Is Facebook taking over the world?

4 million people. What is this number? This is how many people visit Facebook every day. Isn't it crazy? Facebook has grown out to be a part of the every day life of millions of people. It feels like we have been using this website for many many years. Can you believe that before September 2006 Facebook did not even exist. Since then, this website has become a networking center for people who are trying to find jobs, also you can just look for you old classmate in high school and get in touch with anyone you want to. Not to mention that companies use it for advertising to reach a wider audience. So basically on Facebook you can start any kind of relationship; official and unofficial as well. Well you have probably known these, but I wonder if you know what I am going to tell you next.
FACEBOOK spread itself throughout the web. It extends social networking. How is it going to work? I read about this on cnn.com. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder and CEO announced the changes on April 21, 2010. It is all about the "Like" button, that we already know and use it pretty well on Facebook. However from now on you can meet this button all around the web, on sites such as Pandora or Yelp. What is going to happen, is that when you go on for example Pandora, a little pop up Facebook related thing will show up on the top of your screen. When you like a song on Pandora and click on the "like" button, it will automatically show up on your Facebook homepage. The purpose of this "like" buttons is that when you find something interesting and important on a website you can recommend it to a friend through Facebook.

Mark Zuckerberg calls this new invention the "Open Graph", that connects not only people but their interests too towards different fields, such as music, news, food, etc. On his Facebook blog page he said: "we are making it so all websites can work together to build a more comprehensive map of connections and create better, more social experiences for everyone. We have redesigned Facebook Platform to offer a simple set of tools that sites around the web can use to personalize experiences and build out the graph of connections people are making."



Facebook reaches far with this new Open Graph idea, trying to get as many websites as they can to co-operate with them. They are launching with more than 30 content partners, including The New York Times, Yelp, the music site Pandora, ESPN and the Internet Movie Database. CNN.com also is a partner. However what do you think, how far Facebook can go? Is it going to be the biggest and most collaborated website among all? Would you take advantage of this application and let people know what music you listen to or what news you are interested in?

Klaudia

From faces, to voices, to screens

Ok, so I don't think that the media are evil, but they certainly shape the way that we communicate with each other. It all began with face-to-face communication, something not really mediated by a medium of media. Then fast-forward many years and eventually we get the telephone; we now have the ability to communicate across long distances with airwaves and hear people's voices. Then came cell phones, which provide us the opportunity to talk no matter where we are, without a cord.

Text messaging began in the 1990s; with this technology we have the ability to type up messages, or film videos or take pictures, and send them to other via our cell phones. When text messaging first came to be  there was a very small number of people using the technology; but, now, according to BBC News, text messaging actually surpasses the amount of phone call conversations, for teens.

A recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project has found that over 30% of teens text more than 100 times a day! The study also found that teenagers prefer to text friends over calling them because texting can be, "carried out under the noses of parents, teachers, or other authority figures." So, text messaging does offer a bit more privacy and freedom, which are both highly revered by adolescents.

I am not incredibly surprised by these statistics, though, because I have seen the mass popularity of text-messaging first hand; as a college student I see peers text messaging constantly before classes, after classes, and during classes. However, I do think that text messaging has radically changed the way in which we communicate as a society. One of the important ways technology affects us, that we need to recognize  according to Media Society, is through time and space. You see, text messaging has reshaped our view of time; I believe it has only further fueled our desire for fast-paced information and satisfaction. I have only to think that I want to ask a friend what page our homework was on and I can get an immediate response, usually within 5 minutes and even that is long for us today. I think this ability to acquire knowledge and communicate quickly is a blessing and a curse, because it can foster a nasty habit of impatience and actually even a constant sense of anxiety.

Another way technology, and texting in particular, has transformed our society is by teaching us as individuals new ways of communicating and even new manners of talk about things. Media Society references Birkerts, who argues that, "new modes of communication require new ways of receiving and reacting to the content of those communications." I find this statement to be incredibly true in my personal life because I can remember countless times when I have either worried about the content of a text message that I write being misunderstood, because there are no voice inflections or facial expressions for the receiver to use to decode the message, or I worry that I may improperly perceive someone's message myself. Also, text messaging has transformed the way we talk about subjects because it has been a part of creating a new vocabulary, which can be referred to as "textese" or "text speak". The "language" consists primarily of abbreviated words, but these abbreviations and variations have actually trickled into mainstream society conversations, which include face-to-face and over the phone.

I guess the element that concerns me is not the texting itself, but the idea that we may eventually become more inclined to converse via typing on a keyboard and looking at a screen, instead of having face-to-face interactions. I am pretty sure that many have voiced this concern over time, but I would challenge you all out there, and our amazing dedicated readers, to consider how much time you spend looking at your phone.

Do you check it even when it hasn't rung?

Do you check for messages or texts while you are having a conversation,

or hanging out, with someone else in person?

Think about it because, without realizing it, you may be pushing aside some face-to-face relationships.

Don't make your phone a priority! You can survive without, trust me; I lost my phone 2 weeks ago and I am doing ok ha ha.

Cristi

Influence

Tv, newspaper, Internet, Radio. In one word MEDIA. We all use and get informations from some type of media. Needless to say that the more we are dependent on them, the more we are influenced by them. This time, I am going to write this post based on something different than an article. I found a video on Youtube that portrays how mass media influences the audience. The video shows a robot woman, coming out of a box with a human face and watching Tv. However as the Tv programs change, a picture of a woman's face shows up with different features and make ups. As the viewer woman sees the changes, she changes her features as well in a way to look the same as the face on the screen.



What does this short video want to imply? It suggests that the society is influenced by what it sees on Tv, Internet, or reads in the newspaper. In my mass media class, we learnt that the media do not tell you what to think but definitely tell you what to think ABOUT. According to the media portrayals we judge people, believe in one thing and not in another thing. Not to mention that we usually buy and eat those things that are advertised to be good. Women dress and try to look similar to women they see in magazines. There are several effects the audience is exposed by the media. As I read in one of our class readings, called Joseph Dominick: Social Effect of Mass Communication, media can affect the viewers' behaviors, attitudes, and views as well. However when a child becomes more violent we cannot blame only the media itself. When we hear about violent children and that they start sexual life early, most people's first suspect is the media. They would say "It is happening because the media contain to many violence and sexual pictures." They are wrong, although not completely. Media do cover a lot of those topics but the audience's behavior depends on many other factors, such as their gender, family background, education, race, culture and who they are surrounded by. So basically media don't change anyone, however is one reason why someone might change.

