Lying Media Bastards: Media Archive
December 01, 2004
Media Mambo
The Great Indecency Hoax- last week, we wrote about how the "massive outcry" to the FCC about a racy Fox TV segment amounted to letters from 20 people. This week, we look at the newest media scandal, the infamous "naked back" commercial. On Monday Night Football, last week, ABC aired an ad for it's popular "Desperate Housewives" TV show, in which one of the actresses from the show attempted to seduce a football player by removing the towel she was wearing to bare her body to him. All the audience saw, however, was her back. No tits, no ass, no crotch, just her back.
No one complained.
The next Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh told his shocked viewers how the woman had appeard in the commercial "buck naked".
Then, the FCC received 50,000 complaints. How many of them actually saw this commercial is anyone's guess.
The article also shows the amazing statistics that although the Right is pretending that the "22% of Americans voted based on 'moral values'" statistic shows the return of the Moral Majority, this is actually a huge drop from the 35% who said that in the 2000 election or the 40% who said that in 1996 (when alleged pervert Bill Clinton was re-elected). This fact is so important I'm going to mention it over in the main news section too.
Brian Williams may surprise America- Tom Brokaw's replacement anchor, Brian Williams, dismissed the impact of blogs by saying that bloggers are "on an equal footing with someone in a bathroom with a modem." Which is really funny, coming out of the mouth of a dude who's idea of journalism is to read words out loud off a teleprompter. Seriously, if parrots were literate, Brian Williams would be reporting live from the line outside the soup kitchen.
In related news, Tom Brokaw has quit NBC Nightly News, and it appears that unlike his predecessor, the new guy can speak without slurring words like a drunk.
PR Meets Psy-Ops in War on Terror- in February of 2002, Donald Rumsfeld announced the creation of the Office of Strategic Influence, a new department that would fight the war on terror through misinformation, especially by lying to journalists. Journalists were so up in arms about this that the Pentagon agreed to scrap the program.
Don't you think that an agency designed to lie to the public might lie about being shut down, too?
This article gives some examples about the US military lying to the press for propaganda and disinformation purposes.
Tavis Smiley leaving NPR in December- African-American talk show host Tavis Smiley is opting to not renew his daily talk show on National Public Radio. He criticized his former employers for failing to: "meaningfully reach out to a broad spectrum of Americans who would benefit from public radio but simply don’t know it exists or what it offers ... In the most multicultural, multi-ethnic and multiracial America ever, I believe that NPR can and must do better in the future." He's 100% correct. NPR is white. Polar bear eating a marshmallow at the mayonaise factory white. And the reason it's so white is that it is trying to maintain an affluent listener base (premoniantly older white folks) who will donate money to their stations. This is a great paradox of American public broadcasting, that they have a mandate to express neglected viewpoints and serve marginalized communities, but those folks can't donate money in the amounts that the stations would like to see.
U.S. Muslim Cable TV Channel Aims to Build Bridges- it sounds more positive than it is "Bridges TV" seems to simultaneously be a cable channel pursuing an affluent American Muslim demographic, and a way of building understanding and tolerance among American non-Muslims who might happen to watch the channel's programming. I was hoping it would be aimed more at Muslim's worldwide, but it ain't. Still, I'd be interested in seeing how their news programs cover the issues.
Every Damned Weblog Post Ever- it's funny cuz it's true.
Wikipedia Creators Move Into News- Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created collectively by thousands of contributors. It's one of those non-profit, decentralized, collective, public projects that show how good the internet can be. Now, the Wikipedia founders are working on a similar project to create a collaborative news portal, with original content. Honestly, it's quite similar to IndyMedia sites (which reminds me, happy 5th birthday, IndyMedia!). I'll admit, I'm a bit skeptical about the Wikinews project, though. IndyMedia sites work because they're local, focused on certain lefty issues, and they're run by activists invested in their beliefs. I'm not sure what would drive Wikinews or how it would hang together.
CBS, NBC ban church ad inviting gays- the United Church of Christ created a TV ad which touts the church's inclusion, even implying that they accept homosexuals into their congregation. Both CBS and NBC are refusing to air the ad. This is not too surprising, as many Americans are uncomfortable about homosexuality, and because TV networks are utter cowards. But CBS' explanation for the ban was odd:
"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast."
Whoa, what? First of all, the ad does not mention marriage at all. Second, since when do positions opposite of the Executive Branch constitute "unacceptable"? This doesn't sound like "we're not airing this because it's controversial", this sounds like "we're afraid of what the President might say."
November 16, 2004
Tales of Media Woe
Senate May Ram Copyright Bill- one of the most depressing stories of the day that didn't involve death or bombs. It's the music and movie industries' wet dream. It criminalizes peer-to-peer software makers, allows the government to file civil lawsuits on behalf of these media industries, and eliminates fair use. Fair use is the idea that I can use a snippet of a copyrighted work for educational, political, or satirical purposes, without getting permission from the copyright-holder first.
And most tellingly, the bill legalizes technology that would automatically skip over "obejctionable content" (i.e. sex and violence) in a DVD, but bans devices that would automatically skip over commericals. This is a blatant, blatant, blatant gift to the movie industry. Fuck the movie industry, fuck the music industry, fuck the Senate.
Music industry aims to send in radio cops- the recording industry says that you're not allowed to record songs off the radio, be it real radio or internet radio. And now they're working on preventing you from recording songs off internet radio through a mixture of law and technological repression (although I imagine their techno-fixes will get hacked pretty quickly).
The shocking truth about the FCC: Censorship by the tyranny of the few- blogger Jeff Jarvis discovers that the recent $1.2 million FCC fine against a sex scene in Fox's "Married By America" TV show was not levied because hundreds of people wrote the FCC and complained. It was not because 159 people wrote in and complained (which is the FCC's current rationale). No, thanks to Jarvis' FOIA request, we find that only 23 people (of the show's several million viewers) wrote in and complained. On top of that, he finds that 21 of those letters were just copy-and-paste email jobs that some people attached their names to. Jarvis then spins this a bit by saying that "only 3" people actually wrote letters to the FCC, which is misleading but technically true. So somewhere between 3 and 23 angry people can determine what you can't see on television. Good to know.
Reuters Union Considers Striking Over Layoffs- will a strike by such a major newswire service impact the rest of the world's media?
Pentagon Starts Work On War Internet- the US military is talking about the creation of a global, wireless, satellite-aided computer network for use in battle. I think I saw a movie about this once...
Conservative host returns to the air after week suspension for using racial slur- Houston radio talk show host (and somtime Rush Limbaugh substitute) Mark Belling referred to Mexican-Americans as "wetbacks" on his show. He was suspended for a couple of weeks, and then submitted a written apology for the racial slur to a local newspaper. But he seems to be using the slur and its surrounding controversy to boost his conservative cred with his listeners.
Stay Tuned for Nudes- Cleveland TV news anchor Sharon Reed aired a story about artist Spencer Tunick, who uses large numbers of naked volunteers in his installations and photographs. The news report will be unique in that it will not blur or black-out the usual naughty bits. The story will air late at night, when it's allegedly okay with the FCC if you broadcast "indecent" material. The author of this article doesn't seem to notice that Reed first claims that this report is a publicity stunt, but then claims it's a protest against FCC repression. I'd like to think it's the latter, but I'm not that much of a sucker.
