Discussion on Social Media and Business

On Wednesday, I was facilitator for a discussion about Social Media and Business at the Mayo Open Coffee Club in Castlebar.

After a short introduction by myself I asked the individuals of the group of eighteen to share "one short story about their experiences with Social Media." The individuals in the group were cooperative and some good stories came through. Some expressed a hesitation about engaging in social media.

The the eighteen made 3 groups of 6 to engage in 5 minute sessions of sharing ideas through discussion from directed questions. The first question answered by each individual in each group was "What have you done with social media for your business already?" Then I asked three members of each group to move to another group for 5 more minutes on the same question. Then a new question for 5 minutes was posed "What do you want to do with social media for your business?" Then three moved from each group to another group for five minutes again. And the final question used was "What do you expect from social media?" The resultant 30 minutes of vigorous discussion was engaging and active (it seemed).

I asked for feedback and got some. A couple of people stayed on to congratulate me on the facilitation and to thank me for my efforts. One individual said that he liked the style of meeting and appreciated the energy I brought to the meeting. One stayed late to give me extensive feedback. He appreciated the energy of the meeting and interactivity of the facilitation. He told me that the introduction was probably useless. (I talked a little about democracy and media, history of media, media ownership and life - in the introduction.) In hindsight, I think he is right.

But every experience is a good one. I'm happy to have facilitated the meeting and look forward to meeting the members again in the future.

Paying for News Content.

I was listening to the radio on my journey home from my first teaching post in Ireland (will blog about it later) yesterday evening when the discussion turned to reactions at Rupert Murdoch's idea to charge for online news content.

This is an interesting topic as newspaper businesses are disappearing frequently because of a lack of advertising revenue. The presumption is that the revenue is being lost to online advertisers. And the business model of online content economy has not yet come of age.

I remember "many moons ago" a friend of mine saying that "they" could never charge us for access to the Internet but I was skeptical and I suppose a little cynical of the probability of free Internet access for all for ever. I was proven correct. It took a while but online connectivity was improved and as it did the providers of this improvement charged us for "high speed" and broadband and satellite connections. Really, it only makes sense in a capitalist society that we pay for what we receive.

I have thought for some time now that online news content would get to the point where it will be paid for. I thought too that many of the newspapers who would fail would, by their absence, create greater demand for the survivors therefore making them more valuable and economically viable when they place a price on their material.

Some papers have always charged for their content but they may have been looking on their online service as keeping up with the times and providing options rather than changing their economic model altogether.

As one person on the radio last evening said, "Content is king." It is. But only if we can sell that content and only if we can sell the idea that "good content" is of value.

I know we could debate for ages what "good content" is. Is it Xfactor or is it the Berlin Wall or is it the recession/depression? Frankly - what is news? It is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. The audience will once again be fragmented to specifics and the advertising will be directed specifically and therefore the economic model in this capitalist society will, once again, work. "Newspapers" will survive.

One comment on the radio about Murdoch's idea was that his intention is simply to get the discussion out in the open and by doing this the public are being prepared for the onslaught of "pay for content."

Sounds a little like the old days of newspapers.

Perception of media: Reality becomes itself.

The Rolling Stone's Peter Travers reviewed It Might Get Loud in the August 20 issue. He was impressed. Davis Guggenheim, who directed An Inconvenient Truth, directed this movie about rock guitar legends, Jimmy Page, The Edge and Jack White.
He refers to the presentation of a behind the scenes look at these musicians as "rock heaven."

On the other hand Professor of Pop titles his review of the movie "It Might get Dull." POP is looking for the movie to live up to its genre identity - the documentary. POP is not happy with the lack of probing, of discovery, or analysis of the political economy of the music industry through discussions with the three guitarists.



I haven't seen the movie/documentary yet but it is interesting to me that two reviews could be so different. POP is demanding some depth. I remember him demanding this in classes that he taught. But I woud expect a reviewer in The Rolling Stone to be somewhat demanding too.

The reception of a media production by a viewer is a very personal one. We, as producers, can plan all we want, and there are ways to direct the receiver in a way desireable to the producer, but in the end it is a decision made by the individual viewer how they accept the production. It is as complex as life itself and also as simple as you want it to be. We can analyse and critique for ever, and this is the fun of the media scholar, but in the end it is received as it is received.

The perception for the individual is what is their reality. After we plant all the psychological, subconscious hints to guide the viewer to what we want them to appreciate it is, in the end, in the control of the viewer.

The viewer has the power to decide whether the show is good/bad, successful/disastrous, desireable/undesireable, etc. The question is "How much power does the viewer really want?"

