New Media, Old Media

New Media, Old Media

Sometimes it seems as though the favorite stories of newspaper editors are those about the impeding end of the newspaper business. It appears to be generally accepted that the way of the future is cable news shows and online, fast-streaming news, free or otherwise.
The problem with the switch Americans have essentially already made to online news is the true downfall of new media: it gives Americans what they want- exactly what they want- instead of what they really need. Cable and network shows cater to the wants of Americans, providing scandalous celebrity stories and airy fluff pieces. On the internet, the people are the station editors- they can choose Perez Hilton over CNN, Hulu instead of Paul Krugman. Today, no one is keeping Americans informed. For the first time, everyone has other options than just the news, and, subsequently, news shows and sites struggle as Americans become less informed.

The Huffington Post, the brainchild of Arianna Huffington, is, for many people, the biggest symbol of new media on the web. But even her site- widely respected as a news source- understands that to survive today, you've got to give people what they want, not just what they need. To be fair, the Huffington Post is probably one of the best at mixing the two, creating a site that not only has pop culture and the news equivalent of MacDonalds, but also one that offers commentary from the leading political minds on important issues. So some junk food in the media isn't bad- you just don't want to consume it exclusively.
Varied media sources are important, and there's nothing wrong with celebrity news sites like TMZ. It's just that, in the past, the 'TMZ'-eque stories were in papers that also provided hard news and expert commentary.
And media junk food isn't always what people think it is. Americans seem to think that commentary in the media- anything ranging from Glenn Beck to Paul Krugman to Rachel Maddow- is bad. That is not the case. Commentary is OK for the media, in fact, it may even be good for it. Sections of the media that are opinion based and acknowledge to be so have been around for a very long time, starting with editorial and opinion pages of a newspaper. And, after all, what is television new commentary but a live op/ed page? As long as editorializing is saved for commentary programs, it isn't a downfall of new media, nor is it even really new.
The new media outlets are, in the long run, good for the news industry. They open new doors and new outlets for publications and make information available in a way it never was before. There are innumerable positives that come with the boom of new media and, if harnessed correctly, it could lead to a more informed public. Today, however, that is not yet happening. New media outlets- if they want to do their jobs- need to give people what they need, not just what they want.

[photo credit: micropersuasion.com]

Read more »

The Gores: Why We Care

The Gores: Why We Care

This evening, the leading story on CNN's political section of their news website was not one about the oil spill, or a Don't Ask Don't Tell opinion piece. Rather, the page was overwhelmed by a photograph of Al Gore and his (soon-to-be) ex-wife.

As announcements come out today that another of our nation's political power couples is breaking up, Americans are glued to the reports, just as they are for every other disintegration of a modern marriage or relationship, and the media continues to capitalize on our interest. For the last few years, the American media has enabled every bad habit of American consumers- our over-obsession with celebrity, our dismissal of important news, and our love for 'junk-food' information- the sort of news that feels good to read, but just is not good for the national conversation.
It is unreasonable for the top political story of the day to be about a high-profile divorce. This is simply a continuation of current media trends where the US news organizations put a strong focus on giving consumers what they want, rather than what they need. Sure, this means higher profit margins and happier consumers, but it also means less educated and less informed citizens participating in national politics.
Celebrity gossip doesn't have to disappear in order for the focus to go back to true news. It just needs to be a less prominent category for reporting, and news organizations must appreciate that it is their job to inform the public, not to please it.

Read more »

Friday Feature: Ugly Betty and Diversity

Friday Feature: Ugly Betty and Diversity

"This person- who looked like the 'other', who always seemed to be the 'other', not the one who was accepted... she was the one who was actually the heart and soul and really was the cornerstone of this life. You walk into any place, and you say to somebody, 'do you think you're really the right stuff?'... Nobody's going to say yes, in their heart of hearts." - Judith Light on Ugly Betty

Until last week's dramatic finale, Ugly Betty was the reigning champion of portraying diversity in characters and their diverse problems on television. There is Betty (America Fererra) and the rest of the Suarez family, all Mexican-Americans; Wilhelmina Slater (Vanessa Williams), the African-American Editor-in-Chief of Mode Magazine; and Mark, Slater's openly gay assistant. Betty's nephew, Justin (Mark Indelicato), also came out as openly gay during the show's final season. Other formally taboo subjects are tastefully approached by Betty's creators: Claire Meade (Judith Light)'s alcoholism, Daniel Meade (Eric Mabeus)'s over-sexualism and cult involvement, and Alex- or Alexis- Meade (Rebecca Romijin)'s sex-change operation, among others.