This video is really simple but I found it really interesting as it leads us to an important point. The media do have a smaller or bigger effect on us. At the end the woman wants to get closer and closer to the screen, but her structure does not let her to go farther, so she breaks. I feel like this means, that the audience cannot always control or handle those influences they are exposed to. Let me show you some examples: eating disorders in women, behavior or personality disorders. By trying to be or act like those people in the media, we might lose our own identity and our life just falls out of our hands.

What do you think about this video? Do you like it or maybe don't like it?
Have you ever done something because you got convinced by the media, but then you realized that you had made a bad decision?

Klaudia

All of Those Tweets and No Money

If you think of some of the biggest and most popular social websites today you may think of, Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter. But, according to an article I found on trueslant.com, there was one thing that set apart Twitter from all of the other websites names. Twitter was not making any money. That’s four years with millions of users, and billions of “tweets”, and no income to show for it. So, how do you make money off of a website anyway? The same way TV shows make money, by advertising. Anyone who has a Facebook or MySpace account knows that its common to see advertisements for different random things off to the side of the screen, but not Twitter. At least, not until now. Starting soon there will be, two kinds of advertising on Twitter, promoted Tweets inside search results and promoted Tweets inside users’ streams. Hopefully this new advertisement will bring in some money for the popular website.

Then I found this article, I could not believe that something as big and popular such as Twitter was not making any money somehow. Its extremely rare to find any form of media that is not making money. It was only natural for the website to look toward advertisement as a source of income. In the book, Media Society, by David Croteau and William Hoynes, they mention how the TV industry is run off of advertisements. A show cannot be put on the air unless a certain amount of companies buy advertisement in throughout the show. Seeing how everything is moving toward the internet, its seems ideal for websites to adapt that same mentality. Many websites started using commercials, others used ads. Some of the websites that did this include, Hulu, Youtube, and Facebook. This is what have made these some of the most successful websites in the past couple of years.

You really cant blame Twitter for wanting to make money after for years with no profit. A popular website like that should not have a problem with finding companies to advertise on their website. The company knows that millions of people will see their advertisement a day. It is a good investment for any company and it’s a perfect way for Twitter to bring in some income. As I have said in previous blogs, I personally do not use Twitter, but I acknowledge the fact that its is one of the most popular websites ever, and I am glad they have finally decided to make some money.

Links:http://trueslant.com/kylebrady/2010/04/14/the-failure-of-twitter/

David S.

Different Perspectives the Media Uses

So, usually what we are supposed to do is find an article and write a summary and then tie in our course material and personal opinion. Well, I've been having a hard time finding a particular article to write about so I'm going to do something a little different and hope I don't receive a failing grade... so here it goes!

In my favorite class today with my favorite professor (media with Professor Kevin Maness), we learned about some pretty interesting things such as Gerbner and the Cultivation Theory and the "active audience." The active audience is when the reader affects media messages that are sent. We then learned about different media perspectives that the media uses. The only one that we were able to cover was "uses and gratifications." Uses and gratifications is broken down into five aspects: cognitive, affective, tension release, personal integrative, and social integrative. As we were going over the points in class, I find if funny how scarily true every point was and got a kick out of it. I could not help but think about magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Us Weekly,People, and many more.

1. Cognitive

This means learning the "how to's" and the "I go here to learn about/do...." Especially Cosmo, this is full of how to do everything from make-up to fashion to.... let's just say, many different ways of exploring what do to with your significant other. The magazine and online edition is filled with aritcles on how to wear your hair for the upcoming season and quizzes to see if you are way too picky when it comes to guys.

2. Affective

This refers to emotional satisfaction. For example, when I am in a happy mood, I tend to listen to "happy" music and when I'm sad, I want to listen to depressing music to make me even more sad (tell me you don't do that too). Grabbing one of these magazines could help with putting me into the mood of motivation. Hear me out! On Usmagine.com, there is an article on Kim Kardashian wearing no make-up. This article already has over 100 comments within a span of a few hours. Take a look. Doesn't she look "normal" as in, you have gone out looking like that and/or have seen others look like this? I know I have done this. This pictures confirms that even if you make millions of dollars doing nothing, you still look like everyone else.

3. Tension Release

The term is pretty self-explanatory - it means relaxation. Magazines and their online addition are forms of entertainment and relaxation. What could be more relaxing than reading People magazine at Starbucks or just sitting in the sun reading up on celebrity babies and Lady Gaga telling her fans 'don't have sex' (oh please Gaga, stop digging yourself a deeper hole....)?

4. Personal Integrative

This concerns people finding help with issues of personal identity. This is why these kinds of magazines are selling because women are trying to find their identity through famous people by mimicking what they wear, where they live, what they drive, and many other aspects of living.

5. Social Integrative

This is the same as personal integrative but, obviously,deals with society and not individuals. These magazines tells people that we need to worry about petty things like who is dating who, how to get a guy, how to tell your friend she just does not look good in that shirt, and so much more. It's almost as if it's more crucial to know if Lady Gaga is really a girl than... world hunger.

So, here's my different blog and I hope you liked the mix up... especially my professor and

the TA's. This may be my last post and I would like to thank all of my faithful readers. You guys

have really helped us become the best blog team in our class! I have enjoyed this experience...

in a way. I wasn't too happy about this project at first but I have learned to appreciate it more.

sARAH

Age matters

Recently, the show "Dancing with the Stars" topped "American Idol" in the number of viewers. This was quite a feat because as the New York Times article explains, "American Idol" has had quite a big and consistent following. What the article goes on to explain, though, is that just because a show has high ratings doesn't mean it gets to charge top dollar for it's commercials.

$ $ $
The money is what really counts, because as Media Society says, "Advertising is, after all, what pays the bills". You see, "Dancing with the Stars" and "American Idol" have two very different audience profiles; "Dancing"'s viewers tend to be women over 50 and "Idol"'s viewers are women as well, but younger. As result, advertisers seek to reach the younger audience.

Why is this, you ask?
Is it because they believe the younger are more susceptible to clever ads?

The president of KSL Media, David Sklaver, says that, "The audience for 'Dancing' is an attainable audience," and he noted that it might seem odd that, "advertisers tend to devalue the audience that has the most money," or in other words the older audience.

At first when I read this I was surprised because in our Media class we have discussed that advertisers typically seek the wealthier audience, but Sklayer goes on to explain that the younger audience doesn't watch as much TV, so they are less attainable. It's almost like the younger audience is playing hard to get (unintentionally, of course) and the advertisers are paying more for a chance to reach this group.