Bandslam, Marx and Aer Lingus: Mass Media, Commercialism and Human Communication.

Tonight I attended a showing of Bandslam. This is a teen, high school story about growing up and taking negative and making it positive. The movie was fine, but my 13 year old daughter was sitting beside me smiling, giggling and enjoying. The experience in the moment was beautiful, a father and daughter enjoying a movie together.

The social, psychological and economic issues raised by the content were overshadowed by the moment in time. Quality time spent with my daughter, without communicating directly during the movie with each other but, experiencing the enjoyment of a media production. The product placements were obvious and were even alluded to in the dialogue of the movie. The main character once commented on the commercialization of bands and band names so that the original artistry gets lost in the commercialism.

It is interesting that the dialogue brings our attention to the over commercialization of art. Of course the lesson is ironic in its very existence in a Hollywood movie. But I wonder if it is better to have this reference in the movie or not? Is the lesson learned and/or communicated to the viewers that too much commercialism is not good? Maybe.

As educators we aspire to educate. Some (academic) bloggers argue continuously that education is not for employment but for the development of the self or the intellect. Why can't the two be interconnected?

Bandslam is probably a mediocre movie overall but it is a very professional production. Is there really anything wrong with helping students be capable of working on a professional Hollywood movie like Bandslam or on TV news or radio etc? We, my daughter and I, just did two days in Universal Studios in Hollywood. The professional attitude and development of the Universal Studios theme park is of a very very high standard.

Interestingly, I spent a lot of my time there critiquing the commercial aspects of the park but was asked to complete a survey as I left. I did. I could not fault the place for entertainment and courtesy of staff. Maybe it is a little pricy but I just thought that it was a great experience with my 13 year old daughter (if commercialism is ignored).

Is there really anything wrong with the commercial characters and the themes? Is there a better model? What is it? Let's be realistic with our answers. Is a Marxist (society) theme park really feasible? If so, how?

As I ready for my one way trip to Ireland on an Aer lingus flight I have heard from a responsible source that Aer Lingus is stopping direct flights from San Francisco to Dublin because of Irish Trade Unions demands. I am informed that the requirements made for Aer Lingus crews on long haul flights are over and above the requirements made and granted to other air transport companies.

I'm all for the employee. I'm all for less commercialism, even a little sharing and caring. But when demands for changes are made in any situation we must be careful to consider carefully the alternatives. I will benefit (it seems) from the direct flight from San Francisco to Dublin but I will be one of the last. Perhaps a little compromise could have saved the route? I don't know.

Proposing media theories which inevitably tear down the structure of the media without an appreciation of how it actually works is a one sided pedagogical approach. A little compromise/balance might give the student an appreciation for the theories of Marxism, sociology and psychology WITHIN the structure that is reality. Knocking it all down all the time will only turn them against one side or the other. We can engage the theories of criticism while at the same time appreciating the profession which the students are expected to operate within, hopefully happily.

What I do know is this. A Hollywood movie on a Friday evening in San Francisco was enjoyed thoroughly by a 40 year old man and his 13 year old daughter. It gave them material for discussion and chat. They smiled and giggled at happenings on the screen which identified that they had something in common. Laughter.

I'll take this experience without questions. Hollywood or Marx - at the end of it all, it is about human communication.

Media Studies: Are Blogs Production or Theory?

Is learning media about production or theory? Is there value in learning one or the other exclusively?

Recently my Alma Mater, USF discussed the Media Studies program at USF on a blog. The blog belongs to the journalism class but the discussion takes on the whole department. The discussion is energetic and, I would argue, useful but it does at times seem to get a little trivial or even verges on the level of flaming.

The main issue being discussed, outside of the student body itself, is whether or not students should be required to get involved in media production of some sort. It seems that one can coast through the department with little or no contribution to actual media production, which was not the case when I was there.

In the Financial Times of Monday July 27th, Josep Valor of Iese Business School argues that when educational institutions are critiqued on a blog, the educational institution should "consider such complaints "gifts" and take advantage of them." He argues that blogs should be taken seriously and the criticisms should be acted upon. "Ignoring blogs" he said "is not reading the writing on the wall."

Certainly, as a form of new media, one would expect a media department to be aware of the blogsphere, to be taking notes and perhaps selecting suggestions for discussion from it. But caution must be employed. If it was known that the university powers-that-be were acting on blog suggestions there might be a huge outburst of "requests." The cartoon accompanying Valor's piece in the Financial Times hints at the narcissism of blogging about oneself and perhaps blogging positive criticism of self on a public blog for all to see. (One might wonder if Valor is speaking from personal experience?) How many professors rate themselves on Rate-my-Prof?