Ugly Betty is unfortunately unique in these portrayals. From news to reality or sitcoms, diversity in television is minimal, and contentious political issues, while more prevalent than in the past, are rarely shown. When these issues and characters are actually portrayed, they are nearly always stereotypical and often offensive. In the news media, diversity is rarely seen; most lead anchors are white men. The news status quo- Brian Williams, Larry King, the late Tim Russert, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, David Gregory, Anderson Cooper, Chris Matthews- are all white men, thereby keeping the news media in their hands.
Now that Ugly Betty is over, no show on television is giving a voice to minorities in the same way. Sure, shows like Glee and 30 Rock and Lost feature certain minority groups, but none do so to the same extent that Betty did. Maybe, in the future, someone else will take Betty's lead and look at the Ugly issues and at the people who are different.

Read more »

CNN

CNN

No matter your opinion on current media trends, it's hard to deny that opinions in the news have become increasingly polarized. From Keith Olbermann to Glenn Bleck, today's media is marked by strong personalities, outlandish statements, and serious convictions. Of all the top cable news stations, one has stayed out of the mudslinging game to a certain extent: CNN.
Which isn't to say the CNN is a perfect channel by any means. Their far-too-often forays into 'infotainment' and sensationalist tendencies certainly do them no favors, but CNN is definitely the farthest away from partisan programing.
However, now CNN's viewership has been almost cut in half. At ten o'clock, a rerun of 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' is beating the live CNN programing. The previously aloofly unpartisan channel has seem to finally fallen to its more polarizing counterparts. CNN executives are now discussing bringing on more outrageously oversized personalities in order to compete with MSNBC and Fox.
What does this mean for cable news? Well, cable news is certainly falling farther into the trap of giving consumers what they want rather than what they need. People like to hear talking heads reiterate their own opinions; they like to feel authenticated.
While the imminent opinion inflation on CNN's airwaves may be the best way to ensure higher viewership, it is not the most responsible way. As a major provider of information to Americans, it is the responsibility of CNN to report relevant and important stories in an impartial manner, and to present as many views as possible, at least if they continue to claim to do so.

Read more »

The Reality Candidate

The Reality Candidate

Scott Brown was a model; Al Franken was a comedian. Liberal blogger Mickey Kaus is planning to challenge three-term senator Barbara Boxer in California; noise has been made about a possible Glenn Beck run for office. Going all the way back to Ronald Reagan, our entertainers have been our politicians.

On one hand, entertainers who enter public office have unique abilities to connect with voters and are generally unprecedentedly skilled at pushing a message. People like Reagan are notorious for being popular with voters, and their show business backgrounds give them a certain celebrity that voters long for.
However, more and more instances of pre-made celebrity in candidates can have horrifying effects, in terms of policy.  Electing people who already have American fans outside of the political realm can turn elections into popularity contests and result in policy written by Paris Hilton-like media darlings.
Politicians who were originally elected for political reasons are not blind to the benefits of celebrity. Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his wife have appeared on a slew of reality shows after he left office, poising him to potentially move past his former ethical indiscretions and run for political office again. Tom Delay, the one-time Republican leader, appeared for a short run on ABC's Dancing With the Stars, seriously broadening his national name-recognition, although, at the same time, turning him into a talking show farce.
Becoming a reality show celebrity can be a cheap way for struggling politicians to win votes. However, stunts like these can lose them political points, and, in the long run, flood the American government with under-qualified, yet popular, pseudo-celebrities.

Read more »

Who Killed the Public Option?

Who Killed the Public Option?

It seems determined now, regardless of incessant complaints made by congressional Republicans and issues brought forth by liberal Democrats, that the Democratic caucus will attempt to pass both the original Senate bill in the House and a reconsolidated version in both the House and the Senate. Certain elements of health care reform are unable to be passed through reconciliation without sixty votes, for instance, the bill's language on abortions and the public option, as these are not directly related to the budget. Having a viable government-based competition and choice for consumers could have been the best received government program in years. A comprehensive public option would have provided insurance to most, if not all, uninsured Americans.
Who killed the public option? Who is to blame for the future and current absence of competition and protection? Ultimately, the blame lies with for specific groups: congressional Democrats, congressional Republicans, the Obama Administration, and the American media. These factions of American politics are in no way solely blamable for the loss of a useful and imperative government program, yet all contributed to its demise.