October 10, 2004
Media Shower
Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film- when we last heard about the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the head office was commanding all of its local TV affiliates to not air an episode of Nightline that would read aloud the names of all of the US soldiers who had died in the Iraq war. This appeared to be pure conservative partisanship, trying to shield the nation from information that could decrease support for the war.
Now, SBG is forcing all of its affiliates to preempt their regular programs and air an anti-Kerry "documentary" just days before the election. This is precisely the sort of scenario that media activists are always warning against.
Feds Seize Indymedia Servers- odd tale. As I reconstruct it, someone posted a photograph of two undercover Swiss police officers, who were spying on protesters, to the British activist news site Indymedia UK. Swiss law enforcement was upset, so they contacted friends in the FBI to ask for help. The FBI, utilizing some sort of collaborative agreement with British law enforcement, seized Indymedia UK's server computers. These computers not only hosted Indymedia UK, but almost two dozen other international activist news sites. It all sounds pretty shady to me.
On a related note:
Free Radio Santa Cruz Shut Down by FCC- not sure why the FCC is cracking down on pirate stations, first Knoxville First Amendment Radio, now this long-running Santa Cruz station.
Howard Stern on Satellite Radio- Sirius Satellite Radio is the smaller of the two major satellite radio companies in the US. As a means of competing with rival XM, Sirius has signed a deal with popular morning talk host/shock jock Howard Stern. The terms of the deal are outrageous: $500 million for five years. Analysts are saying that Sirius will have to add 1 million subscribers for each of those five years to pay for the Stern deal-- and Stern doesn't even start broadcasting with them till 2006. Frankly, I have to predict that this plan will not be successful, and that in the next few years that XM and Sirius will merge, with XM ascendant.*
Fake Blogs, True Buzz- nothing that new here, advertisers creating fake blogs as a sneaky way to build hype for products. Just another example of advertisers attempts to ruin all that is good in the universe.
Reporter for Times Is Facing Jail Time- NYT reporter Judy Miller is in jail due to contempt of court charges, for refusing to name her sources in the Valerie Plame/CIA leak investigation. Miller is best known for being a pawn of Achmed Chalabi, publishing his lies about Iraq's WMDs with little skepticism.
September 18, 2004
Smoking Poll
I am generally skeptical of polls because I just can't buy into the idea that you can interview 1000 people and then say that your results will accurately reflect the opinions of 290 million other people who happen to live in the same country. Mathematical, statistical and pollster friends have tried to convince me otherwise, and maybe they're right. But it seems like a ridiculous leap of logic to me.
But there is recent evidence that we should be skeptical of current election polls, not because of my brand of philosophical suspicion, because of basic design flaws.
First, we have this column which claims that pollsters, who usually do all their surveys via telephone, do not include cellphone numbers in their phone number lottery. If you've got a cell phone and a land-line, no problem. But if you only have a cell phone, you will never be polled. According to this article from back in April, over 8 million Americans fit that category, and the number is growing. The final piece of the puzzle: most of these 8 million are young people, and most young people tend to vote Democrat. So by ignoring cell phones, pollsters may be missing many Democratic opinions.
Secondly, we see that the highly respected Gallup Poll is skewing their sample. In their "polls of likely voters", they are assuming that 40% of those coming to vote will be Republicans and 33% will be Democrats. Meaning that they make sure that 40% of the people they poll are Republicans and 33% are Democrats.
I don't dismiss this idea out of hand; what if this 40:33 ratio is a historical trend? It would only make sense to make your polls follow suit. But the blogger linked to above researches this further, and finds that since 1992, the ratios of Rep to Dem have been 34:34, 34:39, 35:39 (granted, this is according to Zogby Polls, a rival of Gallup). Just using anecdotal evidence, I think that Democrats are going to flood the fucking polls this year because they are so angry at Bush. If the ratio this year isn't at least about equal, it will be because Kerry does something amazingly stupid, like announce publicly that he worships Satan.
And finally, we have evidence of some kind of slant in a recent NYT/CBS poll. After asking if they were voting for Bush or Kerry, the pollsters asked who the subject had voted for in the last election. 36% said Bush, 28% said Gore, and 32% said they didn't vote. That is amazingly skewed. If it was going to be representative, it should've been like 50% didn't vote, 25% said Gore, 24% said Bush. That's very fishy.
I'm not saying "look at the right-wing pollster conspiracy!" I'm saying "don't trust opinion polls!" And, to some extent, "maybe Kerry is getting more votes than we think." Of course, if our media was worth a damn, they would semi-regularly do stories about the limitations of polls, or analyze what questions were asked, who was asked, and what those results actually mean in the real world. But polls are such great, easy news stories, why would they fuck up a good thing?
September 10, 2004
Project Censored 2004
Every year, the researchers at Sonoma State University's Project Censored comb through the alternative press, looking for stories of great importance. They then cross-check this vital stories against the mainstream media and see which ones got left out. They refer to these important, neglected stories as "censored," and every year, they publicize the year's Top Ten and Top Twenty-Five "most censored" stories
There's an article listing and summarizing 2003's Top Ten here, and a list of the Top Twenty-Five (with links to details and background) here.
The list is always worth a look. Some items will probably be familiar to you, and others will be surprising and disturbing new info.
September 05, 2004
Foundation of the Facade
"Vidiot" is the blogging pseudonym of a TV journalist, from North Carolina I think.
Anynow, Vidiot was in NYC covering the Republican convention, and s/he created an amazing photo gallery which presents a media's-eye view of the convention: behind the scenes of the pomp, examining the wheels of the news machine, watching the facade being assembled and maintained.
If you're a media geek like myself, it's a definite must-view.
August 08, 2004
Bundle o' News
JibJabbing for Artists' Rights- Gregg and Evan Spiridellis create animated web cartoons. Their latest is a political satire mocking both presidential candidates to the tune of "This Land Is Your Land". The company that owns the copyright to Woody Guthrie's catalog threatened to sue the Spiridellis brothers for using the song, the brothers filed legal papers asking a judge to speak to the copyright issues involved. Under US copyright law, you are allowed "fair use" of copyrighted works, if you're using them for critique, education, and several other occasions. And this case is obviously, obviously within that realm. I imagine that the judge will smack down the copyright-holders. The thing that makes the company's actions even more dispicable is the original songwriter's opinion on copyright:
"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."
'Real women' ad sets new trend- women's underwear company Dove launched a TV ad campaign in Britain using women of various shapes and sizes instead of busty-yet-anorexic swimsuit models, and Dove's sales increased by 700%. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned there...
Punk at a Moment's Notice- I'm sure it's extent is overexaggerated in the article, but this concept is very cool: small local band sends text messages to its fans and announces that in a few hours they will be playing a show at a nearby bar, subway train, gallery, funeral parlor, etc. People show up, band plays free show, everyone leaves.
FCC Blocks Spam on Wireless Devices- one of the first things the FCC has done in years that I approve of: ban spam text messages sent to cellphones and PDAs.
Liberally applying "most liberal" label- conservative pundits keep squawking that John Kerry and John Edwards the first- and fourth-most liberal members of the Senate, and the news media doesn't seem to be questioning it. This Spinsanity article shows that these rankings are not of Kerry or Edwards as individuals, but are rankings of their voting records for a single year, 2003. And 2003 was an unusual year, as both men took plenty of time off from the Senate to campaign, which meant that they had fewer votes as part of their tally. Spinsanity links to a more comprehensive survey which finds the two to be pretty close to the Democratic center rather than the Democratic left.
