Parents Cut Corners in Poor Economy

• Is the information in a given article accurate?

The information in the article is correct, but it does not go into great detail. It is a short article.

• Is there missing context that might undermine the premise of a given article or television segment?

There is missing information from the article. The article discusses how parent are more likely to cut costs in the times of the poor economy, at the danger to their children or to themselves. However, only one example of a mother diluting baby formula is provided. No other statistics or past instances are mentioned. It would be helpful to know just how common this practice of "cutting corners" is, and how commonly children and there parents are hurt by it. This missing context gives the article a tone of fear. A reader might wonder where and when this is happening around them, but the article gives no information.

• Which experts are quoted--and, in turn, who isn't allowed to give their opinion what does this leave out?

Only one expert is directly quoted in the article. The article mainly just uses the expression, "experts say". "Nancy Cauthen, deputy director of the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) in New York, said she hopes this is an extreme, but she can't be sure." Since this is the only organization named, the reader is given very little perspective on where this information is coming from. It is difficult to gauge how reliable the experts may be, or what motive they might have for putting forth the given information. Another person who is directly quoted in the article is a member of an organization of low-income people trying to improve their community. She says this practice of cutting corners is "nothing new", but is unable to provide any concrete evidence or statistics.

• When TV news shows (or newspaper/internet editorials) feature a point/counterpoint debate, what political spectrum is offered?

Depending on the source of the news, the political spectrum might differ. The political spectrum might depend on the news network or the author of the article. In the case of the ABC article I chose, I am not sure of the networks political affiliation, if any. However, the tone and content of the article appears to be more on the liberal side. It does not quote any government officials and seems to call out for change or the help from some organization.

• Is the selected media simply reinforcing the status quo on a given topic, even though there may be no reason to assume that it is correct?

The article does not reinforce the status quo. Instead, it creates a sense of fear and calls out for help. It gives the reader the sense that something must be done to create a change. The tone of the article suggests a change in the status quo. While some status quo reinforcing articles are more likely to create a sense of calm about the economy, this article does the opposite. It creates a feeling of discomfort and fear.

• ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What are the consequences for a reader that is not given well-rounded information?
  

In the case of this article, the consequence is reader who has a false understanding of what is going on with the economy because not enough information is provided. Someone who does not directly encounter the practice of "cutting corners" with food and medical care could be left with a bad understanding of the reality of the situation. They may get the feeling that the majority of children are being malnourished, or adversely, that this has only affected one child. The reader in the end, is not given the facts and therefore left to make their own assumptions.


Click here for the article

It's official: U.S. is in recession

Is the information in a given article accurate?
The information of the article is accurate, but the concern is certain information is left out. The statistics in the article are correct as provided by the National Bureau of Economic Research, but they are only using statistics to support the argument of the article.

Is there missing context that might undermine the premise of a given article or television segment?
What the article leaves out is information surrounding how the economy got to the condition it's in, and what actions are going to be taken to improve the situation. The statistics are supporting facts that the US economy has been in recession since December of 2007, something the American people have already known. What Americans are probably wondering, as the information has been left out, is why haven't actions been taken if the economic situation has been recognized for an entire year.

Which experts are quoted--and, in turn, who isn't allowed to give their opinion what does this leave out?
The majority of the article is supported by experts from the National Bureau of Economic Research and the only direct quote comes from White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto. This is not a wellrounded set of sources because the NBER is funded by the government. This means that the article's only sources were government related.

When TV news shows (or newspaper/internet editorials) feature a point/counterpoint debate, what political spectrum is offered?
An unbiased article would require points and counterpoints in order to provide alternative perspectives on any given situation. In this case however, the reader is only given the government's perspective on our economic situation as told by the NBER.

Is the selected media simply reinforcing the status quo on a given topic, even though there may be no reason to assume that it is correct?
This particular article reinforces the status quo by restating what the American people already know, and providing no new information. The are trying to avoid the liberal media bias by not investigating it to closely. This suggests to the reader that there is nothing else to know about the issue, therefore discouraging them to look any deeper into our economic problems.

ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What are the consequences for an audience that is exposed to only one-sided media?
If a reader only turns to one source of news for their information, they may only be exposed to one-sides stories. The consequence of this is an uneducated public. By being fed only the opinions of a limited group as opposed to a wide variety of opinions, a reader is unable to sort through the information for themselves in order to make up their own educated opinion. This shows how important it is for a media consumer to expose themselves to different perspectives in order to educate themselves on an issue.

Click here for the article

Jessica McClanahan & Marion Herbert

Relating to Growing Up Online

The "Growing Up Online" video is a recent, and in my opinion, extremely relatable perspective on what it is like to be a young person during the internet revolution. As a student, the internet plays a great role in our experience in school. We use the internet as our main source of information and communication. This brings up a wide array of issues that the video discusses. One of these issues that we are faced with is plagiarism. The internet's vast information also allowed for a great possibility of plagiarism. Since student's were so much more skilled in using the internet, it was initially very difficult for teachers and professors to catch this. Interestingly however, there has been a recent action taken against this. Turnitin.com is a website that the video mentions, which is a tool that detects plagiarism, and is something that professors here at Marist College have been using in some of my classes. I think it is a great way to keep students from using other people's work as their own, while professors can rest assured students' works are original.

Another topic the video raises is young people keeping "online lives". They have Myspace and/or Facebook to make an online identity and are able to communicate with anyone anywhere. I found myself relating to the family that talked about how their parents wanted to know the passwords to their Facebook accounts, and how private they considered that information to be. I remember first creating a Facebook account when I entered college, and my mom being so curious as to what I was doing. When she would enter the room, I'd exit the screen because I would never want her to see the pictures of me and my friends. I think this is something that many young internet users can relate to.

On a very serious note, this "online identity" that is kept hidden from loved ones has on rare occasion lead to some of the gravest of circumstances. "Growing Up Online" talked about a young boy, teased in school, to use the internet as an escape. He was able to go online and talk to people who he felt could relate to him. One of these people he began chatting with ended up providing him with the information and "support" to take his own life. His parents, completely unaware of what was going on, were shocked to find that the boy hung himself. Upon further investigation, the boy's father was able to get an inside look at what drove the boy to do what he did. This situation reminded me of something going on here at Marist College. With the recent popularity of the website juicycampus.com, a website that allows students to anonymously bash eachother, I began to wonder about the effect this could have on the well-being of the students whose names are posted. With people encouraging others to kill themselves, it is scary to consider that this anonymous slander could be enough to push someone over the edge.

In all, "Growing Up Online" gives a very realistic look into the various ways we as young people use, and are affected by the online culture. Between research, e-mail and instant messaging, and social networking sites, the world wide web is an indispensable tool for us. The video however, shows several dangers on great spectrum of severity, all important to acknowledge. It was suggested in the video that the key to this internet revolution is to not fear it, but rather be educated on it. I could not agree more. It is essential that young people be socialized in an educated manner when it comes to the internet. As the internet grows to play a greater role in everyone's lives, not just those of the young people, we can be learn from past mistakes and become educated and efficient internet users.

Who is Watching the Watchdog?

In the section of the text titled "Who is Watching the Watchdog?" by John Dunbar, he discusses the issues of the "spinning door", "frequent flying", and what goes on "behind closed doors". These terms serve to discuss the controversial relationship between the FCC agency and the media industries.

Firstly, the "spinning door" refers to the "revolving door" syndrome. This is when FCC officials leave the FCC and begin working in the media industry. This "spinning door" refers to this discovery that former FCC officials were very common in the media industry, and vice versa. "Frequent Flying" refers to the financial link between the agency and the industry. The text talks about a study that showed "that the FCC had accepted nearly $28 million from outside sources in travel and entertainment over eight years, most of it from the telecommunications and broadcast industries the agency regulates." It is very interesting that the FCC would be receiving money from industries that it plays such a big role in creating laws for. It makes the money appear as if it could be a bribe. Upon looking into this, the relationship is suspiciously inappropriate. "Behind closed doors" has to do with what goes on in the private meetings between the FCC and the industry. The meetings are so private in fact, they are not recorded and the participants do not need to keep detailed minutes of the sessions. This is another example of the strange friendliness between the two organizations, and makes one suspicious of any intentions for keeping the best interest of the public in mind.