It has to be acknowledged that if every educational institution was to monitor every blog about education there wouldn't be much time for education. His recent search for the term "MBA" gave results of 10,000. Some blogs I enjoy deal continuously with educational issues. My own blog in March talked about theory and production. It suggested that theory should always be included in the study whether it is production oriented or not. It is in the production of media that we can get to use the knowledge of theory for the good of others and society.

Digidave has a great way of talking freely about Journalism school. While Rab acknowledges that Media Studies graduates are being highly sought after as employees, it is difficult to imagine that he is happy about this!

It might seem like a good idea to monitor the blogsphere for ideas and criticisms but is it really feasible? Perhaps a blog for students to anonymously critique the courses would be feasible. Similar to the way professors look at the student evaluations we could eliminate the nasty, nasty ones and discuss the mature evaluations of each class and course.

Maybe this idea is simply an extension of the class evaluations we do at the end of each semester. On a public blog we could benefit from past pupils weighing in on criticisms made by current students for the good of the whole group. This kind of community spirt of cooperation and participation is worth the effort.


Sources for this post:

Valor, J. (2009, July 27). Blogs can help schools win the marketing war. The Financial Times, p.9.

Cloud Computing: Real or transcendental

[Note - the audio on the embedded video is not even]

Like every new innovation there will be naysayers. Also there will be the proponents who assume that the new innovation is the way froward and will laugh off the naysayers. Well, I am neither a proponent nor a naysayer. Rather I am interested and a little concerned, and a little skeptical. So, what is "cloud computing?"

Basically, as I understand it, cloud computing will eliminate the need to purchase software and some hardware. All the applications necessary will be online, in the cloud, and all the data created will be stored online, in the cloud.

Imagine you own a small restaurant and your books are stored in the cloud. Imagine you are a graduate student ready to turn in your thesis and it is stored in the cloud. Imagine all your photographs taken over your life are stored in the cloud. Imagine... you get the idea.

If the cloud is secure then we would have no issue I suppose. But how secure can this cloud be? As secure as a safe in your basement? As secure as your filing cabinet? As secure as the biscuit/cookie tin/jar that houses all your nostalgic photographs? Or perhaps the cloud is more secure or less secure? Which one is it? Do we really know? Are we ready to give our "life" to the custody of google and "the cloud." What are the implications for our privacy?

Not so long ago there was "a widespread cyber attack that overwhelmed government websites" and US officials are blaming North Korea. It is not definitive but the attacks were traced to Internet addresses in North Korea.

In another internet based hack Twitter was compromised to allow a hacker to access and share confidential files about "corporate and personal information of employees that was compromised, not users' Twitter accounts."

The Internet is fantastic. How would we live without it nowadays? It has become a part of our existence.

But will we float in a cloud? If the US government files can be compromised is any file safe? Does it really matter?

And if the day comes when the government(s) get behind this cloud(theory), and they are advocates for the cloud, and there are none to very few against the cloud - then be wary.

It is in the titanic audacity of safety that great tragedies are born. Let us not forget the titanic.



[The audio is not the best but this is worth viewing to get a "sense" of the views of cloud computing.]




Sources:

Baldor, L. C. (July 9, 2009). U.S. officials eye N. Korea in cyber attack. Marin Independent Journal, p.A8

Kopytoff, V. (July 16, 2009). Hacker snatches files from Twitter. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1-A11.

Privacy Issues

In England there is a scandal. The privacy rights of some individuals was intruded upon. In a culture where it seems that the news is all but overtaken by personal issues it is refreshing to learn that individuals actually have rights to privacy.

There are differences of course but living in the US I am entertained by the concern over this privacy intrusion in the UK. I have lived in a culture where phone-tapping in the name of national security was defended strongly in recent history.

Andy Coulson may very well have to step down as the Conservative Party's director of communications on the head of this. I wonder if we were still in the BUSH-2 era would this scandal be a scandal at all. In fact, I wonder if this invasion of privacy policy at the News of the world and other newspapers was a "spin-off" of the culture of phone-tapping and privacy intrusions of the Bush-2 leadership. Remember that the Bush-2 era was very well supported by the Blair leadership (at least publicly).

And now, years later, Coulson's closet is opening up and haunting him. He left the newspaper business and probably felt he was free. Did he realize that this would resurface? Does he now regret his alleged actions? Will he admit to any of these allegations? Is he guilty?

