The Big One...

Media Today, Media Tomorrow: A Brighter Future?

Or

Why This Blogger Isn’t a Complete Cynic

Mass Media can and does function according to certain models. Surprisingly, how each of them work can be very interesting, even to those not obsessed with C-SPAN. Media in our own country also adheres to a particular model. Whether the model our media uses is a positive one or not can be debated, but right now it exists and is what we have to work with. Fresh on the scene however, is a brand new type of media called New Media, which exists primarily on the internet, rather than Old Media which exists primarily on television, radio, and in newspapers. Mass Media does have problems, but those problems could potentially be solved with this new phenomenon of New Media. Although still a fledgling tool, New Media is becoming more and more popular, more and more important, and could have the power to change the way our Mainstream Media system works, as well as our entire political system, for the better.

There are essentially six models of media systems: Reporters of Objective Fact, Neutral Adversary, Public Advocate, Profit Seeker, Propagandist, and the “Alexis de Tocqueville” model. Each of the six has its strengths, as well as its weaknesses. By examining each one, we can hopefully come to a reasonable conclusion about which model we are using and where we would like to see ourselves in the future. (For a more concise description of each of the models, see Jan E. Leighly’s Mass Media and Politics pages 9-13. The following descriptions of each model are all based primarily on Leighly’s descriptions.)

The first model given, “Objective Fact,” would be wonderful except that it is extremely unrealistic to ever think something objective will ever exist. To be honest, it sounds kind of boring as well (sorry C-SPAN). The problem is that simply by choosing which facts are important enough to report on, the average editor, journalist, producer, or even the reader of a newspaper paper places his own “spin” on the news, and it is almost impossible to remove one’s own bias from any part of the media process. As we learned in class, almost everyone tries to fit new knowledge and information into an already constructed framework of what he or she believes to be true. As a result, truth and reality often become distorted. As amazing as it would be to have the entire world knowledgeable about everything (and caring about everything) in a truly objective manner, it just is not going to happen. Sad but true, this model will probably never become the model with which we live by.

What we function with nowadays is unfortunately a mixture of two of the latter models mentioned, Profit Seeker and Propagandist. These models are plagued with problems that make your typical political Blogger want to just...cry. Certainly lacking objectivity, often times they even lack news! Instead of important issues, the Profit Seeker model cares most about the company that owns it and the shareholders invested in that company. So if “TomKat’s” baby is what will draw viewers instead of the thousands dying in the Sudan, then we’ll get to see TomKat’s cute baby. (Her name is Suri by the way and she happens to be quite cute…just, thought I’d mention that. I know, a vein is bulging in C-Doc's forehead...lol.) There are small benefits to the Profit Seeker model and even news that isn’t really news can sometimes be a good thing. No, seriously. Check this out AND this out. And for a nice post about (sigh) the whole Jon Benet thing and more, check out polisci lover's blog here.

The saddest part of the Profit Seeker model is two-fold. Firstly, it is a mistake to think that our own idealism economically, should necessarily carry over to the way our media functions. Just because Capitalism works for economics (and let’s not forget, there are still problems with Capitalism) doesn’t mean it works for media. It sounds wonderful to us as Americans, champions of Capitalism, but in actuality, it is a recipe for disaster when more people know the name of TomKat’s baby than know what the difference is between a Sunni and a Shiite. (This article appeared in the NYTimes, but in order to link to it entirely through them, you have to pay for Times Select, so here it is elsewhere.)

This is who we are though...I mean, truthfully, what would you rather see?

Cute Baby?

Or Thousands starving and dying?

The second (and far sadder part of this system) is the idea that it gives us what we want...and what we want is to know how Jessica Simpson’s throat is doing and that Lance Bass of N’SYNC is gay, (First of all, COME ON, everyone knew he was gay...how is this news? Second of all, HOW IS THIS NEWS? No, I won’t give you the satisfaction of a link…as much as you truly care...) instead of for example, oh, how our own friends and family are doing in Afghanistan. When was the last time any of us really heard about Afghanistan anyway? (Oh right, that war...) It shows a true lack of sympathy, empathy, and simple caring about our brave men and women who are supposedly risking their lives for us. It’s sick and we as Americans should be ashamed about what makes it onto our airwaves. The Profit Seeker model barely educates the viewers about what is going on in the world. The only way this model would be perfect is if the people wanted to see just news, where it would turn into the Objective Fact model, which probably won’t ever happen.