Covering the "Caged Hamster": Media's picture of Kerry based on RNC distortions- article which argues that the press' general coverage of Kerry seems to accept Republican stereotypes and disinformation at face value.
Selling the News- Vibrant Media Inc. and Forbes.com are working together to take the text of Forbes.com articles and hyperlink certain words to the websites of their advertisers. The Forbes.com president reassures us by saying that his company is "not trying to blur the line between advertising and editorial, we're just trying to find out where that line is." Comforting.
August 03, 2004
Disintegration
After the big prehistoric killer asteroid hit the Earth, I imagine those first mammals said to themselves "it's getting pretty cold out. Good thing I've got this warm fur coat and a hibernation instinct." And the last dinosaurs were saying "it's getting pretty cold out. I'm... going to eat some leaves." Had they the brain pan, opposable digits, or tool-making skills, that same dinosaur might've said "I've got to make a shelter or a winter coat or something," and survived.
I feel that today's big media industries are like those dinosaurs. I'm not trying to pull some kind of hipper-than-thou, techno-manic attitude, that these businesses don't understand "the digital revolution" or some shit. I'm saying that these industries are working on business models that're decades old, and due to changes in society and technology, might not be viable any more.
I've written several articles where I talk about the music industry's violently stubborn refusal to accept change. Since probably the 1950s, the recording industry has depended upon the fact that mass-producing recorded music is so expensive that all musicians needed a corporate sugar daddy to survive. But now you can record an album on a friend's computer for cheap, burn CD copies for cheaper, and transfer the songs over the internet for free. As we know, the record industry has made little-to-no effort to adapt to its new circumstances; instead, it has tried to sue and intimidate people into pretending that it's 1950 again.
I found an odd example of both the changing music enviroment and the effects of the RIAA's backlash in this article. Brothers Alan and Andy Berry opened up a record store in Indianapolis, selling hip-hop music. As an interesting aside, the Berrys admit that they would "break the streetdate" for new albums. "Streetdate" is a collusion between record label and record store to refuse to sell an album until a certain day, even if the store has the records sitting in plain view for a week. In exchange for honoring the streetdate, the record companies give advertising money to the stores. But since they really only give this money to big stores, Berry's Music didn't see why they should bother.
But the main part of the article is about mixtapes. A local DJ will put together a number of exclusive tracks, by well-known and unsigned artists alike and sell copies of the compilation. They are quite popular. Berry's regularly sold mixtapes for several years. Then, *BAM*, the RIAA shows up with the cops, confiscates $10,000 worth of mixtape CDs, and arrests the brothers on 13 counts of royalty theft and fraud. Responds Alan Berry:
"We never really questioned the legalities of them. We never did. Because, one, we were getting some of the mix-CDs through our regular vendors that we bought our quote-unquote 'legit' product from. The same place I would get the Interscope record from, I would get mix-CDs from, from national distributors. Two, the artists are on there endorsing the mixes. I mean, Eminem's on the mix-CD saying, 'Yo, this is Eminem. You're listening to DJ Green Lantern.' Then he drops three or four exclusive free-styles and he’s talking within the mix, about the mix itself, saying Lantern's his man. You would kind of assume that Eminem's fine with it."
Which sounds pretty damn reasonable to me.
Unfortunately, the brothers Berry decided that they had to sell their store and all their records to pay for their legal defense. They managed to plea bargain down to a misdemeanor, but that carried a heavy fine. The only upside is that Alan plans to open up another record store, Naptown Music. If anyone hears about that place opening, please drop me a line so I can announce it. The fella could probably use a little publicity.
Was this a case of the RIAA trying to destroy the mixtape, which is effectively an alternative to a record label? I'm not sure, because I have not seen any other stories of stores closed for selling mixtapes. Was this a case of the RIAA cracking down on the violation of streetdate? That seems a little more likely to me.
My next example is the newspaper industry, by way of the comic strip. Scott Kurtz, of the internet comic PvP wants to get his comic in the newspapers. He explains that many comics are part of a syndicate. The syndicates pay the cartoonist, own all the rights to the cartoons, and sell bundles of cartoons to the newspapers. Kurtz claims that comic strips were originally a way for one local newspaper to draw readers away from another. But nearly every city in America is a one-paper-town these days, so there is no competition. Kurtz quotes a fellow cartoonist who says
"If any one newspaper would get the balls to just 86 their comics page, and suffer through the months of letters they would receive, we'd be done for. Once the papers realize they can survive dropping the comics page, everyone will do it."
And s/he's right. If comics are an expense, and newspaper publishers find out that they can keep selling as many papers without paying for that expense, the comics will vanish. Which leads to Kurtz's plan to give his cartoon away to newspapers for free. He figures that it would be free publicity, and that he (and other cartoonists, if they followed suit) could make their livings selling books of their cartoons, advertising on their websites, and cartoon-related merchandise.
Very strange, the modern newspaper. Almost none of them have any competition locally. I guess each local paper competes with the nearest regional paper and with the nearest "paper of record" (NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post). The local has the advantage that it'll say what's going on in your very city, the others have the advantage of real news.
And finally, we have the television. The TV business model is way fucked up. TV has made its profits by selling time to advertisers for decades. But advertisers want to get the most for their money, so TV stations started getting their audiences measured by the Nielsen company back in the 1940s. And today, TVs sell time to advertisers, based upon audience measurement by Nielsen. 60 fucking years later, not much change.
The biggest change has been what audience the advertisers want. Originally, advertisers wanted as many people as possible to see their ad. But since they were paying per person, they later decided that as much as possible, they only wanted to reach audiences likely to buy the advertised product (in the advertiser's wildest dreams, a network would air a program about toothpaste, watched by millions of toothpaste enthusiasts, on which they could advertise their own particular brand of toothpaste).
The shift in advertiser desires led to a shift in programming strategy. Instead of creating shows that would appeal to everyone, the networks began creating shows aimed at specific consumer-oriented audience segments. Advertisers want to reach a wealthier audience, because they have more money to spend, which makes sense. But they also want to reach a young male audience, almost to the exclusion of most other audience segments (no one has explained that to me very well. Wouldn't you want everyone's money?)
Anyhow. This article is about television's hunt for the 18-34 year old male audience... and how they're losing it. Guys this age (my age) resent advertising, don't watch advertising, and "hunger for authenticity", so how are advertisers responding? With advertising styles that either don't promote their products or that will incur Gen X wrath (I don't know how much "experimental" fake real life advertising the public will take before someone gets his ass whupped).
All I'm saying is that they times, they are a'changing, and the media giants, they are a'stupid.
July 15, 2004
What Up, Docs?
There are more political documentaries in and around movie theaters these days than at any time I can remember. I'm seriously discovering a new one every week or two. For everyone's convenience, I'll go ahead and catalog em for you. Most of them have already been mentioned on this site, but let's get our one-stop convenience on.
Bush's Brain- in 2003, two reporters penned the book Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential. Karl Rove is, of course, the Mephistopheles to Bush's dim-witted Faust (what, all my references have to be to 80s cartoon shows?), the campaign advisor who's lies, strategery, and dirty tricks put his boss's cowboy boots on the desk in the Oval Office. Anyhow, someone read the book and said "hey, we should make this a movie", and did. Haven't seen the film, but its website implies that one of the main themes of the movie is new politics of not just defeating your opponent, but destroying him.