So, what does this article tell us? It gives us insight into the production perspective of TV. You see there are really only two ways to make money in the media, either selling units (the shows themselves) or selling advertising. This makes network TV completely ad-driven; and really if you think about it the programs only exist to lure us in to watch the advertisements! All this information confirms the power of advertisers and I think it is just important for us to be aware that the reason TV really exists is not really to entertain us, but to sell us stuff. This does not mean that television is evil or that you should never watch it; just know that the ads are there, whether blunt or placed carefully within the programs. Next time you want to buy a new product you've never tried before, ask yourself if you saw it on TV or what has influenced you in concluding that you ought to purchase it.

Cristi

Watch 3-D at Home

Did you like the movie Avatar or Alice in Wonderland in 3D? If yes you are going to love the next big technological investment in the media industry. Some media companies such as Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, and LG have already put their new 3-D televisions out the market. Isn't it amazing that you can have the characters basically in your living room? I found this article on the website of New York Times.

To make it more appealing, Samsung worked together with DreamWorks, and other Hollywood companies, and the band Black Eyed Peas about creating 3-D content for home viewing. So it means that after you buy the television you are actually going to have movies to watch in 3-D. Since the first question that ran came into my mind was; it is one thing that I have a 3-D Tv, but what am I going to watch, because so far there are maximum three or four movies I know about that are in 3-D? As a start DreamWorks is going to make the Shrek movies and the movie Monsters vs. Aliens in 3-D. It sounds better now, isn' it? In addition the article also mentions that these televisions have the option to switch from 2-D to 3-D by pushing only one button.
Companies believe that with this invention the audience will be more active. Tim Bexter, president of Samsung Electronics America put it this way: "there will be less passive sitting back and watching television, and a more immersive, interactive experience.”
Needless to say that these televisions do not cost a few pennies. The 46-inch model is $2,600, while the 55-inch model is $3,300, plus the bundle includes two pairs of glasses and a 3-D DVD for an additional $350. Nice prizes, right? But I have no doubt that for many people it is perfectly worth it.

Technology always provides something new to us, to the audience. Although there can be economical problems, recessions, technology will keep going forward and keep reaching higher and higher. We all know that technology is a huge part of our lives, as a big percent of the population uses cell-phones, internet, watches television, listens to the radio, goes to the movies. So we can say that we are the one who keep the technology moving, as we are dependent on it. Not to mention that when something new comes out, it is in order to please our comfort. For example if we look at the post Christina wrote on April 1st, about the fact that we can control the gadgets of our devices with our skin is also made to make us feel more comfortable and enjoy it at the same time.
In the book Media Society, Croteau and Hoynes make an important point when they say that technology has an effect on our habits and can shape the use of media. They say "To understand the relationship between media and society, we cannot ask only what a new technology does to people, We must also ask what people do with the new technology." So when we are talking about technology and society, we are talking about a two-way road, where when one does something, it affects the other one.

I think it is important to see that we make technology to change and it makes us to change too. To create 3-D televisions is really expensive, but it is clear that people are going to buy it, and it will make profit to those companies, and they know it otherwise they would not do it.
Personally, I really like 3-D movies so if I had enough money to buy a Tv like that, I would probably do it. How about you? Would you enjoy watching 3-D movies at home?

Klaudia

The Dark of the Media

Seth Liss wrote an article on  SunSentinel.com exposing the dark side of the social media. He exposes the grim side of cyber-bullying, connections to organizing riots, racist and hateful people, and "creepy" people.

Mr. Liss says that the social network medias make bullying easy and anonymous. Just a few weeks ago, a 15 year-old girl was allegedly bullied by nine charged teenagers who may have contributed to her suicide. This is one of many sad stories that have happened across the country.

"Flash mobs" started out as harmless fun. These mobs were organized through social medias and text messages that were designed to get people together to do various social activities such as dances. However, like many things, people take things, like flash mobs, and miss use them. Teenagers now organize fights and riots in public places to cause "mayhem."

Because there are options to place a comment anonymously or under a fake name, people are able to hide behind these names and say racist and hateful remarks. The SunSentinel.com allows comments to encourage healthy debates but have now turned them off in order to "prevent such comments about the recently deceased."

Chatroulette.com is a popular website where you are connected to random people across the world to video chat. Most of the people you are connected with men exposing themselves and other creepers. Getting an account is very easy making it easy for young children to log on and connect themselves with these people.

Is the media evil? I really do not think so. Parents get mad about the violence in games, movies, and other forms of entertainment and blame the companies for the "damage" they have caused. Sorry, parents, I think it's YOU; YOU are the problem. There are advisories that have the advised age for a certain game or website. Parents need to monitor what their kids are consuming; it's not the company's job to do that. Also, ever child is different and will react to different forms of violence such as cartoon to "real" violence. There is the age old argument that David Buckingham brought up in one of his books about the working-class family who are"inadequate parents, living chaotic and aimless lives on council estates who are alleged to have absolved themselves of all responsibility for their children" (142). I find this silly. How hard is it to take a few moments with your child to be interactive with them and play that video game with them to see for yourself what it's all about. Now, I am only 19 and do not know what it's like to be a parent with children, but to me, it doesn't sound all that hard. Buckingham also said that throughout his research, he has not met a family that hasn't attempted to do so.

I would really like my older, more mature, audience to respond to this and share your experience with controlling violent images, via any kind of media medium, to your children.

sARAH

No Book, No Problem. Right?

So, if you haven’t heard or realized by now, books, along with everything else ever invented, are going electronic; and the old way or reading books is becoming more and more unpopular. Electronic Books, or ebooks, are becoming the new trend for reading books, but according to an article I found on trueslant.com, this may not be such a good thing. The first drawback that they talk about is the closing of small bookstores. This is to be expected though. Since technology has advanced everything, stores in many genres have begun to close. Just think about it, when was the last time you have actually been to a Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. Technological advances such as Redbox have pretty much put them out of business, and people fear that ebooks will have the same effect on book stores. Another drawback to ebooks that the article mentions is that when reading an ebook, others can not see what the person is reading. The article says, “it is not always possible to see what others are reading or to project your own literary tastes.” There have been many times where friends of mine have been reading, and the cover of the book has caught my attention. Sometimes, it made me more interested in reading the book for myself.

But ebooks cant be all bad right. If that was the case, they wouldn’t be so popular. Well actually, there really are not many advantages to reading an ebook. Its just like having the actual book, its just on your laptop, I-pod, Sony Reader.. Etc. To me, ebooks are for people who want to seem cool or modern. The media have portrayed ebooks as a cool, new way to read books, and people buy into that.