It is very interesting that Chairman Powell, a huge supporter of deregulation, believes that the industries great influence over the FCC has gone too far. In reference to what's been said on this issue since 2003, I found an article from September, 2008 in which the author talks about how he is "skeptical of making the FCC the nation's network neutrality cop." He talks about a case from earlier that month where Catherine Bohigian, chief of the office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis at the Federal Communications Commission stepped down. Her next job would be with cable giant Cablevision. Most likely, she would use her personal knowledge of the regulatory process and even her ties to other FCC staff members in order to gain regulatory advantages for Cablevision. This article suggests to me that despite Chairman Powell's statement, this "revolving door" is still a common process, and goes on under the radar of most everyday media consumers.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080831/0618342133.shtml

Selling Cool

The “Merchants of Cool” video was an interesting inside-look at the various ways advertisers attempt to reach young people in America. We learn that advertisers are not only trying to figure out what is cool, but they are also trying to find out the best way to sell this “cool” back to America’s youth. Since “cool” is ever-changing, the challenge is in keeping up with the change. The video shows different tactics used to pick the brains of teenagers and in turn, sell a product in a way they can relate.

In one of the first segments of the video, young people are given pieces of paper with all different types of logos on it. They are to circle the logos that they feel positively about. This is a type of neuromarketing because logos are a way to evoke a certain emotional response from the brain of the target audience. Marketers are always designing logos that are unique, memorable, and call to mind positive feelings. The advertising situation that interested me most was Sprite’s take on reaching an audience. Their perspective was that they needed to become friends with their young audience. They wanted to give teens the impression that “Sprite understands them.” One of the techniques Sprite used to achieve this was something called “under the radar” marketing. This is when they hired young people to pose as fans, throw parties, distribute promotional materials, and to raise hype in general. Eventually, Sprite threw a launch party for their website. They had big names in hip hop come to perform on the Sprite stage right underneath their logo. This was all in the efforts of creating what is called a brand “culture”. The Sprite Corporation was not satisfied with becoming just a marketable product, and aimed at becoming a culture into itself. The video showed that Sprite ultimately considered itself just as important a piece of the hip hop culture as “sneakers or baggy pants”.

As the “Merchants of Cool” video was a bit outdated, the techniques shown in the video as well as new techniques are all around us as advertisers are trying to communicate with us. In giving it some thought, some strange and different techniques advertisers use on audiences come to mind. An interesting one is the neuromarketing technique the clothing store, Abercrombie and Fitch, uses to create its image. While the store is notorious for sexy print ads and billboards, they utilize a less traditional approach as well. The stores spray all their clothing with their perfumes and colognes to the point that the store oozes with fragrance. When consumers in a mall walk by the store front, their attention is drawn to it. The alluring fragrance combined with lively music makes the store a focal point that is hard not to notice. The nose, eyes, and ears sense the sexy, trendy atmosphere which serves as a lure for shoppers who want to be a part of that image.

Another interesting technique that the “Merchants of Cool” video discussed was the method of poking fun at advertising. People tend to be irritated by commercials being shoved in their face, so by mocking it, they make light of it while still pushing the “cool factor” of the product. The video talks about Sprite as the people who first used this tactic, when they showed a famous basketball player overacting and over-pushing Sprite soda. This proved to be successful for a while, until kids started to catch on. This made me think of another case in which this technique was used. The movie, “Wayne’s World”, also uses this clever product placement tactic to promote not just one, but a series of products. Both characters, Wayne and Garth talk about how “people only do things if they get paid, and that’s just really sad”, as they are dripping in logos. It is an extremely comical way to expose people to marketing with out them feeling bombarded by advertisements.



The future of these advertising techniques lies mostly in the internet. The internet is the fastest means of communication, and information can be traded and shared by millions of people. Also, since so much of what we can do online is free, using the internet as a means of advertising can be extremely inexpensive. An example of this fast spreading, cheap advertising, is online videos. Anyone, individuals or big companies can post videos on youtube, myspace, or other websites. They can be motivated by commercial products, political or social causes, and pretty much any other idea under the sun. If it catches people's attention, it can spread like wildfire, and for practically no cost. Below is an example of a viral video advertisement:



In conclusion, I think that many would agree that the future of advertising has everything to do with the world wide web. Whether it's viral videos, pop-up ads, or advertising hidden within games or services, it is probably the fastest and easiest way to reach as many people as possible.

