Let's not get ahead of ourselves...

Monopolies should be eliminated by the government because monopolies eliminate competition. But even among five or six massive and powerful companies, there is still competition and the government should not be able to interfere.

Monopolies allow a corporation to ignore the desires of the public; the public has little to no influence over the prices or quality of a product because consumers have no other choices. In the media, there are many choices to be made. The public has access to information and media from different sources, and that is all that the government has a right to ensure.

As long as competition exists in the media, the demands of the public will continue to influence the programming broadcasted by conglomerates.

In the past, the broadcast and print media has had a crucial role in the formation of public opinion concerning war. As the only major sources of information, print and broadcast media had a much greater ability to influence public opinion with the facts that were disclosed and the manner in which the facts were presented. The fact that, before the eighties and nineties, there were only a few television stations that were watched for news further increased the broadcast media's ability to influence public opinion by airing not-so-objective coverage.

Today, with thousands of newspapers and hundreds of television stations that cater to target audiences with growing specificity, there is a much higher likelihood that people get different news, with different stories, facts, and presentation. During the Vietnam War, most Americans viewed the same coverage on television and read most of the same articles in their newspapers (like the New York Times and Washington Post). As a result, the media's ability to generate and increase negative feeling towards the War in Vietnam was much stronger than it is today.

In the case of the current War in Iraq, it is becoming increasingly likely that one American will get his or her news from a different source (with different biases) than another American. The rise of the Internet has allowed for war coverage to come from countless sources, including amateurs who do not work professionally in the media.

On Youtube, a videosharing website that is currently very popular, it is even possible to view raw, uncut footage of battlefield action. Since this footage comes from amateurs or is untouched by the broadcast media, viewers are less likely to be aware of the bias that exists within any media message. For example, when I, personally, viewed a clip of raw, uncut footage of action in Iraq, I got a very negative picture of the how desensitized soldiers have become in Iraq and how very real the damage is to the country and citizens of Iraq. Though it might seem to be bias free, because there are no edits and there is no commentary included, someone somewhere made the decision to take that particular clip and posted it for a reason other than to provide objective information; that someone somewhere is trying to send a message.

The role of media in time of war is to provide information on specific occurences and on the big picture or realities of the war. However, as a result of more immediate coverage and more varied sources, that power of the media to provide information is much more decentralized in current times than it has been in the past. As a result of this decentralized power, the American public will be more divided than ever before on the issues of a war.

The Duke Lacrosse case and Sensationalism

The coverage of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case was irresponsible on the part of the media. Jounalists, trained to seek out the most controversial and scandalous stories, simply could not resist reporting a case where rich, white college athletes are accused of violent gang rape by a lower class, black "private dancer." A conflict involving sex and race is usually enough to warrant coverage, but the Duke lacrosse case additionally involved class and the issue of violence among college athletes.

For journalists and other workers in the media, people that have the mantra of "drama, drama, drama" drilled into their heads from day one, the drama of the Duke lacrosse case was a dream come true. However, the contributing factors of journalists and news anchors using emotionally charged words and including only facts that support one side made coverage more inflammatory than intriguing.

Focus on race, on gender, on class, and on the violence of college athletes was divisive more than informative and nearly all early coverage clumsily took one side over the other. There was the case of an article using the word "victim" as opposed to "accuser," and another article which repeated the word "alleged" more than six times in the first two paragraphs when describing the accusations.  Articles that gave the impression of being objective often only disclosed the facts that were favorable to only one side.

The increased media competition made shows like Nancy Grace intentionally manipulate facts and the emotional aspects of the story in order to produce the most attention-grabbing and fascinating piece.  Shows like Nancy Grace have done their job when they hit you over the head with an issue and an opinion with such force that you feel compelled to do a google search and find out the details.  All Nancy Grace wants is for you to remember that you heard it from her first.  On the other hand, there are shows like 60 Minutes which covet the last word on an issue and pride themselves on being objective and accurate.  However, shows like 60 Minutes are often no better than Nancy Grace or any other media outlet when it comes to objectivity.  

The coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case was nothing out of the ordinary in the context of the mass media of America.  It was only when articles supposedly covering the Duke Lacrosse case almost entirely talked about a single issue involved, such as the violence of college athletes or of the threat of hate crimes.  In response to the irresponsibility of the coverage, newspapers began to feature stories on the the coverage itself, berating other newspapers for sensationalism that they themselves were guilty of.  In the future, cases like the Duke Lacrosse case should be balanced and objective-- unless they are clearly opinion pieces.  In some ways Nancy Grace's coverage was more responsible than that of 60 Minutes, in that there is little doubt that Nancy's opinion is at work and on 60 Minutes the assertion is made that no bias is at play (when there really is).  Evidence should be presented for either side of a case like this, and there should be the same amount of evidence and the same strength of evidence for either side. 

Images that Changed the World: Thomas Nast and Boss Tweed

One image that changed the world were the political cartoons penned by Thomas Nast in the late nineteenth century. 

