The FCC's 5 Questions

1. Do broadcasters use radio and television to quickly and effectively respond to the local communities needs and interests? Give examples to support your answer.

According to The Future of Media text, the answer would be no. Broadcasters do not effectively respond to the needs and interests of local communities. It seems instead, that broadcasters disguise themselves with the appearance that they are out to help normal citizens with their everyday media-related needs, but in fact this is not their intent at all. Instead, broadcasters try to take as much control as they can, at the cost of the real needs of the citizens, in order to have control of c0ntent and of course, to make money. An example the text gives is Verizon's fiber-optic "triple play" bundle. This provides voice, video, and internet services. This service may appeal to an everyday media consumer who believes that Verizon is trying to create the most convenient and efficient plan with their best interest in mind. However, the text suggests that in fact they are the "losers" in the situation, because it gives the company total control over their media and leaves consumers with fewer choices.

2. Are there certain kinds of local programming (Public Media Values) that should be available, but are not being provided by broadcasters? What could some examples of these be?

I'm not sure that local programming is completely lacking, as local programming has always been provided in my experience. When it comes to Public Media Values, I believe I am exposed to diversity of content and viewpoints. There is sufficient children's programming and reasonable access. However, it is certainly clear to me that commercial or national programming outweighs anything local. The radio I listen to is always local (I don't use satellite radio). The material I access on the internet is a mix between local, national, international, and commercial. The television I watch however, is almost never locally related. Aside from local news, and perhaps one local access channel, the bulk of TV media is commercial and national. However, I'm not sure that there would be much of a demand for much more local programming, at least from my perspective. Although the text says otherwise, I'm not completely convinced that there is a real need for more kinds of local programming. However, if it were the case that for example, more citizen participation in media production were desired, it would certainly be the responsibility of the broadcasting companies to provide it. This could mean more public access channels, giving opportunities for all who wish, to be involved in the production of their media.

3. What could the Federal Communication Commission do to promote localism in broadcasting? Explain three of these examples of public-service-oriented projects that are already in process across the US.

One example of public-service is the UTOPIA project that is in process in Utah. The UTOPIA project is designed to provide public, super-affordable digital phone and cable capabilities. Of course, larger corporations geared towards profit are taking actions against such threats, by pressuring city-council members not to fund such projects. There is also the Prometheus Radio Project in Philadelphia which is a successful form of alternative media. Local broadcasters create a forum for local talent and create a community. They have even demanded that such a license be given to more stations.

Extras

What Stanford professor and lawyer that we have discussed before is mentioned in this essay? What organization is he the founder of?

What is the "spectrum" that the authors refer to?

Moyers on Media and the Electoral Process

The Future of Media's first section discusses how our electoral process has become corrupt and ineffective. Moyers talks about how voter turnout is at its lowest, the cost of elections has skyrocketed, and how the media controls the coverage we see. He believes that we need to revamp the system that controls media in order to create a better society.

In regards to the current election, I think some of what Moyers talked about can be applied, but I also think some improvements have been made in the most recent years. Though it may be true that voter turnout is low, I've noticed an increase in the use of media to make a change. For example, MTV's Choose or Lose campaign is practically unavoidable as it is so prevalent on television, radio, and in print. There's also the "Don't Vote" campaign created by actor Leonardo Dicaprio and backed by handfuls of celebrities which uses the "viral video" technique to gain viewership on the internet. In this sense, I think that the media is being used as a tool that will likely increase votership by the people that are less likely to vote normally, mainly young or poor people. While it certainly appears to me that scarily large amounts of money are being spent on predidential candidates' ads, its important that money also be spent towards the media encouraging and helping people to have a voice, and to vote.

With the improvement of technology in the media, I think that Americans are given better coverage of debates and speeches. As we watched the presidential debate and discussed in class, I believe that we are given a clear perspective of our candidates. Though as Moyers said, it is true that networks have been known to skew the perspective of viewers, I believe that with high definition picture and sound, we can really get up close and personal to our potential leaders. Another great feature we discussed is the split screen. I think it is so helpful to see both debaters on screen the whole time, giving the viewer the chance to see reactions and all types of body language. In all, I think some changes are needed in the media, and the electoral systems are infact unfair to many, but the media is responsible for a lot of positive contributions to the electoral process as well.