Congressional Democrats did not set their legislative aims high enough, were unable to control their caucus, and did not make an attempt to dominate the national debate. Additionally, at town halls Democrats did not respond to their constituants concerns in a manner that clearly explained the facts of the debate. All too willing to make fruitless compromises, Democrats consolidated their original ideals to please a few conservative members of their party and far too many disinterested Republicans.
Congressional Republicans, on the other hand, encouraged obstructionism and propagated misinformation, often through right-wing radical groups. Seemingly unwilling to compromise, few Republicans even engaged with Democrats during the critical stage of the bill being drafted, and none were willing to vote for it.
The Obama Administration, like the Democrats, were weak with their message and unsure of policy aims. By initially staying out of the debate, Obama appeared to have allowed Democrats to consolidate the bill to its current form.
Finally, the media assisted various groups by not checking facts, allowing the propagating of misinformation, and using loaded terms like 'socialism', 'Communism', and 'government takeover'. The media's purpose of unbiased reporting and the perennial fact-checker was not fulfilled, and reporters' public fact-mangling only led to further debate.
These groups are not alone. Others had heavy hands in the death of the public option, like the 'Tea Party', but it is these elected officials and trusted informants who are the most responsible.

Read more »

Friday Feature: Harry Potter and Darfur

Friday Feature: Harry Potter and Darfur

The most sucessful franchise of all time was based on a story of a boy wizard who, against all odds, was able to choose the morally correct choice and save his friends from a disturbingly evil threat. The insanely popular Harry Potter series makes allusions to worker's rights (Dobby the house elf), media bias (The Daily Prophet), corruption in government (The Ministry of Magic), minority treatment (Muggle-Born Registration Commission), and even more real-world equivalents.  Some Harry Potter fans are working to promote Harry's ideals of freedom and equality in the 'Muggle' (non-magical) world. 
The Harry Potter Alliance  is a group of fans who are committed to both the series and worldwide equality, and they have found a way to merge the two. The group is led by fandom leaders and well-known 'wizard rockers', and works for a variety of causes including the genocide in Darfur , restructuring of Rwanda, marriage equality, voter registration, education, media reform, and environmental causes.

Jo Rowling, the series' author, is a fan of the group. “I am honoured and humbled that Harry’s name has been given to such an extraordinary campaign, which really does exemplify the values for which Dumbledore’s Army fought in the books," she said. The HPA has released several iTunes podcasts to inform people- specifically Harry Potter fans- of why they personally need to fight. 
The group's Board of Directors includes Andrew Slack, Melissa Anelli, Matt Maggiacomo, and Seth Reibstien. 

Read more »

Is DC's Newseum Biased?

Is DC's Newseum Biased?

The Newseum's Media Giants Display

For a museum focusing on media and its affects, the issue of media consolidation is one that needs to be adressed. In the Newseum's News History room, where visitors can view many old and new newspapers and can read about various snippets of news history. In the far corner of the hall, there is a display talking about the five big media giants. However, only three of the six basic media conglomerates are featured in a negativly conotated list (seen above): General Electric (NBC), Walt Disney (ABC), and Viacom (who actually no longer owns CBS). Notably missing are News Corperation (Fox) and Time Warner (the last is CBS). There are blurbs on both Time Warner and News Corp., but neither are as negative as the reaching hands of the others.

To be fair, Time Warner does not own any television/news stations as major as the other five, and is mostly a movie group. However, News Corp. owns the most influential and widely watched cable news station and a highly popular network television station. Why isn't News Corp. included with the others? It may be worthy to note that this particular room was sponsered by News Corp., and that is says so in a nearly hidden plaque on the other side of the room.

Read more »

Friday Feature: Glee and Political Correctness

Friday Feature: Glee and Political Correctness

When your musical dramedy's characters are referred to as "wheelchair" "Asian" "other Asian" "gay kid" or "Aretha [Franklin]", you have jumped over the lines of political correctness. Fox's Glee is about as blunt and politically incorrect as a show on a mainstream channel can get- and American audiences love it. Glee is popular, critically acclaimed, and talked about- everything a news channel wants to be. News and news commentary, however, are traditionally politically correct and unbiased. Would moving the national conversation in Glee's direction- making it less politically correct- be a positive change for news media?

