the problem, because I don’t have a television. So when I was wanting to watch the presidential debates, I could listen to them on the radio, but it’s the DEBATES – a television event. Remember the impact of the Nixon/Kennedy televised debate, poor old pasty Nixon was unprepared for the impact the visual medium would have upon voters & viewers perceptions. So where’s a poor graduate student to go to keep up with the television content of the day? Well, I have invested in a high speed DSL connection at home, so I look to the internet to find content. Recently, I discovered Hulu, a video streaming collaboration sponsored by companies like NBC, MSNBC, Yahoo, MySpace, etc. Perhaps because I was living in Canada the last few years, I missed this new video development (you can only access content if you live or are accessing servers from the United States). But I am most excited about the potential for watching television content related to politics. You can watch live tv coverage from NBC of the debates or access full movies (like the karate kid!). There’s some serious questions about this new model of content distribution that I’m interested in learning more about. Here’s some initial questions I’ve thought about:

If this model is advertising supported, does this mirror people’s experience with analog television? I watched the Karate Kid last night and about 5 -7 times there were commercial breaks but the entire movie was available (unlike when you watch the edited for TV version).

When the model first appeared, it was going to be a pay for use model, but the video files were DRM (digital rights management) which meant that you couldn’t watch the videos after 7 days. It seems that this choice has been changed because as streaming site, you can just watch the videos for free (with advertising). Hulu was framed as a challenge to Apple’s itunes, how has this played out?

Are people using this platform? Is it simply another attempt by old media companies to figure out how to navigate the new world of digital content within the old advertising supported model?

How does this model figure into the discussions/negotiations of last year’s writers strike, of which a major point of contention was over digital content and profits. What about Miro? Peer 2 peer networks and people’s resistance to advertising?

Advertising and the internet – I’m very interested in how the model of a for-profit internet becomes naturalized in people’s minds. Hula and other new developments encourage this, yet, I’m not sure I’ve got solutions for how media content will continue to be made with out the profits from advertising. I’m interested in hybrid models – how we could have public investment into key aspect of our media culture and environment – like newsrooms, media literacy programs, cultural work – but also having space for those organizations that want to have an advertising supported programing.

While this post is a bit rambling, I plan to keep wandering through these and other questions. So to close, while i killed my television many years ago, I haven’t cut of my ties to the content of television. And since television and the internet content are increasingly one and the same, I wonder if we’ll soon have songs about turning off your spectrum access.

Watching the debates

The debate tonight is on, but without a TV, where will I watch it?  I’ll be trolling around the Internet seeing who’s streaming it.   Found a couple of great sites for analyzing the issues that potentially will be discussed in tonight’s debate.  Glad the candidates are actually debating, because being the president means managing more than one thing at once.  Look for more links about the debates and media’s role in managing the messages (and the messengers).

Salutations.

Beginning this blog as an attempt to consolidate my thoughts about graduate school, media research, social justice movements and the occassional tree octopus.   Future posts will be far more interesting than this one, I’m positive.  But to throw some things in the mix, how about what does it mean to blog if I can post anything really through f_book or rupert murdock’s space?  What’s the difference between a vlog and a very active youtube account?  Am I now a media maker b/c I’m blogging or am I just expanding my digital footprint?  What’s a digital footprint anyways?