Category: media effects

Posted on

Global Feel-Good Story May Take Turn for the Worse

The rescue of 33 Chilean miners, who had spent 70 days under more than 2000 feet of solid rock, was the feel-good story of the month…perhaps of the year. It was a tremendous feat of engineering and a testimony to the power of human endurance. The world gathered around TV sets (audiences were estimated at 1 billion) and watched in awe as the miners were hoisted to the surface and into the arms of their waiting families, friends, and, in one awkward case, a mistress. It was worthy of the celebration that ensued…and the national festivities that followed.

But there may be a dark side to this story…one that is coming to light as the media executives and attorneys sweep in to fight over the goldmine that is not in the ground, but in the story. News reports tell us that the miners made a pact while underground that they would act together to sell their story, and share the revenue equally. So far so good. Rumors are that each miner could stand to make tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars for their stories…quite a bit more than their average annual salaries that range from $4,000 – $19,000 US.

According to Bloomberg.com, the media attention was anticipated.

Chilean authorities gave the men some media training before their rescue, conducting classes over phone lines. They have been invited to make appearances in Spain, England and Greece, and mining entrepreneur Leonardo Farkas gave each 5 million pesos ($10,400).

A book deal is already in the works with an early 2011 publication date. TV rights could bring in tens of thousands of dollars and movie rights could easily bring in hundreds of thousands. Oh, and Steve Jobs reportedly sent each miner the latest iPod! According to one report the miners are quoted as saying, “If we do this properly we won’t have to work for the rest of our lives.”

No one would argue that the miners deserve to share in the revenue that others will make by marketing this wonderful story to the world. But before we get too excited we might consider the sad stories of instant millionaires, lottery winners mostly, who come to realize that money often brings as much pain and suffering as it does happiness.

And speaking of pain and suffering, personal injury lawyers are no-doubt looking for ways to parlay the miners’ 70 days underground into something that they can take to the bank.

What started out as a heart-warming story of hope, faith, courage, endurance, and, finally, deliverance, may now turn into a story of greed and exploitation. Some might argue that’s what happens when the TV/film cameras focus their attention on people who start out with good intentions.

Posted on

Misogynistic Hip-Hop Lyrics: What’s the Big Deal?

In class today we discussed the prevalence of misogynistic lyrics in rap and hip-hop music. Unfortunately we didn’t have enough time to hear from more than a few of you, and I’m curious about what others think about this issue. To rephrase the issue, is it okay for popular rap and hip-hop artists to denigrate women? If so, are women paying a price for accepting attitudes and images that reduce them to sex objects and second-class citizens? And if not, why do people defend the music and the musicians that perpetrate these images? Before you weigh in, watch this five minute video on YouTube:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjxjZe3RhIo]

Before posting a reply remember that this is not a forum to attack a culture, subculture, ethnic group or individuals belonging to any group. Keep your comments civil and attack the issues…not other posters.

Posted on

Book Burning, the 1st Amendment, and Global Media

In case you haven’t heard, a pastor of a small church in Florida is planning to burn copies of the Qur’an on Saturday, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The thing that makes this isolated incident the focus of our attention is that media attention is turning this into a global news story that will be seen by millions of Muslims around the world. And what they see will likely inflame passionate anger directed at the US. The Qur’an is a book, and books are a form of media. So in one sense this is a media story about media coverage of an act that involves the desecration of a media artifact.

Burning patriotic or religious symbols is nothing new. Flags and effigies of heads-of-state are commonly burned to send strong messages of disapproval to the “other side.” In America, the 1st Amendment’s protection of free speech specifically protects these kinds of political acts and we have a long history of protecting speech that is highly offensive. And while no one is debating the “right” of this pastor and his congregants to burn the Qur’an, many are critical of his decision to do something that will be seen as an extremely offensive act to millions of Muslims around the world. Much like the discussion of the mosque proposed for construction near Ground Zero, the right to proceed is not  in question, but the appropriateness of the act certainly is. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and General Petraeus have publicly condemned the proposed burning and have asked the pastor to reconsider. General Petraeus went to far as to say that the burning will endanger the lives of US soldiers in Afghanistan.