Additionally, the people don’t completely determine what gets on the air. It is determined by the big companies (Viacom, Disney, General Electric, etc) who own (sigh) everything. We even have insane laws that help these big companies monopolize and control everything on television - deregulation. As we learned in class, and through readings of McChesney, all of radio and television have been bought up by big companies under the umbrella of the National Broadcasting Association. The people don’t really have a say in what they really want to see, all they have a say in is whether they like or dislike things being shown to them. Scary as this may seem, the cable and phone companies want to do the same thing with our internet, which the maintain is on “their pipes.” Check out The End of the Internet here.

However, the worst by far is the Propagandist model. Granted we don’t function purely with the Propagandist model, but propaganda is everywhere in our media. No matter where we turn, be it Internet, TV, Radio, Newspapers, Magazines, we can find mud-slinging, name-calling, distortion of the truth, and countless ads and shows filled with manipulating methods—often by leaving out multiple facts and providing only the facts that support the advertiser’s argument and by appealing to emotion and often fear—to get us to do things we don’t really want to do. (In class we spoke especially about abortion ads, typically appealing to emotion with horrid pictures. Check out C-Doc’s post…if you dare.) It’s deceptive and sleazy and our media is polluted with hours and hours of this garbage. Propagandist models of media are often what lead people to commit atrocious acts and was in fact the media model used in Germany during World War II. It is terrible. Check out the German Propaganda Archive here.

Some nice examples of propaganda, taken from CrankyDoc:

Propaganda can also swing an election. Check out the famous “Daisy Ad” here that helped LBJ become our 36th President. However, one thing to keep in mind, is that propaganda is a tool, and just like a gun could be used to shoot a terrorist, or alcohol can be used responsibly, so can propaganda. For example, for all those lives saved by propagandist commercials about seatbelt wearing, we should be thankful that there is a method that appeals to fear and emotion instead of logic, when logic is disregarded or misunderstood.

But don’t worry, the world is not completely evil! Two more positive models (and a third we’ll leave for last) do exist: Neutral Adversary and Public Advocate. Both of these models have extremely positive aspects and should be partially what we try to strive for. The Neutral Adversary model is when media is an additional check on government’s actions. Everything politicians do is under a microscope and if they do something wrong, the media tells the world about it and people can speak up and take action (Mark Foley for example). The Public Advocate model differs in that besides for just exposing government’s flaws, it actively pursues a mission to educate the public and strives for their participation in politics and self-government. It is enlightening, informative, it acts as a watchdog, and it is even entertaining. The most important aspect is this communication of crucial and useful information to the public.

Last (but certainly not least) is our model of extreme goodness, the model to end all models, to make life complete, whole, and wonderful…the model that God himself would probably prefer (well, I guess it depends who’s God…maybe not Karl Rove’s): the Tocqueville model. Think of it as "Neutral Adversary and Public Advocate Plus." Here, everyone has access to all important information. Here, everyone can exchange information and communicate with one another, openly and freely. Here, the citizen is educated properly and sufficiently enough to function in a true democracy. Here, voters are unified and turned into a community, instead of remaining isolated individuals. This model makes the democracy as democratic as it can possibly be, and the main point behind it is the accessibility factor. Media needs to be accessible. Turning on the TV, Radio, and having a paper delivered to your door, is what it is all about! However, access to information can’t only be measured here, but also by how easily it is to read, understood, and how easily one can find the information one needs to be educated. Television and Newspapers have a format they adhere to, which makes them extremely easy to grasp. Truthfully, if we could have this model, our country and the world would be a completely different and a much more amazing place. Perhaps food would taste better, air would smell sweeter, and the Messiah would come…ok, lets not get ahead of ourselves, but at least elections would be more meaningful than this video makes them out to be.

BUT, alas, we don't have this model. So how can we work to change our media for the better? It seems utterly hopeless. Big companies control everything. They have more resources and so how can we compete? How can we contribute and change the media scene to be one where we all are actively participating, educated, and involved?