In the book “Media Society”, David Croteau and William Hoynes mention more than one definition of ideology. Ideology can be defined as a way of thinking, or what one considers is acceptable or not. For example, many people's ideology tells them that it is "normal" or more acceptable to shower, brush you teeth, and wash you face, before going to bed. I think that one ideology that is common in America is the importance of consumerism; because, it has become so "normal" for advertising to create this desire in the general public to buy things, and much more than is actually necessary. So, many times people end up purchasing something they don't need. Anyone who has bought an ebook probably falls directly into this category or line of thought. don’t get me wrong, there are many advantages of having an ebook. You may get access to many books on one device, without having to carry around a big bag of books, but is having an ebook a necessity? Not at all.

As a writer, who is working on a novel right now, I acknowledge all of the positive things that come from having an ebook, but I personally would prefer to buy the actual book instead. I think that ebooks are not going to take the place traditional books any time soon, but that day might come. This is yet another example that nothing is exempt from technology. And if Technology makes something “better” people will buy it.

Links:

http://trueslant.com/colinminer/2010/03/31/read-this-and-help-someone/

David S.

Control gadgets with your SKIN!

Remember the crazy days when we actually had to push buttons on our phones? Well, now we have touch screen, so no need to worry about that. So, just when you thought they thought of everything, now we may not even need to touch our phones or music players AT ALL!

According to BBC News, Chris Harrison has created Skinput. Skinput is a system in which the screen of a ipod menu (or similar gadgets) is projected onto a person's arm and they use there fingers to select items or even play games! Check it out...



Pretty crazy huh?
Well, Chris Harrison explains that new media is constantly getting smaller to make it more portable, etc. Take a look at the picture below and you will see one example of the shrinkage that is occurring. (The original came first, then the shuffle, then the "nano" I believe).

Chris Harrison explains that gadgets can only get so much smaller, because creators are limited by the size of human hands. This may be part of the reason that touch-screens are becoming extremely popular at the moment; because, with a touch-screen the screen doesn't have to be shrunk for the sake of squeezing in keys or a swivel circle (as there are for plain ipods). But now Harrison has developed a system in which we could use our very own body, hands and fingers, to navigate pages and games projected on our skin. He evens says, "in the future your hand could be your iPhone and your handset could be watch-sized on your wrist".

I find interesting is that, while this system is still a medium that doesn't involve actually being somewhere, it still has a physical aspect to it. Much like the "Wii" or something, this system incorporates our bodies. In the book Media Society, Birkets suggests that, when using the internet (as you might eventually with Skinput), "people can take on new identities in cyberspace, transcending the limits and the responsibilities of their physical environment,". The unusual thing is that with the system Skinput, that is not exactly the case. While people may be able to say what they like on the internet or play games, they are still quite under the "responsibilities" of their physical state; because, if they weren't able to move their arms or fingers for some reason than they may not be able to use this technology.

What does this mean for the future? I don't know because who says these lab tests will even make it to become a commercial product.

I think what Marshall McLuhan said about technology is very true and applicable in this scenario. In Media Society, McLuhan says that, "we should focus our attention on the ways each new medium disrupts tradition and reshapes social life". I don't know if he meant disrupt in a negative way, but I do think that we should consider how this new system, and other ones that are already on the market, may affect our lives.

So, how do you think this potential product would change our society?
Would it influence the ways we view any public issues?
Is it even an improvement from currently gadgets?
Personally, I'm not sure that it is. I think our current gadgets are quite convenient enough ha ha.

Sincerely, Cristi

Never Good Enough

Albert R. Hunt of Business Week wrote about the charges that President Obama made towards former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Mr. Bush said that Obama "is the most liberal president" in modern times pushing "an agenda that really is foreign to mainstream America." Many Republicans feel like the current president has "socialist" agendas. Not only is Obama being criticized on the right wing but also by his fellow left wingers who say that he has "failed to keep his campaign commitments." Hunt says that "ideology isn't the ideal prism to evaluate the Obama presidency." Going into detail about the many promises that the president made in order to be elected, both the left and right (and the people of this country) all have "a bone to pick" and believe that their ideas are so much better than what is being done.

"Journalists find themselves precisely where where they want to be: in the middle. This middle ground serves as a haven for reporters, criticism comes from both sides, then the news must not be ideological at all. Attacks from both sides make the center a defensible place" (Croteau & Hoynes, 169). Mr. Hunt has perfectly placed himself in the situation just quoted. He describes how the Republicans and Democrats both have issues with administration. I also found it funny how Mr. Hunt said, "ideology isn't the ideal prism to evaluate the Obama presidency." Though the definition of the term "ideology" is vague, he never attempts to establish the definition. Croteau and Hoynes even said that "we need to be careful to specify what we mean by the term" (159). Being called "ideological" could be a insult by calling someone out on saying and doing contradicting things to one's beliefs, it could also be defined simply as a set of beliefs.

Though I do not particularly care for Obama's plans, I do feel sorry for him in a sense. It's hard trying to please everyone; it's just not going to happen. People are always going to say you could do this better or change this. It's easy to say and think something but different when you're trying to do it. There's only so much you can do in four years and he hasn't been in office that long; give him time. I find it silly that people are attacking his ideology because he hasn't had time to totally go through all the motions of his various agendas.

Kids seem to like Movies more than Food

I know, you might be thinking, “What does kids liking movies more then food have to do with media?” Well, if you’re the largest children network nickelodeon, it has a lot to do with media. Recently, I came across an article on www.adage.com that said that in 2009, food was replaced by movies as the second largest marketing category . (No surprise that toys were number one) The article said that the success that Hollywood had last year had a direct impact on advertisers. Nickelodeon is expecting the same results for 2010, especially with the release of a new Happy Potter movie and a movie based on nickelodeon’s own TV show, “Avatar the Last Airbender.” Though food moved down to the third highest marketing category, nickelodeon says that; with brands such as Kellogg and General Mills making new, healthier foods, advertisers should have fun with these new products, which they are hoping will lead to better numbers than those of 2009.

Ok, so for people who don’t know by now, television is basically run by advertisement. If it weren’t for advertisement, there would be no TV. David Crouteau and William Hoynes spend a lot of time in their book, “Media Society” explaining just how important advertisement is to TV. They explain how the main reason for TV is for companies to make money. This is why commercials are so important and the reason why you will NEVER have 100% commercial or advertisement free TV. We have TV shows so that during the commercial break, many companies can advertise their product so that the audience will eventually buy their product. This why so many shows end up getting canceled. If no one watches them, that means that no one is watching the commercials, and companies loose money. TV producers use what Croteau and Hoynes call Logic of Safety. This is basically saying that Companies try to minimize the risks of loosing money on programs. Companies realize that a show very rarely is going to start out with very high ratings, so they try to avoid sows that are going to be definite failures. This included shows that may cause controversy. Croteau and Hoynes also talk about narrowcasting, which is when an business puts there commercial during TV shows that target a selected audience.