The Corporation- I plan to see this one this week (maybe tomorrow afternoon, if I play hooky). The film's conceit is "since corporations are considered 'people' under the law, why don't we try to psychoanalyze these artificial people and see what they're like." The conclusion is that if corporations were people, they'd be sociopaths. This film is also apparently based on a book of the same name.
Fahrenheit 9/11- you know about this one.
The Hunting of the President- another book-based doc, this one is about the lengthy Republican campaign to defeat/destroy Bill Clinton while he was in the White House. Of all the movies on this list, this is the one I'm least interested in.
Orwell Rolls in His Grave- just found out about this one like ten minutes ago. Near as I can figure, it's also about the run-up to the Iraq war, but with focus on the absolutely criminal behavior by the US media during this time. I'm most attracted to this film because of its stylish name and focus on my obsession, the media.
Outfoxed- I've mentioned this one a few times lately. Anti-Fox News documentary that is driving the network to distraction.
Super Size Me- least political of the bunch, but still, deals with corporate America, aspects of our government's food and nutritional policies, and getting a big fat ass.
Unprecendented: The 2000 Presidential Election- first of the recent "Un" trilogy. This one is about the Florida debacle part of the 2000 election.
Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War- second of the "Un" trilogy. Covers a lot of the same ground as F911, but with more focus on testimony by intelligence officials debunking the pro-war argument.
Unconstitutional- "Un" trilogy finale. Not yet released, but about post-9/11 fear and the Bush administration's attacks on civil rights in the US.
July 13, 2004
Breakdown
Last week, I idly mentioned that there was a new anti-Fox News documentary out called Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Looks like a good flick, using the news channels' own footage to hang it, and you can apparently buy a copy for only about $10. But it's starting to get some media momentum, so let's take another look.
Apart from its obvious controversy, the documentary is also noteworthy because it uses more copyrighted material without permission than any previous film. The director seems to be hoping that he can get around it by claiming it was "fair use", a loophole that lets you use portions of a copyrighted work for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research". No one's used "fair use" so heartily before, so I'm looking forward to seeing how this shakes out.
While on the one hand Fox News is acting like the movie is no big deal, the network simultaneously seems to be losing its mind. In a really silly smear attempt, Fox is essentially arguing that billionaire George "Darth" Soros is the evil puppetmaster in this tale, making the movie, controlling the NY Times, and possibly eating babies.*
Then Fox tried to claim that every single ex-Fox-employee interviewed in the film was a low-level employee, fired for incompetence who lies for fun. And then Fox puffed up its chest and said that they will publicly release all of their "editorial directions and internal memos" if other major news agencies do the same. Which demonstrates all the courage of saying "I will stand in the middle of the freeway, if you do." I can say that fearlessly because I know full well that you're not gonna, and I still get to look like a big, ballsy hero (at least to the naked, stupid eye).
My absolute favorite thing though is that the film's director, in a mock effort to smooth things over with Fox, has offered to let the network air the film "for free." You, Mr. Director, are a funny man.
Anyhow, since this movie seems to be making Fox break out in a nervous, loony rash, there's only one thing to do: promote the hell out of it.
All you bloggers, post info and links about the movie on your site. Email the url to friends. Print out the logo/cover graphic and post it on the bulletin board at work. Go to Fox News HQ and pee on the doorknobs. Keep checking CableNewser, a blog that is apparently all over this story. Buy a copy of the movie, watch it, and pass it around.
I haven't seen the movie, don't know if it's any good, and guess that most Americans are already pretty aware of the reality of the movie's premise: the Fox News Channel is conservative. But if there's anything we can do to make Rupert Murdoch cry like a little girl, I say we go for it.
[update]
Wonkette has a batch of 30 Fox News memos where honcho John Moody tells his employees what to cover that day and how to cover it. Some of his directives are explicitly partisan, some are implicitly partisan, and some are just sensationalistic.
[/update]
----
*There is a whisper of truth to this Fox allegation. Outfoxed was partially funded by MoveOn.org, which was partially funded by George Soros. And a NY Times reporter wrote about the documentary, but agreed with the film's director not to call Fox News for comment till the last minute (allegedly so that Fox wouldn't be alerted about the movie, sue the director, and prevent the film's release). So obviously, these connections form a single tapestry of evil, woven by demonic succubi, on the payroll of mega-evil George Soros.**
** What's the deal with me and footnotes lately?
July 09, 2004
Medium, Message
The 'prop-agenda' war- a look at current and past uses and techniques of propaganda by the US government on the American people.
Some theater chains refuse 'Fahrenheit'- I have no problem with theater owners choosing to show or not show Michael Moore's new movie. I am amused by a quoted theater chain owner's claim that the reason that they are choosing to not show Moore's film is because "It has always been and will continue to be our policy to refuse to play what we feel are propaganda films, no matter the source." We salute thee, Captain Patriot, on your long-standing non-propaganda policy! So when when exactly has this been an issue at your theater? What was the last wide-release film which was propaganda and made you put your foot down to uphold your virtue? Pompous lying motherfucker.
News Hounds- site that's new to me, "We watch FOX so you don't have to" (that's quite a community service). Basically, they watch and critique Fox News Channel programming from a liberal point of view.
If anyone knows a site that critiques Fox News from a conservative point of view, please let me know. That could be hilarious.
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism- more Fox bashing. This is the site of a new documentary about the effects of corporate ownership on the news media, and on Fox in particular.
FCC may order media to keep on-air records- to better penalize broadcasters, the FCC is mulling over the idea of making those broadcasters keep recordings of all their shows. Expect broadcasters to fight back, talking about the high price of blank tape.
Photoshop other New York Post front-page scoops- after the New York Post's goofy blunder where they printed an erroneous front page about Kerry's running mate, the jokers at Fark put their graphical skills to work riffing on that theme. In related news, it looks as though the "mysterious source" who misinformed the Post might have been Post owner and media emperor Rupert Murdoch (actually, I'm not sure why the NY Times is running with that story, they only have a single, unnamed source making that claim. Oh wait, that's because they're the NY Times).
House Leaves Patriot Act Unchanged- members of the House of Representatives tried to alter the Patriot Act so that law enforcement did not have the right to search every American's library records and book receipts to find out what they're reading. The attempt failed. I love how when I read, Big Brother's lips move.
No Sex, Please, We're Texas- conservative nutjobs in Texas have decided that all the state's kids should be furnished solely with special "Texas edition" health books which teach that abstinence is the only form of birth control. Which is good, because there's nothing more evil than teen sex. Well, maybe teen pot smoking.
June 24, 2004
Little Non-Losses
About a year ago, the FCC voted to relax ownership rules for mass media outlets, making it easier for a large media conglomerate to become a huge media conglomerate.
The rule change faced a surprising backlash. The public was actually angry about this, and some legislators actually took notice.
This week, the relaxed ownership rules have taken a double hit.
First, the Senate voted to overturn the deregulation (on the downside, the Senate then voted yes on two pro-censorship bills, one increasing fines on broadcast stations that air "indecent" material, and another looking to study the V-chip and possibly ban violent TV during times when children watch a lot). I presume that the House needs to vote on a similar bill before this would become law.
Then, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sent the FCC packing. It blocked the implementation of the new FCC rules, and told the FCC to take its new regulations back for revision.
Granted, this just takes us back to the fairly shoddy ownership rules that we had last year.
Which is why I'm in favor of broadcast piracy. Big corporations used the government to hijack our airwaves. Hijack em back.