The answer may lie in the phenomenon of New Media. New Media is media that exists on the internet. Podcasts, forums, blogs, internet television and radio, are all becoming real sources and outlets for real…well, not objective news per say, but real hard-core watchdogs and checks on the MSM. It is probably our main source of criticism and interaction with MSM. Unfortunately, New Media alone does not hold up to the Tocqueville model of media for a few reasons, and for anyone to say that it is the answer to all of our prayers would probably cause Tocqueville to turn in his grave. (Just for fun, heres a pic.) The first is accessibility. Not accessibility in the sense that a person can’t access something (anyone with a computer and an internet connection can access New Media), but in the sense that the internet is polluted with garbage. Unlike MSM which has a format, New Media is completely unorganized. The only way to find out about a site is through word of mouth or Google...or to already be someone who cares enough about politics. There is no advertising for The Daily Kos on billboards as you walk down Broadway and people on the street and in their daily lives don't talk about these things...but we pointed out in class how there is an advertisement for the New York Times even on The Daily Kos. But getting back to the whole "organization" thing. For example, newspapers are arranged in such a way that everything is easily organized and understandable, usually with sections, letters, and numbers. News channels have scheduled programming throughout the day. But the internet and New Media is one, big, unorganized mess where everyone writes whatever they want, there is complete anonymity, and to a certain extent, complete anarchy. It is so vast that things are just impossible to find. Sadly, no one will ever read this paper because odds are no one will ever find it (and even if they did, they still wouldn’t read it because they don’t know who I am and they don’t care). Unless this blog became The Daily Kos (and I know we did compare the two on the last day of class...jk, I admit, I'm not certainly not there...yet), few people would pay attention to it, besides a few people in class, some anonymous trolls trying to post links in my comment sections for porn, and you C-Doc.

Secondly, New Media doesn't necessarily provide for a true exchange of ideas. Often times people will subscribe to a particular blog that fits their viewpoint. If they are lefties, they'll look at a left-wing blog. If they are righties, they'll look at a right-wing blog. Many times you'll see on numerous blogs like Little Green Footballs comments like, "Right on!" which are completely meaningless. Better Know a Noble had a great piece about this.

But New Media's biggest problem is that it usually isn’t even news, but rather commentary. In Israel, the word for people who use New Media and communicate through it is “Talkbackim” – which is extremely appropriate, check this out. They don’t provide news or make news, they simply TALK BACK. Its a check or commentary on MSM. Bottom line, New Media is not a distinct entity from MSM. Bloggers don’t make their own news or report themselves – all they do is blog about things that MSM reported on! True, there are exceptions like Mosaic, a cool broadcast of news pieces from over 22 countries around the Mid-East. But in general, New Media proves that MSM “can’t tell us what to think,” but they seem to be doing an awfully good job at telling us “what to think about.”

However, “professionals” in New Media are beginning to get air time on MSM and even correspondents and newsmen on MSM are beginning to keep blogs, so there is certainly an interaction and overlap. For more of an idea of how they overlap, check out this.

A big plus to New Media however, is that producers and programmers pay attention to the internet. The same way people complain, ask for, or advise what should be on a television sitcom, the internet is an outlet for them to do this with news…and people listen. Writers and producers will take this sentiment and apply it back to their television shows…and producers, journalists, editors, and writers will do the same thing for news programming. All we have to do is look at the phenomenon that surround shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The O.C. on the internet for (strange as this may sound) hope for change in our media. Just as millions of people complain about Buffy’s going off the air (and in fact, start real cults around the show) or complain about Marissa’s death and producers notice, so too the talkbackim (or our new American word, the “pajamahadeen”) will also be paid attention to.

So blogs and the internet have become a place of watchdogs. New Media is the watchdog model. But, as explained before, it is really the watchdog model of the MSM, not even of politicians. Now with the sheer amount of participation, the sheer amount of blogs, trolls, and the suggestion for laws that could censor how and what we post, New Media may even lose it’s ability to do that well. Its wonderful that people get to speak their mind and every now and then get heard, and New Media has proven to have a lot of Tocquevillian aspects, but without regulation, it lacks the Tocquevillian requirements of true accessibility or unification, in that it is so hard to really sift through things, or people simply find their niche and stick with it.

New Media is a step in the right direction. It has the potential to be an amazingly powerful tool, but only if we use it properly. If we abuse it and make it into the mess that it is becoming, it will not only have failed in its mission but it could possibly make the entire media scene even worse. If we start having actual news on New Media, if we start talking about issues that MSM won't touch, and if we stop posting garbage everywhere, then New Media can become an incredible force for good in the world. It has the power to change things for the better. Let’s make sure that it does.

ITS F--KING EVERYWHERE!

Ok, just thought I'd give people a heads up if they ever came across anything like this. I received an email saying that I had a comment on a post in September. It was anonymous. So I opened it up and it was...insane. It seems someone was really hoping I would publish their comment...but their comment was an advertisement with links for all sorts of porn. Honestly, I knew sex was EVERYWHERE in our society and the internet is filled...but that it has come to a point where people are probably running bots to get other people to post comments with links for it........uch. The one thing I can be thankful for is that its MY blog and I get to click "post" or not...and this whole incident really made me happy in my control over my space online. Anyway, gl on ur papers...
--SI

Political Protest, Holocaust Denial - Plus a special farewell

Coherency is slightly off...but I'm not even sure if we had to blog today anyway...so just put up with it!