Or will he claim forever that he left because he couldn't live with the phone-tapping ideology that was the climate of his newspaper while he was editor? Will he hide behind others and claim innocence? Will he send others to the guillotine in his place? Will he ride off into the sunset saying that he knew nothing for most of the time and when he did learn of the policy that he resigned his post?

And how will Rupert Murdoch deal with all this? Now we might be in for some entertaining publishing by the Guardian. And while it is entertaining it might actually be an example of good journalism.

Now why did it take so long for it to come out?

Added on July 10th, 2009: The Bush story keeps trickling out.

Cell Phone Ring Tones: Where would we be without them?

Have you ever wondered why the person next to you has such a "creative" ring tone? We learn of one answer to that question today in the San Francisco Chronicle. It's free.

Benny Evangelista reports on the debate over ring tone royalties and gets no less than the front page! Is this a testament to the importance of our cell phone ring tones in society? If it is, it makes this reader pause for a moment and think what that might mean for our society.

If cell phone ring tones and the debate over royalties associated with them is front page news, what stories are not on the front page to facilitate this headline? Are we pushing stories of hunger, loss, socio-economic issues to the hidden pages to make room for ring tones?

So, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers is asking a federal judge in New York to require AT&T and Verizon to pay for public performance licenses for cell phone ring tones (Evangelista, p. A1.). The stakes are fairly high. They range from 510 million to 5 billion according to two studies. The Electronic Frontier Foundation weighs in saying that if the royalties are enforced it would be at a cost to consumers, and technically turn consumers into copyright violators. ASCAP says, through it's attorney Richard Reimer, that this is a business-to-business issue (I suppose implying that they want to get money from the phone companies and not the consumer - naive).

Is this important? Are ring tones this necessary? Am I so out of touch that I cannot understand the placing of this story on page one of the Chronicle today? I know people like their tones. But one reason for this, I presume, is that they are free. If they start charging, I presume, people will do without them. Maybe we would only hear the old fashioned ring that is the original of the species - ring, ring, ring, ring.

Actually, I have noticed the popularity of the old fashioned ring on newer phones lately - in coffee shops and such places. Does this mean that these old-fashioned ring tones are not going to be copyrighted? Or is there a chance that my Granny's old ring tone will be copyrighted to ASCAP?

I don't care if you charge for ring tones as long as I can have the old fashioned ring. I just won't use them. And I assume many many more will not use them either. So what's the big deal and why is this front page news?

Source for this post:
Evangelista, B. (2009, July 5th). Debate rages on ring tone royalties: Composers group wants royalties for cell phone ring tones. San Francisco Chronicle, P.A1, A7.

ADVERTISING AND CHILDREN

AN ADVERTISEMENT.





A PINT OF MILK WITH AN ADVERTISEMENT




A PINT OF MILK WITH AN ADVERTISEMENT

Thomas-Rasset Versus RIAA

Why should I be allowed to break the law? Why is the law the law? In what circumstances do we have the right to challenge the law by breaking it rather than setting about getting the law changed by using legal channels?

Creative Commons is great, sharing all information is great AND it is great to be able to get paid for your work. Many "students" in school and life are strong proponents of free and easy access to everything until, one day, they are the owners of "everything."

Jammie Thomas-Rasset is obviously getting used by lawyers and the recording industry for media attention. She seems to be a normal "getting on with life" woman. (A single mother of 4, as iterated by many media outlets which, I say, has absolutely no relevance to the story but gets pointed out over and over again). The issue is "breaking the law."

She took something which did not belong to her and posted it on Kazaa, a file sharing site.

This activity of sharing files without the permission of the owner or without paying for the file is not uncommon in the era of computer technology and new media. The relative newness of the technology seems to instill in "savvy" (usually youthful) users the desire to explore, challenge, test and create ways of using the technology.

This is clearly a case of a lawyer taking advantage of a situation. Yes, the decision asks Rasset to pay almost 2,000,000 dollars but she doesn't have that kind of money. The recording industry have proven their point twice, in this case, and now should give it up and stop the spectacle.

K.A.D. Camara, lawyer for Thomas-Rasset (it is worth reading a little about Camara), has said that he wants to turn this into a trial against the RIAA (Karnowski). Of course he does. Much media attention and therefore status and business for him is what is at stake here. For Thomas-Rasset, loss of privacy and years of nuisance, not to mention having Camara in her life!

Why doesn't she just admit wrong-doing, ask the recording industry to lay off her, and get back to her normal life? They are not going to get 2 million, she is not going to pay what she has not, she was wrong to take music and share it.