May 14, 2004
Media Week
A Look Inside the PR Battle Against Super Size Me- the site IGN.com is primarily a site of news & reviews of "cool" things for young men: movies; video games; cars; high-tech gadgets; etc. So I was proud of them when I saw that they'd risen above shallow and hip to get an actual newsy scoop. The article above was conceived when IGN received three different press releases attempting to debunk the anti-fast food message of the movie Super Size Me. The IGN guys did their research, finding that each of the press releases originated from a different PR front group funded by members of the junk food industry, often by the Golden Arches themselves.
Reading With the Enemy- allegedly inspired by Super Size Me, liberal writer Oliver Griswold tells his harrowing tale of going 30 days absorbing no media but right-wing news. He sustained permanent liver damage, and he grew three extra toes. Okay, I'm lying.
The Coming Backlash Against Outrage- in a nutshell, the author argues that "In the weeks ahead, we’ll be encouraged to turn away from information surfacing about imprisonment and interrogation techniques that have held sway under U.S. authority in Iraq. Atrocities will be discounted, excuses made, messengers blamed."
Media Matters for America Television Spot Reveals Controversial Iraqi Prisoner Torture Commentary- new media watchdog Media Matters has been driving Rush Limbaugh nuts by publicizing his most ignorant and mean-spirited comments. They now seek to take it to another level by placing commercials on TV, quoting Rush's claims that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse is no big thing. If it pisses of Limbaugh, I'm glad to hear it.
Fox Doctor's Diploma Mill Degree- Fox's TV show "The Swan" is a fucking atrocity. It should be called "The Prey", as one of the world's largest corporations uses its power to exploit the insecurities of some of America's most emotionally vulnerable women. To make the whole thing more professional, their team of experts--plastic surgeons, nutritionists, personal trainers-- also includes a "therapist"/psychologist. As my brother and I watched part of the show in horror, we wondered what kind of psychologist could possibly find this show to be in the slightest bit ethical. Well, maybe part of that is because she's not exactly a "real" psychologist. This article finds that Dr. Lynn Ianni got her Ph.D from one of those fake universities that will give degrees to anybody for the right price (granted, it looks as though she did get her Master's in psych from a real university).
April 30, 2004
Censo-Rama
As you may have heard, tonight's edition of Nightline (ABC) will solely be a reading of names and showing of images of American soldiers who have been killed in the war on Iraq.
As you may have also heard, the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a multimedia conglomerate that owns 62 television stations (reaching 24% of the US population) has told its 8 ABC affiliates not to air the Nightline program.
The Sinclair Group says that it is refusing to air this broadcast because it "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq." It then "proves" its case by pondering the question, "why [Ted Koppel] chose to read the names of 523 troops killed in combat in Iraq, rather than the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001." Which seems to be incorrect; ABC asserts that it did read all of the names of the 9/11 victims on the one-year anniversary of the attacks, leaving Sinclair with nothing but an unsubstantiated insinuation.
It is posible that Sinclair's motives are genuine, thinking that they are protecting the American people from ABC's harmful political agenda. But Sinclair has a history of supporting the Bush administration and a right-wing agenda. Some of these actions include: forcing their news anchors read statements of "full support" for President Bush after 9/11; refusing to air a Democratic campaign ad critical of Bush; and just donating lots of cash to Bush and the Republicans.
This shows the danger of media consolidation: censorship. Eight regions of the US will not see this commemoration of the dead because of the political views of some corporate bigwigs.
What's also interesting is the assumption that remembering the dead will cause harm. It is reasonable to think that the public, faced with a stark reminder of all of this death, may turn against the war and its supporters. Or, contrariwise, viewers could see all this death and be even more determined that the United States win the war, so that all these soldiers will not have died in vain. Honestly, poll data seems to support the latter; the worse we do in Iraq, the more Americans seem to want to rally behind the president.
Although it's a bit of a tangent, I also wanted to remark upon today's USA Today front page. The key headline was "Iraq's Deadliest Month", followed by an article about the large numbers of Americans killed in Iraq in April: 134. But to me, that shows an amount of America-centrism that's somewhat insulting. Iraq has existed as a nation since the 1930s, is home to 25 million Iraqis, and it's "deadliest month" just happened, and when 134 foreigners are killed? The article doesn't even mention the number of Iraqis killed this month (which the Associated Press claims is 1361-- ten times the number of Americans). It's as though Iraq is only visible when Americans are in it, and the deaths of people there only matter if those people were born under an American flag.
I'm thinking that Iraq has had "deadlier months", possibly including the final days of Gulf War I, one of the months of the embargo when people were dying of starvation and lack of medicine, or even the opening days of the latest war, thanks to Shock and Awe.
I understand that this USA Today article was not trying to be about the suffering of the Iraqis, or about the general suffering of war. And I'm not trying to say that the death of an Iraqi is more important than the death of an American. All of the deaths on all sides are tragic. I feel bad for all of the people who's lives are being cut short by the conflict, and for all of the brothers, mothers, wives, husbands, fathers and friends who will have to live the rest of their lives with a hole where their loved one used to be.
The idea that one life, or one death, is more important than another, is one of the main reasons we still have war.
April 28, 2004
Mediatron
Air America: Clear Channel Lite- while I think it's a little ridiculous to compare tiny liberal AM radio network Air America to commercial radio behemoth Clear Channel, the article has a number of serious criticisms of the former. Primarily, the article exposes the seemingly unintentional racism of Air America and its staff.
Daily Howler 1 and 2- Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler has two columns that rip new assholes in a number of biased political journalists. Good reads, check em both out.
The Way They Were- check out the latest cover of US News & World Report magazine of George W. Bush and John Kerry circa 1971. Kerry, known for being a veteran, is represented by a picture of himself in a regular suit. Bush, who is known for using his daddy's connections to get into the National Guard to avoid Vietnam, is depicted by a photo of himself in his military uniform. Provocative juxtaposition? Ironic inversion? Political hackery? You make the call.
Another Africa Calamity -- Will Media Slumber On?- "American journalists are generally slower to cover mass death if the victims are not white." Obvious, but sometimes it's nice to have people point out what's being ignored, even when it's obvious.
Access of Evil- Newsweek interviews Democracy Now's Amy Goodman. Goodman has done a lot of great reporting over the years, but I find she too often resorts to partisanship and sensationalism in her journalism. Anyhow, she's out promoting her new book, and the newsmagazine asks her about the media. As one can expect, her answers are not flattering.
Much of What Advertisers Are Doing Is an Invasion of Privacy- really pretty amazing thing here. The marketing trade magazine Advertising Age, feeling the pinch of declining ad revenue, asks anti-advertising activist Gary Ruskin to write them an article explaining why people hate advertising so much. I think Ruskin's critique is right on, that consumers are disgusted with advertisers because they refuse to recognize any boundaries, and because they refuse to acknowledge it when their campaigns actually do harm.
Swallow This, Deep Throat- intriguing article which argues that it is no longer necessary or desirable for reporters to use anonymous sources. The author points out that there have only really been three explosive anonymous sources (Deep Throat, Daniel "Pentagon Papers" Ellsburg and Jeffrey "The Insider" Wigand), and two of those three had their identities exposed immediately. Now, individuals take advantage of reporters' hope to be the next Woodward & Bernstein by giving them anonymous quotes and info for those individual's own political gain, facing no consequences for their actions.