There would be less talk of elitists or the 'liberal media elite', certainly, and there may be a slight profit increase for some of the more sterile stations, because controversy sells. But would the loss of professionalism and respect be worth it? Fox News seems to have taken the jump, as its stars like Glenn Beck pride themselves in their blatant political incorrectness. "...the politically correct world we live in, a world where, you know, I can't even show a picture of a missing student because he's Egyptian, 'Oh, don't. What? You hate all Arabs?' No! It doesn't allow you to publicly talk about stereotypes or sensitive questions about age or race or religion. You can't even say anything about it or just ask an honest question," says Beck.

However, the insensitivity and unprofessionalness that would be projected by the media if they were to move towards a more Glee-esque conversation would be extraordinarily detrimental to America's image. The small financial gains would not outweigh the serious turn to bias and rudeness by the overall news media.

Read more »

Quote 12/8/09

Quote 12/8/09

Al Franken

“The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They're about getting ratings, about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover.”

Read more »

Media Consolidation

Media Consolidation

In 2007, Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), attempted to pass a regulation that would allow one news corporation to own all of the radio, TV, and newspapers in a city. “This legislation changes technical provisions but is simple in its message and effects,” said Rep. Dave Reichert. “We want local media to remain local, diverse and free.” Although this decision would benefit the big companies that produce the news, it would be a very negative change for the American people and American democracy. If the media is allowed to become further consolidated, it could limit the number of opinions and stories in the news, make it harder for small news companies to exist, and make already under-reported issues barely reported at all.
The passing of this legislation would limit the variety of opinions and stories available in the news. When a singular news corporation owns most or all of the news in a city, the decisions on what stories and what opinions are represented all come back to the head of that company. If you watch Fox News every evening, and read the New York Post every morning, you are reading and hearing stories that are decided on by one man, whose name is Rupert Murdoch. So, if there are opinions being voiced that Mr. Murdoch doesn’t agree with, he has the ability to not let them be reported on at all. "… Six huge conglomerates control everything, well, basically everything that you see, hear, and read,” says Matt Thompson, a media reform activist. If much of the news is controlled by these six companies, the diversity in the media opinions doesn’t really go beyond those voiced by those companies and what their owners believe. When more of the news outlets are owned by big corporations, small news companies have a harder time existing. For example, one radio company, Clear Channel, owns over nine percent of our nation’s radio. This may not sound like a lot, but it’s almost five states worth of radio. When that much radio is owned by a big corporation, it is hard for independent companies to get airtime. With the passing of the FCC’s legislation, more of the radio could be owned by large companies, effectively pushing smaller shows and stations off the air. The same effect could happen in the area of newspapers and TV networks. Another dangerous effect of the legislation would be the absence of under-reported stories in the news. Today, news corporations choose what to report on based on how many people would be interested in the story. This leaves other topics that don’t get main media attention to be reported on by smaller sources. “It’s like the thing you care the most about is the climate crisis… Media should really be your second issue, because ultimately, yeah, it’s gonna be difficult to make the kind of progress you want in your fight if you're not getting the kind of media attention you need,” says one contributor to the HP Alliance, a group the works with Stop Big Media, the organization that stopped the FCC’s legislation when they tried to pass it the first time around, in 2003. Since the legislation would allow big companies to own more media, the stories that need media attention will be receiving less and less.
Some people argue on the side of the corporations and say that the legislation will provide immediate help to corporations. “There’s a couple companies that have been pushing for this for a long time. One is the Tribune Company, which is the only corporation to own a newspaper and a broadcast television station in the three major markets: LA, New York and Chicago,” says Eric Klinenberg. Although this may help large corporations, it will hurt small companies who really need the help much more. Other people say that the corporations are doing a really good job reporting, so having them control more media is not a problem. Well, since the eighties, reporting on foreign news has decreased by eighty percent. The absence of foreign news has been replaced by sports, weather, and celebrity gossip. For example, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NBC, CBS, and ABC ran twelve times as many stories on Tom Cruise and fifty times as many stories on Michael Jackson in 2005 as they did on the genocide in Darfur. That would hardly be called responsible reporting.
This bill would have negative effects on American media and the American people. It would limit diversity of opinions in the media, make it harder for small news companies to exist, and make the under-reported stories that need attention barely relevant. Even though it may give quick benefit to big corporations that are already practically monopolizing the media, it would push out small companies that are reporting on stories and giving opinions that aren’t being voiced by the main media. Do you really want a few big companies to control everything you see and hear?

Read more »