Strange Culture: The Steve Kurtz Case

The Steve Kurtz case is an interesting one because of its unique circumstance. This man was charged with mail fraud after the FBI desperately tried to find something illegal they could call him out on. The high profile nature of this case allowed it to become an example of how the "public amateur" is looked upon by the government. Because Kurtz was not a professional scientist, it seems that his biological studies were assumed to be illegitimate, or even harmful. The article, "Trials of the Public Amateur" by Claire Pentecost says talks about how the government prefers scientists to be professional, and working privately for them. They do not want people doing any type of research in their own homes, for fear something of interesting or detrimental nature would be discovered with out their knowledge. Though freedom of science may not be something we think about on a daily basis, this case brings an unlikely issue to the forefront. Why shouldn't scientific materials be traded, like ideas, words, or art? Thankfully, Steve Kurtz had the resources to make this a public issue. If he had not been something of a public figure ( a professor at a university), this case most likely would never have surfaced. The case serves to bring attention to the issue of the government's involvement with the work of the "public amateur" and how they interfere with the growth of independent knowledge that goes on outside of their view. The case itself, along with the film "Strange Culture" forces viewers to give thought to their feelings on issues such as the patriot act, and to what extent they really want to be "protected" by the government.

Cult of the Amateur Quiz

IBM or Big Brother

With technology today, it is hard to tell where the convenience ends, and surveillance begins. Sometimes we are so enchanted by how easy it is to access any information we desire with the click of a mouse, we forget to consider just what is at risk. The woman in Keen's book, who had her most private AOL searches published, learned this the hard way. However, it seems that positive outcomes can also come from this "Big Brother" type technology. It's difficult to know the difference between helpful and harmful.

My friend Marion told me of an incident at her workplace, IBM, which seemed to illustrate this point. A Coworker of hers had been receiving inappropriate emails from her boss. The employee, not wanting to cause trouble in the office, as she would only be there for the summer, decided to just ignore and delete the emails. She continued to stay focused on her work, but found it difficult when her boss would not communicate in a professional manner. When the boss became irritated with the unrequited feelings, he began to blame the intern for missing work. IBM was able to investigate the correspondence between the two to see who was to blame, despite the fact that the emails had been erased. Because IBM has the evolved technology to keep such a close eye, they were able to see emails that the employee had thought were gone forever. This inappropriate boss, in turn, was fired. To add to the story, Marion informed me that all IBM employees must carry badges, which they must scan at various points in the building in order to gain access. This means that IBM knows where everyone is at all times. Is this a safety feature or is it an infringement on privacy?

I think that in cases like this, it is so important to be aware of your surroundings. It is vital to understand the way technology is being used in your everyday life. In the case of IBM, it was the mistake of the boss's. It was wrong for him to use the workplace as a forum for this type of behavior, and possibly even worse that he failed to understand that his emails would not go unseen by his superiors. However, it is scary to think that this type of surveillance leaves the workplace, and follows us into our homes. I believe that changes are needed, in the way that what we search for, look at, email, or instant message from private locations should remain just that, private. I do believe there should be exceptions however. I believe that if a person commits a crime in which their internet activity may have played a role, they forfeit these rights to privacy. Generally speaking however, I think it is important to understand that in this day and age, though you feel completely anonymous online, it may not always be the case. Lesson: Think before you type.

CNN vs. iReport

There are several differences between the CNN.com news site and its amateur counterpart, iReport. CNN is divided into geographic regions and topics. It is updated regularly and its stories are rotated. CNN is dominated by politically charged material and other hard-hitting subjects. iReport on the other hand, contains material that may not normally be considered newsworthy by mainstream news sources. An example is the weekly report on the goings on in the "Second Life" world. iReport provides more of a social commentary, since amateur writers are submitting materials on more everyday life issues. It is as if CNN is trying to satisfy both the pursuers of serious, professional news and those in search of more relatable and down to earth information.

Jess McClanahan & Marion Herbert

A Truth Unveiled

It was difficult to find material online that pertained to a truth being revealed. The only thing that came to mind at first was the never ending flow of news on TV or online, constantly exposing something horrifying about anything from the food you're eating to the War in Iraq. However, another form truth that is always being unveiled is that of the ever-emerging new technologies. I thought about how the masses are always clambering to know when and where they can get the next best thing, and with the speed and spread of the internet, this information is revealed almost as immediately as it is known. This is what I chose to investigate, and here is what I found:

In an article at news.cnet.com created just this morning (September 23, 2008), it is said that T-Mobile and Google have joined forces to create the first ever Google powered handset, run with their Android operating system. It has touch screen capabilities and access to all of Google's web applications like GoogleMaps and YouTube. Of course it has a built in camera and MP3 player. Its mapping feature allows you to navigate your way anywhere. The features for this new contraption seem endless!

The articles reveals all the necessary information. It tells us that the handset will cost $179 and will be available October 22nd of this year. It occurs to me that these are the "truths" being exposed all the time. These are the things it seems people are looking for. We are always dying to know how to get the newest technology, and finding the truth seems only a click away.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10048655-1.html