April 08, 2004
Latest from the Media Front
Administration wages war on pornography and Xtreme Measures- while we have seen a crackdown on "mainstream" indecency ever since the Janet Jackson nipple flash, Attorney General John Ashcroft has been on a jihad against porn since at least 2002. The first article outlines the more concrete aspects of law enforcement and politics, while the latter deals more with the pornography itself, and the legal/social history of the concept of "obscenity." It looks as though obscenity was first outlawed because it could "deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences". And now, well... I can't find anything in modern obscenity laws that explains why obscenity is bad, except that it "offends community standards", and last I checked, it wasn't illegal to offend people.
Ashcroft seems to be pushing the "won't someone please think of the children?" angle, saying that porn is so pervasive that our nation's young'ns can easily get ahold of it. But rather than work on the relevant part there, children's access, Ashcroft would rather work on the more invasive and less practical effort of eliminating the porn itself.
But hey, it makes me feel safer just knowing that we're using our nation's law enforcement resources to fight video blow jobs instead of, y'know, deadly terrorist attacks.
A Heretical View of File Sharing-new study argues that people downloading mp3s off the internet doesn't actually hurt record sales. The study is largely an exercise in limited data-gathering and lots of math, so I don't know how accurate it is. A frantic record industry responded to the study with a "oh yeah, then how come our sales keep dropping, smart guy?" And the answer to that would be an academic "I don't know," and shows the weakness of the industry's position. In research, until you have proof that one thing causes another, you don't try to explain why something happens. The industry has been pretending that it's obvious that the only single possible cause of their sales slump has been the demon internet. But even this article points out a host of other potential causes: "a slow economy, fewer new releases and a consolidation of radio networks that has resulted in less variety on the airwaves. Some market experts have also suggested that record sales in the 1990's might have been abnormally high as people bought CD's to replace their vinyl record collections."
2004 Pulitzer Prizes for Journalism Announced- what the headline says. It actually looks like they picked out some good folks this year, despite the fact that this has been a shit year for journalism. You can read the stories themselves if you follow the links here.
Why Karen Ryan Deserved What She Got- another article about the PR scandal which pulled back the curtain on the uber-shady practice of Video News Releases. Journalist and scholar Jay Rosen takes a deep look at the event and gives some thoughtful analysis about all the hubbub.
April 05, 2004
Truth and Kosequences
(Jake winces at title)
I don't usually write about the goings on of the blogosphere, but I feel compelled to say something here.
Long story short: last week, four "civilian contractors," employees of Blackwater USA, were killed in Iraq. Seems that the fellows were mercenaries, or something very similar. Kos of the Daily Kos blog wrote an angry post last week in response in which he said "they are there to wage war for profit. Screw them," and people went apeshit.
Right-winger bloggers now decided that this one comment showed the true nature of the left, uncaring of human life and America and whatnot. They then went on a campaign to get all of the folks who advertise on Kos' site (mainly political candidates in various state elections) to cancel their ads. Several did. John Kerry's website removed its link to Kos'. Some liberal bloggers demanded that Kos retract his comments and apologize. Then things seemed to finally die down.
First off, you can read a longer summary with some interesting analysis here. I found the author's "compare and contrast" between blogs and talk radio to be intriguing (maybe since I do both): blogs have memory (cuz of their archives) while radio is emphemeral, and that this in turn may lead to the more extreme rhetoric on radio (because there's no record of the words after they are uttered).
Second, what's the big deal? Does anyone really like mercenaries? They're hired killers, right? If ever tried for war crimes, they wouldn't even have the benefit of "I was only following orders," just "but he was gonna give me a dollar!" I don't find "screw hired killers" to be a particularly controversial statement.
Third, I don't care what Kos said, and don't understand why everyone's making a big deal of it. Was it an insensitive thing to say? Sure, but so what? That's what the comments section is for; you don't like what he said, you call him and asshole and a France-lover and you're done. I guess some folks see him as a "voice of the left" and part of the left-liberal blog community, and don't want any of the ire aimed at Kos to splatter onto themselves. Maybe I don't care because I've never felt myself a part of that community, as they're a bit to the left of Al Gore and I'm a bit to the left of Gandhi.
Fourth, as Steve Gilliard points out, this event points out the scummy, cowardly, "no friends" nature of party politics. By all accounts, Kos' site has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for various Democrats in the past year, and yet at the slightest hint of controversy they'll drop him like a bad habit. Fuck those guys.
As I mention, my politics are much more radical than those of Kos and his readers, but I think he has done some pretty amazing things. He started a blog, used it to help energize and organize tens of thousands of Democrats, raise money for their candidates, and launch the blogging careers of the amazing Steve Gilliard and Billmon. But most impressive to me, Kos his personal site into a community site. Most people who gain some amount of power keep it to themselves, but Kos opened his site up to complete strangers to contribute.
In conclusion, screw all mercenaries.
April 02, 2004
Wonks Get Goofy
Although most of the April Fool's Day gags I saw this year were pretty lame, I did like this bit from the usually straight-laced "Benton Foundation Communications Policy Mailing List". But then, I'm a geeky media analyst, so...
BROADCASTINGSTUDY: 90% OF TV CONTENT INDECENT Preliminary data for a report due to Congress January 1 finds that 90% of television programming is "indecent," according to regulators' new definition. "Wow, this problem is much worse than we thought," said one staffer. Broadcasters were quick to dispute the findings. "The study is ridiculous," argued an executive at the American Association of Television People. "Most of our programming is crass commercialism and shameless self-promotion. We're doing stuff legislators never dreamed of when they wrote indecency laws. And, anyway, you can block some of it with the V-chip." [SOURCE: FCCMonitor]
LOW POWER BUT HIGH VOLUME Seems established broadcasters were right along, low power radio can cause extra interference in the markets where it has been introduced. Apparently, DJs are encouraging listeners to turn their volume settings at the highest levels as they leave their homes for work. The ensuing noise drowns out any other commercial or noncommercial messages in the area. "This is a temporary protest," says on LPFM station owners. "We want our radio brethren to know what real interference is." [SOURCE: Inthefield.com, AUTHOR: Dee Dee Devine]
DTV TRANSITION UPDATE: WHERE TO PLACE THE BLAME After some public bickering earlier this week, lobbyists for TV, cable and consumer electronic industries finally agreed, it is the fault of the American public that the transition to digital broadcasting isn't going smoother. "Some say chicken or egg, programming or hardware," said one lobbyist. "I say its that darn guy who keeps buying the Egg McMuffin when we're offering quiche. Buy the quiche! Sure, it is expensive and you get more than you want, but it tastes better." Continuing the poultry metaphor, one K Street maven asked, "Pretty picture, better sound...what do you want, eggs in your beer?" The industries are working on a joint proposal to the FCC that will allow broadcasters years to return analog TV spectrum in case they find a really profitable use for it and cable operators will be able to double prices for carrying both analog and digital TV signals (no, wait, they've already done that). Expect a decision sometime after the November election. [SOURCE: Will Street Journal, AUTHOR: Will McCunnell]
TELECOM
YOUR NEXT PHONE Consumer electronics executives meeting this week in Lubbock, Texas are touting the next generation of wireless phones. Instead of being tied to one carrier, the phones will automatically search for the best carrier to complete each call as directed by priorities set by the owner including cost, reliability and privacy. "For once," an executive told the press, "we're saying we're putting choice into people's hands and we really mean it." The phones will be compatible with WiFi and VoIP and be easily upgraded with new software to allow use of emerging technologies like WiMax. The phones will be the embodiment of convergence acting as computer, (with dozens of applications) communications device (telephone, e-mail and pager) and entertainment appliance (camera, MP3 player, videogame console, VCR programmer). The phones will offer high-speed Internet access allowing users to stream video, download songs and check email. All commands will be speech activated. Basic model will retail for $20, but can be affordablely upgraded to include features that allow the phone to walk the dog and put the kids to bed, too. [SOURCE: Mrropers, AUTHOR: Bill Kane]
PRESIDENT REVISES BROADBAND GOAL Combining two popular recent proposals, President Bush urged Congress to adopt as a national goal broadband access on mars by 2020. "Look," the President said, "we're already planning on sending scientists, astronauts and Al Gore to Mars, they will need information flowing across cables and telephone lines in a fast way. We can help. That's what broadband technology is. It means we'll open the interplanetary highways of knowledge -- new interplanetary highways of knowledge." The President added later in the day that broadband access on Mars should not be taxed. [SOURCE: WhiteHouseWatch.com, AUTHOR: Orville Ovalle]
March 30, 2004
As Liberal as They Wanna Be
You've heard about that upcoming liberal talk radio network, right? A group of three AM radio stations, with liberal/progressive hosts like Al Franken and Janeane Garafalo, that will stick it to The right-wing radio Man?