Her lawyer added that the decision was wrong saying that the original cost of the itunes which she did not pay was approximately $1.99 per file. What a pathetic argument. So, if the judge ordered her to pay $1.99 per song that she tried to not pay in the first place, this lawyer would be happy? And every other case against illegal file sharers could be satisfied by paying the $1.99 per file after trying to avoid it?

The fact is that if you break the law you must pay. And to be penalized the exact amount you tried to avoid is not fitting. Rasset has gone through enough and the case is public enough to warrant a slap on the wrist. The public have been made aware that there are consequences to sharing creative property that is not yours to share. Mission accomplished.

Sources:
Karnowski, S. (June 14th, 2009). Legal showdown set in music-share case. Associated Press

Fair Pay for Teachers

It is time for our western societies to pay our teachers a fair wage. A fair wage will afford the recipient the opportunity to own a home and a comfortable lifestyle.

Why would you teach? Would you embark on an education program to become a teacher if you knew that your student loans would be forgiven? If they were going to be forgiven then why bother charging them in the first place?

Some people "dream of teaching but fear an oppressive combination of low wages and high debt."

Loan forgiveness is a system of forgiving loans to people who pursue careers like teaching and nursing. That is, jobs that are important to society but are not high paying jobs. (Nursing is well paid, according to a friend, in California but these statistics are country wide.) Included in these positions would also be "public interest lawyers."

In Kentucky "about 7,500 teachers, nurses and public interest lawyers have benefited from the state's loan forgiveness program since 2003 at a cost of $77 million to the state."

"There is no clear accounting of how many people were swayed by loan forgiveness to pursue teaching, or how many might be deterred by the absence of such programs. But the anecdotal evidence suggests the programs matter."

The New York Times ran an article on May 27th, "Recession Imperils Loan Forgiveness Programs" detailing some of the forgiveness loan programs that are in jeopardy and some that have been eliminated. There is an underlying question here that is not being addressed. Of course the article is worth writing and reading and publishing but like many other issues the underlying question is not addressed.

Why are professionals, like teachers, which are absolutely necessary to society not paid well? It is so simple and obvious that it is overlooked time and time again. Many, if not all, western societies take pride in education and development of its youth and the next generation but, at least in the U.S., they continue to underpay teachers (and other professions). I am no push over for unions and I believe they have a function and a necessary one but isn't this one of their primary jobs - to get their members paid fairly.

Is there a teacher in San Francisco that can afford a mortgage in San Francisco on their teacher's salary? I imagine there are many many other geographical areas that we can say the same about.

Why should an energetic individual interested in teaching have to go into debt hoping for it to be forgiven so that they can teach our children? Why can't they go into debt for college like everyone else and assume that they can repay their loans when they begin earning a fair salary? Do we as a society really want to carry on the ideology that teachers should spend their lives penniless while their young educated students go off and enjoy good salaries.

The favorite educators of our youth should not be bound by the meagre salaries our society pays them. It is time to pay our educators what they deserve and then we will probably have many many more good people wanting to teach.

Source for this post:
Glather, J.D. (May 27th, 2009). Recession imperils loan forgiveness programs. New York Times. P. B1.

The Future of Newspapers

The Mayo News presents itself in electronic form and it is aesthetically and practically pleasing.

The ongoing debate about the future of newspapers has many concerned about the future of journalism itself and the dissemination of valuable information to the people. Most newspapers have some kind of internet presence and electronic version of their paper. What I have always found about these electronic publications is that they are a world away from their physical edition. Aesthetically, the electronic versions require a totally different approach and way of reading.

But now I have found one that impresses. I am a proponent of the simple and the beautiful. I have asked before why newspapers don't just put the physical paper version up on the internet. It seems so simple and obvious that perhaps they didn't want to see it. Sometimes the most obvious remedy is the best.

If the audience is buying your paper the way it is then it stands to reason that they like it the way it is. Why change the look? Why don't newspapers just simply put the physical version online. One newspaper has done this (perhaps more) and this paper is The Mayo News. The Mayo News is the local newspaper in the locality where I grew up in the west of Ireland in County Mayo. It has won many awards in Europe for newspaper design.

The Mayo News presents its digital edition as an option. You must click on the digital edition tab and follow on. What you get at the end is the physical newspaper layout, but on your computer. What a simple solution to the question of how to go digital.

I think (and I have thought for some time) that this is the way to transition to digital newspapers and hold the audience. The audience is familiar with the look of the paper. It has been aesthetically pleasing enough before and keeping the same aesthetic electronically will provide continuity which is of the utmost importance when building and keeping an audience.

The turning of the page even comes with audio (although it sounds electronic) to make one feel that they are dealing with paper. This might not be where it all ends but this is a good start.