In today's post I'd actually like to discuss protesting and the protest supported by YUPAC which I was notified about through the email that Avi sent out. I think Avi does amazing work and a part of me truly hopes to be as involved and active as he is one day. However, I'd like to question the effectiveness of protesting, or perhaps, if there is a particular way to protest effectively.
Two examples immediately come to mind that illustrate protesting to be successful...and to not seem to help at all. As many of us heard, Ahmanijad was invited to speak at Columbia. (Whether he was ever planning on actually attending and security issues aside...) I seem to recall making our voices heard and...Ahmanijad never spoke at Columbia. Success!
However, if protesting is so effective, what happened with the war in Iraq? MILLIONS of people protested all over the world and here in America about going to war in Iraq. Most of the U.N. was against it. In fact, we needed to go ahead and get together a "Coalition of the Willing." (People do remember this right?) And yet, the protesting was completely ineffective and we entered Iraq anyway.
One can only wonder how effective the protest against Iran's Holocaust Denial will be...or was...or...has anyone actually heard any news about it? Anyone know how many people showed up?? Anyone heard if Iran even said anything?
Honestly, I know Avi and the protesters meant well, and no offense...but I kind of feel like...what's the point here? You can't protest something like this. It has no effect. Imagine if you were on the street getting beaten up for being Jewish and you stood there trying to explain why anti-Semitism is wrong, or why the guy shouldn't be beating you...not going to be too effective, is it? Certainly screaming at him that he's wrong is not going to be too effective. There is not "talking" or "reasonable discourse" here, and protesting just seems to perpetuate that even further. This in essence becomes a shouting game, "The Holocaust didn't happen!" "Yes it did!" "No it didn't!" "Yes it did!" "No it didn't!" I just think a protest like this is completely pointless and the approach is childish. We have museums, monuments, pictures, stories, videos. Iran doesn't care if we're screaming "No it didn't happen!" They're going to talk about history, science, photography, computer imaging, Zionist plots...and us screaming, "You're wrong!" is just...idk, it doesn't seem like the right way to fight in this instance. We should be having our own THE HOLOCAUST DID HAPPEN exhibition!
What makes certain protests more effective than others? I'm not really sure. Maybe that should have been a topic this semester...protesting and the media...or something like that.

Anyway, being this is my last post before the final, I would just like to say thank you to CrankyDoc, its been great, and even though I'm not taking any courses with him next semester, (sorry sir, I guess Daves and Luders are just cooler than you) I look forward to more classes in the future. I'd also like to wish everyone working on "the project" a lot of luck...I'll be there too, doing whatever. Anyway, I feel like I got a lot out of the class...and this was what college should be - fun, informative, and an appropriate amount of work.

Tikshoret - Our Class and Israeli Media

Tik Tikshoret

I am truly sorry this was not made with subtitles. However, it is perfect for our class and I really felt needed to be posted. For those who understand, wonderful. For those who dont, I hope my explanation is useful.

Basically what is being discussed is a very stupid law that came out against the "amount of words that 'Talkbackistim' (bloggers) can post on different sites." In our class, we've experimented with personal blogs. However, in Israel certain blogs like walla, nrg, and ynet are EXTREMELY popular. These websites are filled with political activity and function more like forums than blogs. Israelis are also extremely active on MSM's websites like Haaretz and Yediot Acharanot using "forum style" participation more often than personal blogs.

The law is essentially an empty law that states that people can't post more than 100 words in any given article/post on certain sites. The discussion taking place is a little bit about this law, but also about the effects of blogging in Israeli media. Both of the people speaking are against the law. However, the guy on the left, Rogel Alper (with hair lol), who writes for Maariv, maintains that blogs are decent at best, but that blogs and forum websites are really just filled with garbage, lies, (perhaps even libel) and that we need some kind of control over who posts what. He maintains that they are an important connection and outlet for us to use and communicate with. Yet, he still feels that to avoid trolls and idiots and other people posting absolute crap, that we need to have some sort of rules.

The guy on the right, Yuval Dror (no hair) writes for Yediot Acharonot and maintains that just as people should have the freedom to write whatever they want, people have the freedom to look away. If a person thinks all this stuff is full of crap, then dont read it! He specifically thinks that anonymity is a great thing especially for those who are too afraid to speak and want to be out in the public forum - shouldn't they also have the right to speak?

Btw, my favorite line was from Yuval Dror when says (paraphrasing into English), "Before, the way media worked was that one person said something and everyone sat and listened. We live in a new age now where everyone has computers and people can talk back." Anyway, its 6 minutes long, check it out.