An example of this is how nearly all of the commercials shown on nickelodeon are targeted toward kids. Movies may be the second largest marketing category, but each movie will not have a rating over PG-13. This is due to narrowcasting.

I remember being a little kid and watching commercials on nickelodeon and after the commercial would go off, I would always want my parents to go out and buy what I just saw. The items on my Christmas list were all things I had seen during a commercial. This is TV working at its best. They had interesting shows that I enjoyed watching, and commercials that had products that me, as a young child, would want. Nickelodeon is the #1 children network, and the commercials shown during their TV shows will be seem by millions of kids everyday. Toy companies, movies, and food companies are bound to make a lot of money if they advertise to kids on Nickelodeon, and that’s pretty much why TV exists in the first place; so that companies can make a lot of money!

Link:

http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=142952

David S.

London is treating technology addicts

Do you ever want to just get away? Just escape all the stress in your life? 

Well, some people relax by, and enjoy, immersing themselves in social networking sites or video games. Personally, I don't think this is out of the ordinary, but apparently it can get out of hand. Only recently has an "obsession" with technology or social media turned to talk of addiction because, as with other forms of addiction, when tech addicts are deprived they become, "chronically agitated and irritable," according to Doctor Richard Graham in an article from BBC News. 

You may think, Wait I minute, I do that, or, My boyfriend does get upset when I interrupt him while he is playing video games, does that mean we are addicted? No, probably not, but if you are really curious...right click here to take Capio Nightingale Hospital's technology test, to find out. However, I think the quiz really is more a reminder (because a quiz cannot truly diagnose someone in my opinion) of how overwhelmed we are by media and how sometimes we may place it too high on the priority list.

The article explains that treatment for the addicts is held for inpatients at the Capio Hospital; it involves a three step process of delving into the patients issues with face-to-face relations, next they are encouraged to switch off technology, and finally they engage in exercise/activities with friends or family. You see the problem with tech addicts is not that the merely become irritable,but that their relationships many times take a toll. As Dr. Graham mentions, "The preoccupation with accessing sites and responding to messages is so compelling that it gets prioritized...it can impact on other areas of life and skew young people's ability to engage in other activities". 

The idea that adolescents in particular will begin to prefer to spend their time using technology or media, instead of with other humans and such, can be referred to as an issue of "escape", according to Joseph Dominick in, "Social Effects of Mass Communication". Many parents worry about their teenager "escaping" from the real world, but can we even really call it "escaping" when the media "realities" are becoming more and more like our real world experiences? Well, what Dominick and Dr. Graham both also express is concern about the future of media and technology, and how the advances to come may cause technology addiction to become more common.

I don't know about that, but I do think that it makes sense that it is possible to become addicted to technology because, in my opinion, it is possible to become addicted to almost anything. I do agree with Professor Mark Griffiths, who was quoted in the article, that true addicts are not very common. I also think that the steps for treating the addiction are very realistic. As Professor Griffiths said, "Any therapy should be about getting the behavior back under control". You see, they don't expect patients to be able to avoid technology or media, because that is quite impossible, but they do try and wean them off of their compulsive habit. 

I think this is a very healthy and reasonable way to go about treating the addicts. I, myself, am not an addict, but I certainly struggle with my prioritizing and spending to much time with media. So, although I am writing this blog, I am actually "fasting" from media at the moment. This means, aside from class purposes, I am not using "Facebook", "Youtube", the internet...I am not watching television, movies, or listening to music (unless I play it myself on the guitar). I can only check my email 2x a day and I can't text, only calls of less than 5 minutes! I chose to do this fast for myself, to see if I could do it and to remove myself from some of the anxiety it brings - you'd be surprised how much it causes! I also began this fast for my Theology class for extra credit. Maybe I will explain more in a later entry, but here are some numbers...

50 days

Start date: Tuesday, March 16th

Days so far: 9

End date: Tuesday, May 4th

Days to go: 41

I have found myself spending so much more time on more important thing, such as my relationships with other, my homework (haha), playing guitar/piano, etc. I have felt less anxious, less rushed. I'm not saying it's easy though...I will keep you all updated. Anyway, maybe you too should give it a try, of course you don't have to start at 7 weeks straight. Maybe just cut out one aspect that you feel keeps you from your relationships or seems to be stealing a lot of your time.

Do you  think you could do it? What do you think about the technology addiction or the treatment?

Cristi

Texts call for violence

Those readers, who go to Eastern University, PA, probably heard of the dance party we had first semester, called "Flash Dance". It was a night, when we had 5 parties at 5 places. However you did not know the places in advance. You got the information about the first place via text message 30 minutes before it started, and then you got another text message about the second place 5 minutes before the switch, etc. It was a kind of fun and excited, but imagine when this "flash" texting method are done for violent purposes. Why would someone do that? Well, apparently it happened. The New York Times has an article about the so-called "flash mobs", that occurred in Philadelphia, PA on Saturday, March 19, 2010.

A big number of young people filled South Street in Philadelphia and caused several damages and interruption for shop owners, pedestrians, and residents as well. There were pedestrians, who even got injured in the fights.
Eventually some of them got arrested by the police. These "flash mobs" are really getting on the nerves of the city residents, who have been complaining about the unsupervised, sometimes aggressive children on the streets. The solutions that are on the table are more jobs for kids, more summer jobs for kids, more after-school programming, and more parent support. Are the citizens or organizations going to be able to stop these "flash mobs", or is it going to keep going and maybe one day you get a text message too that is saying: "Come to XY street to make some trouble and have some fun!!!"

We have heard that the media have a negative influence on us, because its content are filled with violence and sexuality etc. In the book, The Dynamics of Mass Communication by Joseph R. Dominick, researches' results show that media violence can lead to some sort of aggression, but it definitely depends on the individual's personality and background. In order to prevent young children from getting inappropriate impression of anything, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has regulated the different mediums such as television in a way that certain programs are only allowed to be on Tv between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Now in this particular event we are talking about something different. Movies and programs are made to entertain the audience, even if they have violent content, but this is not what is happening here. Here media technology is used in order to create and boost violence. Not to mention that text messages do not go through any regulations, so basically anyone can write whatever he/she wants to anyone. It sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?

Where is our world heading to? Does it show that we have to be prepared that anytime a group of young people just randomly attack us on the streets? I think it is important to see that the violent scenes that we see on Tv are now among us. What would you do if you got a text message like that? Would you call 911 or do you have any other idea?

Klaudia

Invisibility Cloak!