The Press and the Minister for Justice in Ireland

Can wealthy individuals obtain a court order to prevent investigative journalism related to themselves? According to Paul Cullen's piece in The Irish Times on April 1st, this is the newspapers' argument against privacy legislation in Ireland. However, the Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, says that there is no threat to investigative journalism in privacy legislation. Investigative journalism which seeks to hold government, institutions of the State, business and other organizations up to scrutiny would not be threatened, he said.

With the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council, I wonder if there is a need for privacy legislation. Is privacy legislation, as the newspapers might argue, simply a protection for the ones who can afford a court order? Is this another example of affording the wealthy a "more equal" opportunity for fair play? So individuals who could afford the law would be able to avail of the security of the privacy legislation while the less-than-wealthy would have to roll the dice and hope the Press Ombudsman or the Press Council would protect them.

The Press Ombudsman's office opened in January of 2008. It is amazing to think that it was not in existence before this and it is equally amazing to think that in such a short time after its inception the Minister for Justice is seeking Privacy Legislation. Surely this privacy legislation could be incorporated into the functions of the the Press Ombudsman's office or the office of the Press Council, and avoid the courts altogether. (Of course taking into account that the legal option is costly and therefore prohibitive to many.) This seems too close to an avenue of exploration open only to the well off. If I was cynical I might suggest that it is once again those in power using our democracy to instill protection for the wealthy and powerful while trying to appear to be concerned for the general population.

The defamation bill which is up for consideration too "gives statutory recognition to the Press Council and Press Ombudsman and allows newspapers to offer an apology without risking an admission of liability." This bill would allow the publication to defend its reporting as "in the public interest." This is the issue that the Minister for Justice has a problem with - in the public interest. He sees the necessity to support privacy legislation because he cannot define "in the public interest." He says that this area may be abused with "careless propagation of trivial or tabloid issues masquerading as being in the public interest." How many definitions has he used in that sentence which could be analyzed with numerous results?

What is his definition of "careless propagation?" How does he define "trivial?" What does he say is a "tabloid?" And then he uses the term "public interest" so easily when his own concerns are what others will deem to be the definition of this term. He seems to be clear in the definition by his own use of the term!

While his concerns are founded he seems to be looking out for the big guy rather than the proletariat here. How many of the general population really worry about privacy? How many people are concerned for privacy over free access to information?

Cullen says in the byline, "Minister cites 'worrying trend' of media intrusion." Perhaps the Minister for Justice should be concerned with how some have managed to take advantage of others life savings. Perhaps looking for justice would be a justifiable endeavour for the Minister for Justice. Perhaps searching for answers to the questions surrounding the injustice of the economic disaster would help the population to be better prepared for the next upturn. Perhaps the next upturn could be a sustained realistic growth that helps the many and not the few. Would that be justice?

Maybe the Minister for Justice would be serving the proletariat by discovering what went wrong and who brought it all about. Maybe the Minister for Justice could delve into the workings of the government (past and present) and report to the population what he thinks brought this about. The justice in this exercise is to learn from the mistakes. The justice in this would trump privacy whether for an organization or the government or individuals.

Justice brought about by free and equal access to information - Now there's a novel idea. That's an idea that the electorate might expect a Minister for Justice to believe in.

(By the way why is it an ombudsman? Shouldn't it be the ombudsperson?)


Sources for this post: Cullen, P. April 1st, The Irish Times

RTE and Racism in Ireland?

Is Irish society and the Irish media in particular ignoring the apparent racism of the post celtic tiger Ireland?

Listening to Marian Finucane, is the most popular way to learn of current events for many in Ireland. The other day, as I was travelling south through windy and wet weather I tuned in. Her show covered a lot of ground but the issue that stuck in my mind was her coverage of one particular event which happened the night before.

A bus driver was spat at and dragged from his bus and beaten. The delivery of the story was matter-of-fact but the moment I heard of harsh words uttered at the driver and the act of spitting I thought of a racially motivated attack. Perhaps I am at fault here to assume this but my thoughts were, I believe, confirmed when later in the story we were informed that the driver was a Chinese man.

If this story was reported in the U.S., I imagine the ethnic identity of the driver would have been reported close to the headline. However, in this instance on RTE Radio One, the ethnicity of the driver was made known only when an interviewee was asked by Marian Finucane. She reported the event, introduced the interviewee from a Dublin Bus company and conducted the interview. At the end of the interview, almost as if an afterthought, she asked where the driver was from.

I suggest that the ethnicity of the driver might be the headline. I suggest that there is a high probability that the event took place as a racially motivated event. I suggest that if the driver was not a "Non National" (a term I hate which is given to immigrants living in Ireland) this event might not have taken place at all.