Sadly, there's a seamy underbelly here:
Liberal Air America will displace Black talk at WLIB
One of the new network stations, WLIB, was formerly filled with programming aimed at the politics and concerns of NYC's African-American and Carribbean-American communities, very rare in today's corporate media-domnated environment.
Now WLIB's gonna be mostly white folks smirking about how Bill O'Reilly says things which are inaccurate.
I am unfamiliar with WLIB, so I can't speak too much on its content or importance. In fact, it may have been slipping for some time now. According to this article, WLIB seems to have been edging away from its community-oriented programming towards more profit-friendly fare for some years now.
But still, it's hard to see this as anything other than "well-meaning" white people taking control of a black enterprise for the benefit of "everyone" (where "everyone" means "mostly middle class white people").
The new Air America Radio network starts broadcasting tomorrow at noon. Maybe someone should call in to figurehead Al Franken's show and ask him about the network's takeover of WLIB.
March 28, 2004
Real/Fake Fake/Real
Nice article in the new blog Abused by the News about Video News Releases, those agenda-laden fake news segments created by PR agencies and sometimes broadcast by cash-strapped local news programs. They help big corporations (or governments) shape what you think and believe by feeding you slanted information as "fact." The author of this article says that VNRs are not inherently evil. And true, maybe you could make a VNR about saving endangered puppies or eating healthy vegetables. But, the way that VNRs are generally used, yes, they are evil.
VNRs are finally getting a little limelight (although their creators prefer the anonymous gloom and shadow of their dank caves, *gollum gollum*) thanks to controversy surrounding a VNR created by the Bush administration, with federal tax dollars, to tell untruths to the public about how keen the new Medicare prescription program is. Some Americans were outraged by the use of public monies to pay for what was essentially a pro-Bush campaign commercial, others were angry about the government intentionally distorting the news, and still others are sure that White House is the official stable of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
The author also mentions the book Toxic Sludge Is Good for You, a ruthless expose of the demondogs of the PR industry. It is one of two books that I consider mandatory reading for understanding life in these United States. If you haven't read it, go get it now and don't come back till you're done.
March 26, 2004
Choosing Sides
Fox News ain't so fair and balanced.
This is really pretty astounding.
The Bush administration is currently reeling from Richard Clarke's claims that they have been failing the fight on terrorism. They have been looking for a way to defuse the Clarke danger by spinning him as a liar or cad or bumbler or something.
So it was quite a boon when the White House discovered a tape of Clarke from 2002, where he gave a "background briefing" to reporters about antiterrorism. The 2002 report is far rosier than Clarke's recent claims, therefore, goes the Bush argument, Clarke is lying now (could it be that as a government official that Clarke played up the positives and played down the negatives? Nah).
Where did the tape come from?
White House spokesman Scott McClellan says, "It was Fox News who yesterday came to us and said they had a tape of this conversation with Mr. Clarke."
Jesus fucking Christ.
A supposedly neutral arbiter of public information, unbiased and beholden to no one, searched through its archives and found a videotape that could help win a political conflict, and then gave it to the administration in power, knowing full well what it would do with the tape.
This wipes its ass with "fair and balanced." It's certainly not objective, detached observation and reporting. It catapults over "bias", and straight into "I play ball for the Republicans." We always knew that Fox News had a conservative slant, but this moves from propaganda to action.
And it fucks journalism in another way, too. When a source tells a reporter that their information is "background," it means that they don't want to go on the record, they don't even want to be anonymous. It means that they want to tell you the truth, but they want you to go find evidence someplace else. And reporters usually follow this code and let their background sources stay safe. Near as I can figure, this tape of Clarke was background. Not only did Fox break the rule and reveal a background source, it explicitly tries to hurt the source by aiding the source's enemies.
Fox News is so low that they win all the limbo contests.
[Correction]
Fox News did not supply the White House with a tape, they supplied the White House with a transcript of the tape. Sorry for the error.
[/Correction]
March 19, 2004
And That's the Way It Is
I need to read this and comment on it, but I haven't had a chance yet:
The State of the News Media 2004: An Annual Report on American Journalism
It's put together by the The Project for Excellence in Journalism, a part of Columbia University's journalism program.
It's obviously not the pinnacle of all journalistic criticism, but it probably has a few interesting things to say. You can probably skip straight to its eight major trends section for most of the meat, unless you're particulary interested in a specific medium.
Overall, the eight trends point to economic concerns and how they are having large impacts on the way news is gathered, produced and distributed. The two non-economic trends I found most interesting were: In many parts of the news media, we are increasingly getting the raw elements of news as the end product and Those who would manipulate the press and public appear to be gaining leverage over the journalists who cover them. The first speaks much to the press' descent into press release readers instead of investigators and analysts. The second speaks to the press' spinelessness and gullibility; they may want to do harder hitting stories, but many factors encourage them to take the easier, subject-friendly route.
I'll try to look the whole thing over when I can and give you the highlights, but that might not be for a while.
March 11, 2004
Media Child Panic #29584937
Some months back I wrote about a sensationalist "news" story that swept the country about "sex bracelets". As it turned out, this story was pretty much all myth, but it was popular because it mixed parental fears, the "children grow up to fast" meme, sex, and taboo (kids having sex).
Well, on to the next scare:
XXX-DVDs a new hazard for drivers
The scary opening:
Andrea Carlton hadn't planned on telling her daughter about the birds and bees until she was 8 or 9. But that changed the night 4-year-old Catherine spotted a porno movie flickering on a screen in a minivan nearby.
On no! Won't somebody please think of the children!!!
This tale has most of the attractions of the bracelet story, but also involves the "new technology is going to destroy us all" meme.
Apparently, some people are playing porn on their in-car video systems, and unless their windows are tinted, people outside the car can sometimes see what's on those (tiny) screens. And some of those people could be *gasp* children.
The CNN article documents 1... 2... 3... 4 cases of it happening! In a nation of 290 million people! That's almost an epidemic! Well, okay. Only 2 of those 4 cases involved kids. But, you know... As one concerned mother so eloquently put it, "You're not allowed to have sex in your car, so why are you allowed to watch it?"