Coming soon eventually...Apparently scientist have discovered a way to make a 3-D
object unseen to the human eye! So, while we may not have a cloak big enough or ready for
humans yet, our "Harry Potter" hopes can live on : )
I'm not sure how media related this is, but it is new technology and I thought it was vital that I inform you!
haha
Well, a big thank you to all our dedicated readers. We hope you have been enjoying the discussions. Feel free to comment anytime; you don't need to have a blog yourself to do so. And please share our blog with others!

Right click here to open a new window, with the article on the specifics of the discovering...

Have a great day
Cristi

Scandal!!!

The word scandal has some pretty negative connotations, but when you hear that there is a "scandal" don't you sort of get a little excited?

We all probably get a little thrill out of them because it means that someone was caught doing something, either unintentionally or they just didn't "intend" to be discovered. Now, they could have been caught doing something good, but, let's admit it, that's usually not the case. You see I think the reason people enjoy scandals is because they can relate to getting caught doing something they are embarrassed or ashamed of.

Journalists and reporters, on the other hand, may or may not revel in the occurrence. The reason they don't always like scandals is because it disrupts their routine. Reporters usually have "beats", which are locations where they can be sure to get one or more "news stories" in a day (for example: the white house). So, if the scandal doesn't occur at one of these locations then the event may seem like a nuisance to the reporter. However, soon enough the reporters get on top of the story and the LOVE it! They love it because readers are captivated with shock and awe, which reporters then use to their advantage by dragging the story out and digging up "new" information to keep the public hooked.

The benefit that scandals bring to the public is that the effector, the person or company that caused the happening, is not the promoter, the person who advocates the action or publicizes it (usually the opposite is the case). So, when scandals occur, the "news" tends to be less skewed because the person who committed the act isn't really trying to benefit from it.

One scandal that I found out about recently is referred to as the Tailhook scandal. The annual Tailhook Symposium was taking place for the 35th time in 1991, at which the Navy and Marine Corps gathered for debriefing. At this "planned" event something unexpected occurred. Over 80 women were sexually assaulted! What's worse is that apparently some officers were aware of the sexual violations and misconduct, but they did nothing to stop it from happening. I am sure the media ate this story up and that there was quite a bit of coverage. BUT, there is a problem with scandals, and many big "news" stories, they DIE DOWN. 

I can sympathize with reporters because I'm sure that it gets boring for them if they continue writing about the same subject. Not to mention that the readers would probably get sick of it too. However, I think, as readers and the public, we need to encourage "follow up" and action. This means that reporters constantly update us on the situations and that, in this case, justice is served.

According to Steven Myers' article, and several other sources, the number of sexual assaults within the military (primarily against women) has NOT decreased. Women in the armed forces have to constantly be on their guard, not from the enemy army, but from the men along side them. It is very concerning and painful to read about the acts that have gone unreported or ignored. You see, although there may be people that the women can report to, many of the women are afraid of being pegged a "snitch" or being demoted, etc. I won't go into where the theology, that these disgusting acts suggest, comes from today. Today, I just want to demonstrate a weakness of the "news" and it's routines. Because until I started reading the book, The Lonely Soldier, two days ago I had not heard of sexual assaults within the armed forces AT ALL! I think the lack of coverage in the news on this serious problem demonstrates how significant issues come and go as "stories". The news wants to attract readership, so it can be influenced by popularity of subject matter, whether that subject seems important to you as an individual, or not.

What are your thoughts?

Sincerely, Cristi

(if you are looking for more information on the subject of women serving in the war and sexual assault DEFINITELY read The Lonely Soldier, which was just recently published in 2009!)

The "Nip Slip"

We all remember Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" in the Superbowl; however, do we remember who was playing? The term "wardrobe malfunction" was created on that night which is now has been incorporated into our everyday communication.

This indecent exposure created a court battle between CBS and the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). The FCC has a plethora of "indecency complaints" (which mainly consist of content during primetime) and have now been able to now address the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction." This article cited Dan Isett who is the director of public policy for the Parents Television Council and said that the PTC is looking into different stations that have broadcast indecent material while children are watching. He stated that, "obviously this is the first step in the process of hopefully finding against some of these broadcasters that air that type of material." He also said that, "the FCC and Capitol Hill will still need to be encouraged and cajoled to do the simple enforcement of broadcast decency law that's so important to parents and families."

Apparently, the government is always looking out for the "public interest" however, what is the definition of that term? The FCC's definition of "public interest" is: by balancing the various groups of people (Croteau & Hoynes, 2003, pg. 86). The government was originally established to control the peace within this nation; but is it going too far to the point where it is worrying about wardrobe malfunctions instead of more pressing issues such as the war? I would say yes, the government and their programs are going WAY TOO FAR with censoring/controlling of the media, technology, and even personal lifestyles. Going to court costs a lot of money and I feel that the money can go into something more important like.... I don't know.... getting the country out of major debt instead of prosecuting CBS because they did not have enough of a delay in their programming.

sARAH

Do you wanna be well-informed?

Do you read, listen to or watch the news? Did you say "yes"? Nice. Do you do it often? Did you say "yes" again? Even better. Do you have several sources? Also "yes"? If you answered yes for all three questions, you are probably a well-informed news consumer. However if you said "no" for any of them, you may want to improve your habits. Keeping attention what is going on in our world around us is our own responsibility. Needless to say there are many ways to get information. Unfortunately, many of us do not use them. In an article on the website of the New York Times, the author talks about a Pew Research Center's study on how the audience seeks for news online. They found out that 35% of them have a favorite site, 21% of them go on only one site to read news and the rest 57% rely on 2-5 sources. Not to mention that these online sources are all free. Some news sites has been considering though to start some kind of pay system. The research also showed that only 7% of the audience is willing to pay for online news. However the news sites still be satisfied if 5-10% of their readers would actually pay for the news.

As you can see from the numbers, reaching for news is not the most important thing in our lives. If it is a part of your lives at all, what you want to do is to make sure that you get your news from different types of media sources. We were talking on my media class about where we should get our news from. The most significant rule was : "DO NOT WATCH TV NEWS?" Why? Tv news are too limited and constant to give enough proven information about any happenings. In addition it is not accurate enough and might miss some researches.
What are the best ways to get reasonable news? Either newspaper or online. This two can give you more information than the Tv news on one average day. The best online news and newspaper you can look at would be New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Week, The Economist. These papers deal with relevant occurrences we may want to know about. However these focus on the news in the United States. Do not forget that the United States is just one out of the six continents. There are hundreds of happenings in Europe or in Asia that stay outside of these papers' view or interest. A good news consumer does not eliminate other countries. To keep up with Europe you should check out the website of BBC. For news in Asia you may want to look at theasiannews.co.uk

Personally, as a college student I do not really have time to follow the news regularly, but recently I try to spend more and more time to look at different news sites. I remember in the first semester i would talk to my mom or dad and they would tell me if I heard about something that happened in the world, and I would just say "no, I don't have time, and we don't have a Tv in our room." Now I see how crazy answer it was. Now in the second semester I am still a college student but I make time to catch up with the world's news. Oh, and I don't even need a Tv, because I can get more accurate news online.
Have you had any similar experience? Can you say "yes" if I ask you the question? Can you mention two breaking news that happened last week?