Should the media acknowledge the ethnic identity of the characters in the story? Is it racist to ignore the racial identity of the person being reported on? Would the story be more objective with or without identifying ethnicity? Should the media be color-blind? And how can it be?

Later on I watched the RTE Television news. The story was covered and the ethnicity of the driver was not mentioned.

I wonder if the lack of importance given to the ethnicity of the driver in this story is ignoring the real headline? The real headline may be that racial attacks and racism are alive in Ireland and may be gaining traction in these economically difficult times.

In this instance, I believe the ethnicity of the driver was an important fact in the story. Educating the public to the existence of racially motivated attacks is one of the duties of the media.

Leave the Travolta Family Alone

I am saddened to learn of the passing of a 16 year old man today. How does a family cope with this kind of loss? The death of young people just seems so difficult to understand. The Travolta family should be allowed its privacy in this time of grief.

When I was thirteen my family lost my twenty year old brother. Justin was full of life and promise. I saw from the inside how a family deals with this kind of event. Privacy is extremely important.

Years later, I was an intern at a local TV station and was invited to accompany a reporter on a morning story. A building fire had taken the life of a toddler. The reporter, who was well respected, didn't have to think twice about getting himself (and me and the camera) into the building and knocking on the residence door, hoping for an interview with the parents.
As I climbed the stairs in the building and smelled the aftermath of the fire I was sickened by the prospect of invading the parents' privacy. I hoped that they were not in. I thought of Justin and my own family as I climbed the steps. No one answered the door.

I was physically shaking when I came out of the building and felt nauseated. I knew that this kind of journalism was not for me.

It does seem, however, that to succeed in TV journalism you have to have this killer instinct to get the footage. "Good TV footage" at any cost.
But I think it doesn't have to be. A little respect for peoples' privacy in a time of mourning and loss is not a lot to ask of any professional.

I suppose this issue drives at the ethics of reporting and the ethical choices that professional journalists must make in the field.

The Travolta family is a family similar to any other family. Try to put yourself in their position if you can. I'll wager that any human being who does this will allow them their privacy and wish them peace in these tough times.

And every time the story appears on TV, just try to imagine the young 16-year-old's sibling trying to watch a little TV for comfort. No child deserves to be treated like that.

Maybe some day the media will wish peace on people by leaving them alone?

2009, Sponsorship of Time

O.K. 2009.

So, New York rang it in in style.

Happy new...Toshiba or is it Happy new... Nivea?

Is there anything beyond sponsorship?

I'm only asking.

Anderson Cooper Disappoints Me.

On AC-360, Anderson Cooper mentioned the Saturday Night Live skit where they made fun of Governor David Patterson. Cooper then played a clip where Governor David Patterson brought attention to the potential negative impact the skit might have on the rights of people with a physical impairment.

Patterson suggested that making fun of him just because of his blindness might have the undesirable effect of communicating to the mass audience that it is allright to poke fun at people with a handicap. The way the skit presented a blind person was as an awkward and clumsy individual. Patterson made his statement clearly and without any sign of immaturity or "sour grapes."

I feel that his statement was honest and meaningful. He started by saying that he has a sense of humor himself and that he enjoys a joke. Then he went on to make his socially responsible comment on behalf of himself, but referring to all individuals with any physical impairment. I think his comment was a necessary accompaniment to the repeated playing of the SNL skit which made fun of his physical characteristics.

However, as dissappointing as it is for this viewer, Anderson Cooper stated that he would take no sides on this issue. Then he said that the comedian on SNL was very funny. This, of course, implies that he is taking sides with SNL and he is discounting the seriousness of Governor Patterson's statement. With all that Anderson Cooper has done, from "Planet in Peril" to his coverage of New Orleans, it is dissappointing that he would not support Patterson's concern for a minority group in our society.

It is at times like this that a reporter gets an opportunity to say something meaningful which may effect others and get them to be aware of others who are not as fortunate as themselves. Supporting Patterson would not discount Anderson Cooper's appreciation of the humor. But it would have possibly got many young adults to think twice about the humor in the SNL skit and to think twice before laughing at the less fortunate.

I am dissappointed in Anderson Cooper for the way he handled this story. He had a chance to say something meaningful and helpful in a subtle and effective way. Like many other media, AC-360 squandered an opportunity to say something nice, good, positive, educational and humane.

Who Owns What?

I wonder about the authenticity (or lack of) of a blog when it blatantly links to other blogs for content but it would be less genuine to reiterate what another has said so well. I was not aware of Robert W. Dechard until I read Alan Mutter's blog today.