Indeed.
Okay, show of hands. How many of you have TV/DVD systems in your cars?
That's what I thought.
Now how many of you know someone else who does?
Great.
I live in Hollywood and work for rock stars, and therefore have a much higher probablity of knowing people with tricked out cars with expensive doo-dads than most folks. And I don't know anyone who has these DVD systems. How bad can this porn-car thing be if no one has TVs in their cars?
And who the fuck is watching porn in their car?
Yawn. Wake me when the next panic-the-parents story hits.
March 09, 2004
Sneak Attack
This really pisses me off.
The MoveOn.org Voter Fund is a "527", a new form of political organization that can collect as much money as it likes, and can use that money on political advertising, so long as it doesn't support or oppose a specific candidate. 527s seem most effective in soliciting donations from partisan voters and then running TV ads that highlight a political topic which makes their opponent look bad (e.g. the "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest winner "Child's Pay", about the effects of the federal deficit). I couldn't tell you just yet if 527s are a good thing or a bad thing, but they are a legal thing-- at least for now.
A lawyer for the Republican National Committee wrote a letter to 250 TV stations around the country, demanding that these stations not air the MoveOn.org Voter Fund's ads, because they are illegally financed. The letter concludes with a not so subtle warning that the station's could lose their licenses if they continue their "complicity in illegal activity."
If the ads were truly a violation of broadcast law, the stations could expect a letter of warning from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). If the ads violated electoral law, the stations could expect a letter of warning from the Federal Election Commission (FEC). But a letter from the Republican National Committee (RNC)? Last I checked, they weren't responsible for the enforcement of any kind of law.
I could continue tearing this apart, but I'll save us all the time.
This is a scare tactic. The Republicans are trying to scare TV stations into banning ads from liberal 527s by threatening to take away those stations' broadcast licenses. What a bunch of bitches.
March 04, 2004
Nipple Ripples
The impact of Janet Jackson's breast-baring continues to reverberate.
The popular (yet puzzling) shock and outrage has been seen by some political folk as a mandate for a crackdown on naughty media. The FCC has rolled out new rules and punishments for TV and radio stations which violate obscenity and indecency laws (but has no problem with the way that monopolistic media destroys democracy. Gotta have your priorities, I guess).
While we're at it, we may as well lay out those rules:
Obscenity: must meet three criteria- "(1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Basically, sexual material aimed at getting you horny, and only at getting you horny. Despite what most people believe about the First Amendment, obscene speech is against the law. If you want your sexy content to be legal, make sure it has some kind of "literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Say that one of the actresses in your porn film is supposed to be Charlotte Bronte and you'll be good to go.
Indecency: "Depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." That means pee-pees, poo-poo, fannies or hoo-hoos. Indecent material is legal in print, but only permissable late at night on radio and TV (10pm-6am).
One of these days I really should write an article about all of the legal restrictions we Americans have on our rights to free speech. There are quite a lot of them, really.
Anyhow. Due to the Janet Jackson thing, our broadcast industries are freaked out that they might face government regulation. In addition to that, Clear Channel recently received some of the stiffest fines in the history of the FCC for indecent comments made by their DJ "Bubba the Love Sponge"-- $755,000. Bubba has since been fired.
Around this time, Clear Channel suddenly decided that it was a staunch supporter of American decency, and dusted off/created a list of decency codes. Popular Viacom DJ Howard Stern allegedly violated some of those codes, so Clear Channel removed Stern from 6 of its stations. That's really not that big a blow, but those stations were in some pretty major markets.
Do these crackdowns signal a hard right turn in our culture? Probably not. I think that this editorial gets it right when it points out that the predicted "permanent shift" in media tone after 9/11 lasted about six months, and naked tits don't score quite that high on the trauma scale, even if those displayed while the whole world is watching.
But as this chain of dominos keeps falling, as players react when acted upon. It is theorized that in anger over his censorship, that Howard Stern might try to get himself fired from Viacom and take up with one of the satelite radio companies, XM or Sirius, taking some fraction of his 18 million listeners with him and turning them into viable media outlets (at present the combined listenership of satelite radio in the US is around 1.5 million).
If things got worse for Stern this would seem possible, but I don't think it's real likely. Although I would love to see the headline "Jackson's Nipple Launches Satelite Radio".
[edit]
I am aware of the allegations that the reason that Bubba and Stern were cut loose was because they had been criticizing President Bush on their shows. That is certainly a possible explanation, but I try to look for the simplest, most reasonable answers. And when it comes to corporations, the simplest answer is usually "money". Frequently when a company fears that government may pass regulatory legislation on their industry, they usually try to pre-emptively self-regulate, assuming that their own half-assed and misleading attempts to solve the problems themselves will save them the money that obeying externally imposed regulation would cost. I think that reason is more plausible than some sort of secret Clear Channel political agenda.
[/edit]
March 03, 2004
Door, Ass, Way Out
Haw Haw!
Michael Eiser Fired as Disney's Chairman of the Board
What Passes for News These Days
Copied from Empire Notes, transcribed from Fox News' "The Big Story with John Gibson", March 2, 2004:
JOHN GIBSON: Folks in Haiti getting used to life without Jean-Bertrand Aristide. As for Aristide, he is in exile pushing the idea that he is the victim of a coup. Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has more on the hazards of being a dictator. Well, one of the hazards is you get run out of the country.JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Absolutely. And you get run to a country which may turn on you. I mean, this Central African Republic has a horrific history of housing dictators. Emperor Bokassa I, who was reputed to be a cannibal.
GIBSON: He was actually acquitted of that charge.
NAPOLITANO: Acquitted of the cannibalism but convicted of murder. When the Central Africa Republic got tired of supporting his lavish lifestyle sent him back to the country out of which he had been kicked. They tried him for murder, sentenced him to 20 years. He was let out after a couple years and eventually died. So we don't know what life will be like for Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Jeeeeee-zus is that some fast & loose playing with the facts.
First, Gibson simply asserts that the democratically-elected Aristide is a "dictator."
Then dismisses Aristide's claims of "coup" out of hand. (As I note in this entry, Aristide was obviously the victim of a coup, what with all the armed men telling him to resign or be killed.)
Then, they imply that Aristide is a dictator again, because he's in Central African Republic, which they claim "houses dictators."
Then, they assert that some guy's a cannibal, even though he apparently isn't.
Net result: "Jean-Bertrand Aristide is a dictator cannibal on the run, who will die a horrible death."
Fox News needs a new slogan. Instead of "We Report. You Decide", it should be "Look at Me!! Look at Me!!"
Movie Sense Tingling
Jeez, comic books have overrun the movie industry to an amazing degree. Check out this list of scheduled comic book-based movies just by Marvel Comics:
The Punisher- April 16, 2004
Spider-Man 2- July 2, 2004
Blade 3- August 13, 2004
Man-Thing- October 2004
Fantastic Four- July 2005
Iron Man- November 2005
Ghost Rider- 2005
Luke Cage- 2005
X-Men 3- 2006
The Hulk 2- 2006
Namor- 2006
The Punisher 2- 2006
Spider-Man 3- 2007
Elektra- TBA
Iron Fist- TBA
Black Widow- TBA
Deathlok- TBA
Captain America- ?
Nick Fury- ?
That makes for at least planned 17 comic book film