Wirelessing the World Quiz

1. CWNs are community wireless networks. The are wireless networks that are designed to provide an entire community with wireless internet access, as opposed to people having to obtain a wireless service individually. They could potentially provide wireless internet access to communities and people who would not normally know how to obtain the service, or who would not be able to afford it. This would bridge the "digital divide" between economic classes. It is most common that only the middle to upper class can afford internet services, let alone wireless ones. CWNs would give internet access to resource poor areas, and everyone would be able to have access to the same resources.

2. Major wireless companies are doing their best to monopolize the business, and to make sure cheaper options do not become known or available to their customers. The obvious reason for this is that their profits would diminish if customers were to seek alternatives. One such example of a barrier set up for just this purpose is how internet providers often sell Wireless Access Points, whose purpose is to share internet connections, yet prohibit the sharing of DSL lines. They are selling a product for profit, yet do not allow their use? Meinrath says that the confusing of customers is in fact no accident, but in fact it is a tactic. Internet providers confuse their customers on purpose, to make them feel like the internet provider knows best and not questioning what they are paying for. Internet service providers encourage businesses to purchase DSL lines and share them. A cafe for example, might offer wireless internet to its customers for free. The fact is that once you buy an internet connection, what you do with it is your own business. The Future of Media text says that most internet service providers don't want you to know this. Another example of a barrier that wireless companies create to monopolize the industry is the use of bundled products. The text talks about Centrino-based notebooks. The company promotes the idea that the Intel chip that provides the wireless connection is a top of the line feature. The truth is, buying the Centrino notebook doesn't give you any choice in what kind of wireless network chip you get. What the text discusses however, is that buying a non-Centrino brand wireless card would provide higher quality internet for less money. So in fact, customers are paying for a brand, not a high quality product. This is another piece of internet the big wireless companies don't want you to know.

3. Corporate consolidation and the early buying of technologies are big problems for the end users of internet because it allows the "dinosaur" companies to control everything from product quality to pricing. They can lock customers in with low quality products for whatever price they want because they know full well that the customers have no choice if there's no competing companies. Customers lose out while stockholders get bought out by the large corporations, giving more control to fewer companies.

Money as Debt?

The mini-movie, Money as Debt by Paul Grignon is a breakdown of the way banks originated and how they function today. The movie was eye-opening for me because I had never really taken the time to understand just how banks work. During this time of economic crisis, it is extremely important to have a grasp on what's going on. Grignon explains that banks use debt to create loans. What this means is that a bank can essentially give out as many loans as it wants, even if it doesn't have the actual paper money to back it up. This creates money out of thin air. This means the people who take out loans are indebted to the bank, and as long as they pay it back, it makes no difference to either party. The person who took out the loan is none the wiser, and since they pay interest, the bank makes a profit. Basically, a bank is creating money out of nothing, which Grignon calls a "magic trick". The movie gives the example of the earliest banker, who started out with a vault to hold his gold coins. Eventually, his fellow townspeople began asking if they could also save their money there. After charging small percentages for the service, he began thinking of new ways to make even more money. He started giving out loans and charging interest. He eventually realized that he could give out more money than he could back up with the vault, knowing clients never came all at once. This allowed him to make a great profit. This is basically how our banks work today. It sounds kind of crazy, but it's actually very simple.

What Grignon suggests is to create a self-perpetuating system of control. He wants to end the cycle of debt that seems so inescapable. By making money out of debt, it creates a system where people are always paying more and more to pay off the debt. This creates an economy that can't support itself, and instead, everyday citizens are in a never-ending game of catch-up. Grignon has an idea to create money out of value, instead of debt. For example, the government should put money into the economy by putting it into things of value, like bridges, roads, and transportation. This ways the funds would trickle down the economy and it can be recycled.


2. Why create money as debt? Why not create money that circulates permanently and does not have to be perpetually re-borrowed in interest in order to exist?

Creating money out of debt allows banks to make a profit with out having to use any of their own money. It seems this way, banks can make an almost infinite profit as long as not everyone w ithdraws their money at once. This is a system that favors big banks and coorporations over the everyday working person.