The way that Alan talks about the issue surrounding Decherd is both entertaining and pertinent to media in general. As obvious as it may seem to some, this is hitting at the crux of media. Who owns it, who runs it, who takes the profits and who has to deal with the losses?

All of this becomes much more relevant in times when the economy is where it is now. But we should be looking at these issues even when the economy is roaring along.

Alan was interviewed on a show, of which I am a producer, Focal Point, recently and he wowed audiences with his experience and delivery.




Regardless of whether we agree with his interpretation of Dechard he raises questions and issues which we should all be taking seriously.


These issues are well worth considering in relation to the newspapers he mentions but also in relation to TV, radio, music and of course, the internet.

These questions are also relevant with regard to the auto manufacturers who are now asking for financial help. When they were not asking for help and making profit who was benefitting? Where have the profits been going in the good years? When did they start losing money? How were they let go to this?

Questions should be asked continuously even when the good times roll or we may end up back here again in the not-too-distant future.

Graduation: Broadcast Electronic Communication Arts

It kinda reminds me of the days when I was on stage a lot. I'd rehearse and work hard for months and then perform for a few weeks and then it was all over. I imagined back then that it must've been something akin to the rush that people on drugs experienced, and also the let-down when it was all over.

I have enjoyed so much the last two and half years of studying for an M.A. that as it draws to a close I am deflating. I'm not sad that it is over, indeed I am begining to feel a real sense of accomplishment but I know that I will miss the pressure, the joys, the difficulties, the cooperation and coordination of my life related to my studies.

At this time I think of some people with whom I would love to share this but they have moved on from this life and it awakens in me a real sense of gratitude to those who have helped me in this endeavor.

Teachers, classmates and, of late, students who accepted me as their instructor, have all contributed to this accomplishment. My family have been understanding when the dining-room table was literally covered in books, and days and nights were used for study rather than relaxation and chat. Work associates were understanding when I was not readily available. All of this effort on my extended family's behalf and the effort of my own now results in my receiving a post-graduate degree. I feel a sense of accomplishment as I have said and also a sense of gratitude.

But the greatest learning of all is cemented in me through my real experience of people associated with this work that I took on. People are understanding, generous, forgiving, interested, positive, unique and real. We are all unique but so many have given to me in this quest that I have a real sense of the goodness of human beings.

For that I am grateful. I hope this appreciation will come through me as I move on to...whatever...

#2 - Lawrence Lessig: Remix, Copyright by the laws of humanity

Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York: The Penguin Press.

He continues:

Comparing to the Pokeman characters in Japanese media culture he shows how a different society to the US encourages identity with numerous characters and "created" characters rather than one omni-potent character or one RO ("Read-only") character(p.78)

Instead of the focus being, "Here's something, do something with it," the focus in the US is instead, "Here's something, buy it" (p.80)

Remix and sampling is just the same as what we've been doing throughout history with citing sources in our written documents (p.82). And this is exactly what I am doing here. I assume L. Lessig would approve.

He remembers with glee the day his own kid challenged the plot of a "monster man" story in favor of his own made up plot shift. The creative mind he asserts is not RO but is more inclined towards RW (Read-write) culture (p.87).

Creativity in media and remixing will generate more revenue for media companies because of the need for the production tools (p.88).

The complexity of media content will determine its value or its ability to be appreciated in and of itself. With RW and RO culture together we will generate more interesting content and the competition will be greater for better content.

The law is inclined towards protecting RO culture to the detriment of RW culture. Lessig says they can and must co-habit.

We may have to pay for electronic access to an e-book every time we access it. Unlike the book in my hands right now which I can read, reread, loan, or give to someone to read, an e-book may have a cost attached every time it is viewed. This is a fundamental shift in the way we share information and are charged for it(p.100).

This access to RO information was challenged by the tape recorder and the VCR and they did not kill the RO culture. The economy survived.

The law is reaching to the amateur for the first time to regulate how we recreate. Used to be, we could cite and recreate. Now we are in danger of being compelled to pay through the nose to "cite" media sources.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2004 said that every sample used in a remix triggered copyright law, regardless of the size of the sample (p.104)

Why would the system stop this creativity by economic strangulation? "no good reason, save inertia and the forces that like the world frozen as it is" (Lessig, 2008, p.105). Lawyers continue to reap the benefits of strong business.

The law is making our creative youth criminals for doing what is second nature to humans. This second nature is to write/create new work by citing your sources.

"We need to decriminalize creativity before we further criminalize a generation of our kids" (Lessig, 2008, p.114)