Klaudia

Japans very own FCC

Recently, I came across an article on www.broadcastingcable.com that said that Japan was pondering whither or not the should have their own FCC. Representatives from NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corp.) were in Washington this week to interview current leaders of the FCC such as former Republican FCC Chairman Dick Wiley, former Democratic Chairman Reed Hundt and current senior Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell. Japan. Japanese representatives told B&C that a Japanese FCC might be able to maintain “to a certain degree” consistent broadcast and telecommunications policy independent of political power struggles. This is the reason Japan is thinking about adding their own FCC. Right now, Japan’s Internal Affairs Ministry oversees broadcasting and telecom for their country. It is something that has been working for many years but as senior media analyst Atsushi Shibata says, “it may be time for a change.”

For years, the FCC has been a force in American media, basically controlling what can and cannot happen. According to the textbook, “Media Society’ by David Croteau and William Hoynes the FCC regulates according to the public’s interest. This means that the FCC has the power to, in a sense, go against the first amendment if deemed necessary. For example, the FCC has the power to control what can and cant be shown on TV. There are certain things that you will never see on cable television, such as nudity, because the FCC prohibits it. But this is an issue that Japanese leaders had when discussing weather or not to have their own FCC. Japanese leaders wanted to know what the relationship between the FCC and the courts was? The FCC’s rules or orders are not always final and decisive, Broadcasting companies often appeal to courts. A perfect example of this would be CBS’s infamous “wardrobe malfunction.” In this case, CBS was fined by the FCC for indecency, but CBS later appealed to the courts because they claimed that because the event was live, they had no control over the incident. (That case has not been ruled yet) Japanese leaders wanted to know why the FCC, with all of its power, wasn’t the deciding factor when it came to media? Why was the court able to interfere? Theses questions are ones that will have to be answered before Japan makes any final decisions about adding their own FCC.

Because I don’t know much about Japanese media, I don’t know if adding a FCC would be a good idea or not, but it is still interesting to know that Japan is thinking about adapting to one on America’s systems. I think it cool that other countries take notice on customs here in the United States. I wonder what American customs were originally from another Country’s, if any? It seems to me like America wants many countries to adapt to some of the things we do, but I never hear any news about how America chooses to adapt to a custom from another country. Maybe we do.. I just have to do more research =)

David S.

Did you hear the news?!

Well even if you did, you still might not know. That is because the truth is none of us may be hearing about really significant news stories and investigations. And why is this? This is the result of reasons that include, entertainment journalism, less reporters, and the techniques that newspapers/stations have been using to try and stay on their feet. Just yesterday, the Federal Communications Commissions Commissioner, Michael Copps, spoke with Patt Morrison on the radio (some of the conversation has been posted in article/written form on the stations website). A recent study has revealed that within the typical 30 minute L.A. newscast, only about 22 seconds are devoted to local government coverage, and the rest to sports or weather! Copps expressed concern in reaction to both this information and other signs, that he'd already noticed, suggesting that goal of news is slightly corrupted. He recognizes that cuts are having to be made, with many stations and news rooms closing down. There are less positions available and even less investigative journalism going on.However, he does not believe this justifies the routine that journalism seems to be following now. Serviss, the author of the article, summarizes, saying that, "the overall shift of broadcast media away from hard news reporting and toward an “infotainment” style of coverage". Infotainment essentially means that news content has sifted to become more entertainment focused in order to keep stories light and bring in as many viewers as possible. News networks are mostly seeking to stay afloat, so they encourage viewers to keep watching, in this case by keeping the government stories short.

Here's the deal...While we may not like to think so, the news is not really ever going to be completely objective because it is a part of the media. Now wait a minute! I am not calling the media "evil" or anything like that. I am just explaining that the goal of the news is not just to inform, but also to succeed. There is competition between all the stations to get higher ratings (number of viewers, etc) than each other, so the stations have to be sure that the audience will like what they see. You see, the larger the group of followers, the more money. As it says in the book Media Society, "Economic forces identify the goals and shape the terrain of the decision-making process [in media]," (p. 122). So, if the news is not just driven to inform us, but now most of the stories revolve around entertaining us, then should we change our expectation of what news is? I mean, I don't know about you, but I don't plan on lowering my expectations. Let me explain...While I don't expect the news to be completely objective, I do expect the news to follow significant issues, from the local government to international concerns. I would agree with Copps' description of news, "the information [we] need to be fully informed and to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the issues to be engaged in the discussions and decisions that affect [our] community." It saddens me to think that we are loosing sight of many important things going on out in the world, especially while we have so many resources that provide us the ability to connect with others all of over the world.

How much control do we have over this shrinking perception? I definitely feel as though I have little control. It embarrasses me a little, but I must say that the small pieces of information and knowledge that I gain about the nation and the world are incredibly influenced by what is covered in the media. For instance, most news coverage recently (well not very recently, but moving on) has sifted from coverage of the war in Iraq to the troubles in Afghanistan. Based on this, if I was asked about what was going on in both areas, I could probably only tell about some of the situation in Afghanistan.
Do you feel the same way? Are we so shaped by what others choose to call "newsworthy"? What do you think classifies something as newsworthy?

Think about it ;-)
Cristi

Freedom of Status Updates

“Does anyone know where I can find a very discrete hitman? Yes, it’s been that kind of day…” This was the Facebook status of Gloria Gadsden who was a sociology professor at East Stroudsburg University in Pennsylvania. No sooner was this posted, she was fired for this offensive status update. Apparently, this was not the first time she commented on her students. In February, she “had a good day today. DIDN’T want to kill even one student. :-) Now Friday was a different story.” She claims that her posts were just a joke and were not to be taken seriously and was not aware that other people other than her friends and family could see her profile. It is reported that a student called attention to this even though the student was not on Gadsden’s friend list. “My friends and family knew I was being facetious. They knew I wasn’t targeting anyone.” Her spurious were not happy with this violent posting because there had been a prior meeting with the faculty about the shooting spree by another professor at the University Alabama-Huntsville. Marilyn Wells who is the university’s interim provost and vice president for academic affairs said that, “Given the climate of security concerns in academia, the university has an obligation to take all threats seriously and act accordingly.”