Trans-fats...We barely knew thee...

"The New York City Board of Health voted yesterday to adopt the nation’s first major municipal ban on the use of all but tiny amounts of artificial trans fats in restaurant cooking, a move that would radically transform the way food is prepared in thousands of restaurants, from McDonald’s to fashionable bistros to Chinese take-outs."--NYTimes

For those who are unaware, the big debate about this, is really why should the government have any kind of involvement in regulating this type of thing? On one side, there are those who say that by legislating the amount of trans-fat usage in food, it will bring about a wave of health over the city. Trans-fats have been linked to heart-disease and other really not cool stuff.

But...so has smoking. When compared to the ban on smoking, this goes way over-board. Smokers are now not allowed to smoke in many parts of the city that are indoors. But given the proper age, they still have access to the product they want to infect themselves with. Alcohol is the same way. Many argue that if any restrictions should be placed on trans-fats, a person should still have the right--perhaps given the right age--to decide what he/she wants to eat. Still, many argue that even alcohol and cigarettes are hurting everyone by causing health insurance and life insurance premiums to go up. We're all in this boat together.

For those of us in YU (who keep kosher), this will also affect us. Its not just the fast food chains that use trans-fats. Often upscale (and crappy), kosher restaurants use them too. I eat at Golan all the time, I can only imagine what they use to fry their falafel in...Perhaps one day, the issue of trans-fats will come up in our own YU and Stern cafeterias. Maybe it already should have come up. At the moment we're so focused on the rip-offs and lousy food in the caf, often we forget that the salad we thought was so healthy, we're covering with salad dressing containing trans-fats. What do you think? What do you want to see done in the YU caf? Are things good the way they are? Do you want change?

CNN...becoming more like FOX???

According to the New York Times, CNN is becoming more like FOX...at least during Prime Time. The first thing they cite is Glenn Beck's oh so wonderful interaction with Keith Ellison (first Muslim to ever be elected to the House of Representatives) where he basically accuses him of possibly working with "the enemy" (OMG, watch the video, you will NOT be disappointed). I remember watching this live and honestly I was shocked. But then again, I guess I really shouldn't be. After all, CNN is an organization, wants to make money, and wants to put provocative and interesting stuff on their channel. Certainly taking a more hard line approach will get more viewers. People seem to love confidence, assuredness, and people seem to love FOX too...so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised when techniques from one station are borrowed and used at another. The sad thing is, this means basically less news on CNN instead of more bantering and BS - “from news to views,” in the words of Kenneth Jautz, the CNN executive in charge of the network. But I don't want views! I want news! Of course "Mr. Beck sees the separation between news and opinion at the network as absolute" - I guess that would make sense, when its YOUR OPINION on the air! Beck said, “I never thought I would be on CNN, Fox, MSNBC. I am not a journalist. I am a recovering alcoholic with A.D.D.,” he said. “I am closer to an average schmoe.” - wonderful...now I really, really want to watch.
Anyway, read the article and watch the video for yourselves...

Odd News - Good or Bad?

Earlier in the year we addressed what should be/is "newsworthy." Personally I think TomKat is great, as it seems to give CrankyDoc a place to vent lol - but in all seriousness, in a previous blog entry I addressed the possible positive aspects of celebrity "news" and how it draws viewers to the newspaper and to the real news as well. Instead of clicking about Jessica Simpson, a person might accidentally click the link about something to do with Iran. But besides for celebrity stuff, there is a HUGE section of news that we dont really pay much attention to: Odd News. Yahoo has a great section of it and articles about the odd, strange, mysterious, weird, crazy, and just plain nuts are found throughout many of our daily papers, (not just the tabloids who make up stuff about a race of Martian-Eskimo love children).

So, what about it??? Well, perhaps its a waste of time to read about a man who tried to hide a guitar in his pants, or a man accused of spray-painting three goats (click it! click it! you KNOW you want to!!!) - but perhaps this gives us a real close look at a slice of our nation that we would otherwise be completely unaware of. Knowing the ridiculous about ourselves, who we are, what we do (like IHOP requiring ID before being seated - omg click it, u have nothing better to do), and the types of lives we live are important aspects of knowing what our country and the people in it are all about. Every now and then we get a great article in the odd news that otherwise might not make it into the paper, often very important things, like how America STILL has not changed their currency to be helpful to the blind and visually impaired! Also, perhaps Odd News even helps remind us of our own level of sanity...

So not only do I think Odd News is fun, but I encourage everyone to take a glance at it every now and then. Dont do it just because you're bored, do it because you want to know more about the people around you and be truly aware of the world you live in.