These political cartoons concerned themselves primarily with the rampant political corruption of the 1860's and 70's. These cartoons protested the unofficial political machine system in place at the time and the inappropriate amount of power that party bosses, like Boss Tweed, commanded. 

Under the political machine system, there is "behind-the-scenes" control and often, a party "boss" who has a great amount of power.  Party bosses were very common in American politics from the late nineteenth century up until the mid-twentieth century.  

Boss Tweed was the most prolific of these party bosses, and this is primarily because of the courage of Thomas Nast.  Tweed was the head of Tammany Hall, which was the Democratic party political machine in New York.  The way that a Boss maintained his power was through awarding the constituency with certain favors in return for voting a certain way.  Bosses also needed to have a tight knit army of cronies, in cahoots with the Boss and often given appointed positions in return for support during an election.  

Boss Tweed was even worse than most, defrauding the city of New York by having contractors charge three or four times what the going rate for the project actually was.  Tweed would then collect the extra money and share it among himself and his cronies.  The most blatant example that was exposed as a result of Thomas Nast's cartoons, was the amount of money charged for what is now known as the "Tweed Courthouse"-- more than $13 million, when the project itself only cost the contractor $3 million.

By the time public dissatisfaction was strong enough to put the powerful man behind bars, Tweed had more than quadrupled the debt of New York City, stealing more than $100 million dollars (and this was in the late 1800's).  

Considering fearsomely power of Tweed and the level of corruption at the time, Thomas Nast was incredibly courageous to continue to publish these cartoons even after repeated attempts on Tweed's part to bribe him or blackmail him into silence.  The strong and cutting messages of the cartoons were enough to put Tweed behind bars-- and keep him there.

After a year in prison, Tweed was put on trial again on separate charges and he was able to post $3 million in bail.  From there he fled to Cuba, and once he was discovered there, boarded a ship to Spain.  However, he was detained once he reached the Spanish coast because, as the Spanish officals claimed, of their recognition of the man from Thomas Nast's cartoons.

If not for Thomas Nast's refusal to be swayed or intimidated, his cartoons were published and the public became aware of the corruption of the political machines, and this sparked the movement that pushed for the slow and grueling elimination of the spoils system and political machines in American government.  Without these images, we might still be battling party bosses today, as the political machine system is linked to representative democracy.

The Perils of Facebook

I use Facebook in much the same way as the author of the Washington Post article, limiting the personal information posted on the website and refusing to download (most) applications.  However, the reasons that I have for being wary seem to be different from those of the article's author. She is worried that the third parties which develop applications will abuse and hoard the information which she posts on Facebook, whereas I am more worried about the spyware and viruses that can get onto your computer when these applications hide links to websites outside of Facebook.

There is really no reason to fear large corporations; their motives are solely monetary.  They are interested in our money and we are more than happy to fork it over for the right product/service.   Websites like Facebook, which have shareholders like Microsoft, are not suspect to damage your computer or to use any data unreasonably.  There are much more profitable ways to devote energy to.  It is only the third party application developers which present any real threat, as they can be anyone with any motive anywhere-- and there's not much that anyone can really do to stop a "nefarious" third party.

It really all boils down to the oft used adage: never ever put anything on the internet you wouldn't want your math teacher, future boss, or mother to see.  When you start posting things that you would be uncomfortable with those people seeing, you run a risk that you should, at the very least, be aware of.  And as the article also points out, many internet users are not sophisticated enough to think in this way. 

There was one thing which I did not understand, and that was the article's focus on how long data could be retained, including deleted data going back for years.  The Facebook Terms of Use merely reserve the right to retain this information, but there is absolutely no reason for Facebook to want data about you from 2004.  They want to know what interests you now, what you're willing to buy now.  Certainly some data will be retained, but not on a large scale because of its relative uselessness.  If data is not pertinent to business, there is no reason to retain it because any data has to be stored somehow and that storage is not free.

Puh-lease.

Sites like JuicyCampus.com are a waste of time and energy. They are created to entertain the type of people that live for drama-- a specific kind of drama. Not the heavy kind, like the reality of genocide in Darfur. This type of website exists for the fluffy kind of drama, the he said-she said type of pettiness that can be addicting for some. These websites are created for the purpose of making baseless gossip more accessible to a wider range of people.

Posters on sites like JuicyCampus.com aren't restricted to the truth, because they are sending messages which, hopefully, will garner the proper response, whatever that may be. Those who read these posts are not searching for truth; the offensive, ludicrous, sometimes humourous claims are read for their entertainment value only.

If I were the victim of false accusations on a site like JuicyCampus.com, I would be curious about who had posted it and I'd wonder what had led that person to type what they did, but ultimately it wouldn't really impact me. Just as I would never post something behind someone's back, I would never validate the pettiness of a post by getting upset about it.

Prada and Fendi and Coach! Oh my!

Of course advertising impacts me, and everyone else. In a society where there are hundreds of products to satisfy any demand, only products with the best reputations get top dollar.

There is no reason to pay $65,000 for a handbag. But in the words of Sex in the City's Samantha Jones:

"It's not a handbag! It's a f*****g Birkin!"