(This article was retrieved from: ABCNews.com)

Okay, who of us haven’t said an empty threat to a certain degree? I could have my update as “Sarah hates her roommate and wants to kill her because she comes in late all the time! :P” and know that this was empty (this is NOT true; I love you Anna!!!). What makes this “empty” is that I ended my status with a little face. Now if you look back, Gadsden did have a happy face in her status prior to the one that fired her. This tells me that she really didn’t truly mean it and I highly doubt that her tone changed in a month... she just forgot the little face for this update. One, who is dumb enough to really go and acquire a hit man on Facebook?! (Maybe I shouldn't ask that….) But still…. Who would and TRULY mean it?

I was thinking that there HAD to be some underlying problem with this teacher. You can’t just fire a professor just because of one questionable statue update. I feel like the university was patiently waiting for the perfect time to be able to “justly” fire her. The First Amendment states that citizens have freedom of expression. I believe that this professor was acting within the boundaries of the amendment. It’s not like she was yelling “fire” in a theater. She was jokingly saying that she wanted to kill her students after a hard day at work; is this a crime? In the summary of the article, it indicated that Gadsden had a numerous status updates that alluded to the death of her students. Within the statement of Facebook, Gadsden did not violate any of the Safety content (in my opinion).

My dear reader, do you believe that it was right for the university to fire her?

sARAH

"If it Bleeds, it Leads"

The Urban Dictionary describes this saying by stating that it "basically means the the media loves violence." This is not only true now, but also back in 1888 when the Star began to cover the story of "Jack the Ripper." Now, for those of you who know me well, you know I have a fascination with the story of Jack the Ripper so you knew he would come into play with my blogging at some point.

Readers, usually my post has something to do with class, but it being "spring" break, I felt like doing something different that really has nothing to do with class. This is going to be more of a historical kind of blog which I hope you enjoy.

Like I said, I love the story of Jack. I was watching this show with my mom and it was about his impact on the media. I thought, how perfect I can blog about this. So I grabbed a pen and paper and took some notes!

Before I get into anything, I have found that some people do not know who Jack the Ripper is so here's a Wiki link and you can read all about him. In short, he was a sadistic killer who targeted prostitutes in Whitechapel, England in the late 1800s and was never caught....

The Star was an up-and-coming newspaper who's targeted audience was people that could not read very well. Desperate to increase profit, they linked two murders to others that had been reported. Creating this lie, the Star's circulation dramaticly increased. At this time, integrity was not considered.... This new sadistic killer took a break and that resulted in a drop of sales for the Star.... so what to do? Oh, I know! - let's make a fake letter and publish it!

The name "Jack the Ripper" did not become a label to the public until someone from the inside of newspaper, Mr. Best a journalists, wrote a fake letter to the company. This letter is known as the "Dear Boss Letter."

The letter lacks "personality" and the content of the letter is "too perfect" for a newspaper trying to sell a top story (Note: the Star was the ONLY newspaper that published this letter....). Also, if you look at the signature, it's as if the signer forgot who he was; the "r" at the end seems to be almost forgotten. In addition, the signature is the same script as the body of the letter. So again, integrity did not exist during this time. This was the beginning of the circulation of the name we all know now as "Jack the Ripper." At the time, this was a somewhat "provocative" name because the name "Jack" was very common in children's books and mainstream society as having a "clean and innocent" connotation at the time and the name "Ripper".... well, I don't need to go into that because I think you got it.

This letter, however, is the REAL letter Jack the Ripper wrote to a Mr. Lusk who was the head of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee:

This letter is laced with personality and there is a creepy look to the letter that pretty much authenticates the letter with no analysis. This was postmarked on the 15th of October 1888 after the murder of Catherine Eddowes. Oh, I almost forgot to say... if you are able to read his writing, Jack says that he sent half of this woman's kidney and the other half.... he eat and said it was "very nice."

Not only did the media fabricate letters, but also suspects. Some of the candidates were: Walter Sicket (an artist), Lewis Carroll (author of Alice In Wonderland), the Duke of Clarence (the grandson of Queen Victoria), and lastly the Jews (who get blamed for everything sadly [even back then!!]...) and Irish.

So when you see those crazy newspapers and television shows that fabricate stories.... you can thank Jack the Ripper for being the pioneer of tabloid media! I find it fascinating that though Jack the Ripper prowled the streets of Whitechapel so long ago, he still lingers in the media from time to time. One of many examples, a few years ago Derek Brown copied Jack by killing women in the same manner; however, he was caught. As the saying goes, "often imitated, never duplicated."

I am trying to find out what show I saw and once I do, I will tell you!

sARAH

Where Freedom Ends

"NO, you cannot do that! It is not allowed!" How many times all of us have heard these sentences, either when were children or adults. There have been regulations and laws all around us. We have to watch what we say, how we act, what we write. Some regulations came from morality that our society accept, and some were made by the government or some kind of significant institution. The second way is how the media got regulated. Institutions such as the FCC regulates the media in order to cut off the inappropriate scenes, words, or talks. On the other hand it at least regulates the age limit of the shows, movies. Of course different mediums have different regulations. Believe it or not the Internet is also regulated. When I first heard that it was hard to believe, since it is so easy for an individual to create a website and just put anything he/she wants on it. Well, it is not that easy any more, at least not in China.

I have read an article in the website of Los Angeles Times that talked about China is planning to have new rules for personal websites. The new rule would require individuals to verify they identities with regulators and have their photographs taken before they create a website. This rule only applies to a domain known as .cn. The reason China wants to impose this rule is to decrease the number of websites, which have inappropriate content on it, such as pornography, violence, or instigation. However it is still unknown if the new law will be accepted or not as the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology have not replied to the request yet.
Media has been regulated by government for hundreds of years. According to the First Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." the government should not have a voice in what is happening in the media. However, David Croteau and William Hoynes say in their book, called Media Society, that it is more complex than it seems. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to intervene in the communication marketplace and protect the authorship and interest of the authors and inventors with copyrights. So the media are not that free any more, right?
I feel like it is important that the government regulates the media, because today's technology allows young children to use computer and watch different programs on TV and parents do not want their children to be influenced by something, like pornography or violence, they are not mature enough.

I don't know, but China is maybe going too far, and this law is just one more thing in the box with full of regulations. China has one of world's most strictest Internet controls.
How do you feel? Do you think the government should take a "hands off" approach toward the media? Or can media work on their own?

Klaudia