That's the world we live in. Americans will pay anything for the privilege to wear an advertisement on their chest, their pant legs, their feet, so long as its has some level of popularity and good repute.

I could get on my high horse and rant about how immoral it is to squander money on unnecessarily luxurious luxury items, but I myself have owned three iPods in my life, and I'm not yet sixteen. I have a certain level of disdain for pettiness, and yet I own several Ralph Lauren sweaters, a Macbook, a Tiffany bracelet, and a Coach wristlet. And, in all honesty, I can't say that these possessions don't bring me a certain amount of pleasure.

It just goes to show the level of hypocrisy that is acceptable in our society. And why shouldn't it be? Advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry.

It's not about to go anywhere.

Gasp.

The full story can be found here.

But the concept is simple enough; there were complaints about the overt sexuality of a couple of photographs in an Abercrombie & Fitch, and the local Virginia Beach police officials confiscated them.  The issue is not so much the idea of the confiscation, but the ads which are being targeted.  Recently, there have been several similar occurrences, all concerning ads that have relatively little sexual content.

No one has any business targeting ads like these, which can hardly be deemed sexual, or even too revealing of the human body, an almost unhealthy taboo in American culture.  This campaign, while not exactly conservative, is more focused on style than sexuality.  I think that the complaints which led to the confiscation of the posters stem from Abercrombie & Fitch's history (legislation has been passed in the Senate in reaction to a racy 2003 Quarterly photo shoot).

The other thing which might make being offended by an upper buttock or a little too much skin more understandable is that this campaign and the store that the photographs were removed from is aimed at teenagers.  

And since these ads are aimed at younger people, opposed to sex-themed Dolce and Gabanna ads, which target adults, any promiscuity is going to be objectionable.  As much as teens might protest that they don't care one way or another, parents will always do everything that they can to protect their children and Abercrombie & Fitch might want to keep that in mind next time they launch an advertising campaign.  The last thing any company wants is to be the subject of a brand boycott.

Justin. Pepsi. Super Bowl.

One ad that I thought was particularly effective, was the Justin Timberlake Pepsi ad.

I think that the ad was one of the 'big' commercials that Super Bowl watchers have come to expect. Though this year seems to mark the end of truly fantastic Super Bowl commercials, I think that this ad fulfills some of the expectations that people have to see real celebrities advertise a product.

The commercial achieved everything that it was supposed to; it glamorized Pepsi by tying it to attractive bikini-clad girls sunbathing in their backyards and to meeting the (as is emphasized by the ad) entirely fabulous Justin Timberlake. Entertainment is supplied in the way that many people enjoy seeing a celebrity get beat up, especially in a comic manner, and also in the way that ordinary people can have contact with a famous person in the meantime.  

The music (also from Justin) fit the ad perfectly, and increased the upbeat nature of the ad. It also reinforced the message of the advertisement: if you drink Pepsi, you'll get free music.

Trivial Flurries and Excessive Furies

The full back-story can be found here.  And the voicemail from the irate wife can be listened to here.  

But the basic idea is that a seventeen-year-old student, by the name of Dave Kori, got his hopes up one morning because there was a thin layer of the powdery, white stuff outside and was frustrated to find that he should have done his homework after all-- school wasn't cancelled.

However, Kori didn't internalize his frustration at having a top-notch education or even limit himself to complaining to his friends; he called the office and home of the school official who had made the Snow Day decision.  

When the man's wife receives the obnoxious message, she chooses to call Kori back and give him a piece of her mind.  

His infringement on privacy might have been forgivable if he had left it at that, but Kori seized his opportunity to make the lives of a hard-working couple even more difficult.  He posted the voicemail from the woman (which was understandably angry and comically derogatory) on Youtube, and created a Facebook page complete with phone numbers and a petition to fellow obnoxious students to harass the couple further. 

And that isn't even where it gets bad.  It gets bad when the Youtube video and the Facebook group gets thousands of hits and comments in the first few nights and the Post decides that this is newsworthy.

Youtube and Facebook are websites that can act as vehicles for personal expression and debates over what is and is not moral are not hard to find.  

However.  

These debates are almost exclusively shallow and almost always reduce themselves to personal attacks aimed at other Youtube and Facebook users.  There is a tendency among Youtubers to use the video comment box to have moral and ethical arguments completely unrelated to the video.  Thousands of hits on petty, ridiculous webpages which negatively impacts individuals in the real world are not unheard of.  

My major problem is with the Post covering this as news.  The seventeen-year-old that invades the privacy of a school official and upsets his wife can only benefit from more attention.  His self-involved sense of self-righteousness needs to be addressed by his school's faculty and his parents, but the controversy should not go any farther than that.

I think that the Post's decision to cover this story was a result of the print media's increasing desire to attract internet affluent readers and to connect to people who spend a considerable amount of time on video-sharing sites like Youtube and friend sites like Facebook. Unfortunately, I think that the deference paid to the situation and the 'number of hits' is as shallow and unpalatable as the young man's actions.