Book burning has a long and sordid history of its own…but to fully understand the gravity of this situation one needs to understand the esteem that Muslims have for  their sacred scripture. In 2005 a firestorm of controversy erupted in Muslim countries when it was reported that a copy of the Qur’an was flushed down a toilet in the process of interrogating an enemy combatant at Gitmo. While the Pentagon has been unable to find credible evidence that the desecration took place, the response was rioting that led to many deaths. If the book burning takes place this Saturday, the response may make the 2005 riots look like child’s play.

Of course, without media coverage this isolated incident would happen in a vacuum. Just like a tree falling in an empty forest, the silence would be deafening. But that is not the case in a world of 24/7 news coverage with instantaneous global reach. Secretary of State Clinton asked the media to deny coverage as an act of patriotism, but she knows that won’t happen. The Associated Press quoted Secretary Clinton as saying,

“It is regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Fla., with a church of no more than 50 people can make this outrageous and distrustful, disgraceful plan and get the world’s attention, but that’s the world we live in right now,” Clinton said. “It is unfortunate, it is not who we are.”

So what do you think? Is this a case where the 1st Amendment goes too far, protecting speech that does not deserve protection? Or is this the very essence of the kind of political protest that the Founding Fathers so passionately intended to protect?

Posted on

Should Portrayals of Animal Cruelty be Protected?

I have a documentary about fly fishing that airs on RMPBS this Monday (April 26th, 9:30pm). Thanks to yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling I may have to worry about PETA picketing my show for depictions of cruelty to trout, but I won’t have to worry about serving jail time. Even though the featured fly fishermen practice catch and release, there may be instances of temporary pain or emotional distress on the part of the trout.

Okay, that was a rather light-hearted beginning to a very serious blog about a very serious issue. Animal cruelty is wrong and, in many cases, illegal. But not always. In Spain bull fighting is a highly revered cultural tradition that, according to the Humane Society, kills about 250,000 bulls each year. People often differ as to what constitutes cruelty to animals. Few people argue in support  of the kind of dog fighting that led to the conviction and sentencing of Michael Vick. On the other hand, sport hunting is big business and has a many supporters and advocates.

Perhaps the most vocal opposition to animal cruelty is when it is directed at animals typically regarded as pets. Many years ago the Bonsai Kitten website created an uproar that persisted even after the site was revealed as satire. In this case it was a joke, in poor taste perhaps, but only a joke.

A few years ago, however, reports surfaced of a Chinese woman who stomped a kitten to death with stiletto heals. The New York Times described it as follows:

The short video made its way around China’s Web in early 2006, passed on through file sharing and recommended in chat rooms. It opens with a middle-aged Asian woman dressed in a leopard-print blouse, knee-length black skirt, stockings and silver stilettos standing next to a riverbank. She smiles, holding a small brown and white kitten in her hands. She gently places the cat on the tiled pavement and proceeds to stomp it to death with the sharp point of her high heel.

Apparently there is an underground market for fetish “crush” videos in which women in high heels crush all manner of lifeforms–from bugs to, yes, kittens.

The reason this is back in the news is that the US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision yesterday, struck down a 1999 law against animal cruelty that, according to the Court, was written too vaguely. The ruling overturned the conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Virginia. Stevens is, according to Newsweek, a self-described dog trainer, author, and documentarian, had been charged with violating interstate commerce laws by selling depictions of animal cruelty through his business. According to the Court the law used to convict Stevens could have infringed on hunting videos. Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.

What do you think? Should First Amendment protection apply to despicable depictions of animal cruelty?

Posted on

Tiger Woods, did you learn anything?

Nike just released a new ad featuring Tiger Woods and the voice of his deceased father. The voice over by Earl Woods concludes with the line, “Did you learn anything?” My question to Nike is, “did YOU learn anything?”

You can see the spot here and read more about it here. Stephen Colbert even weighed in with alternate versions of the spot.

People I’ve spoken to see the spot as polarizing…they either love it or hate it. One possible explanation for the divergent views is that the blank expression on Tiger’s face, and the polysemic nature of the phrases spoken by Tiger’s late father, allows the viewer to project onto the spot what the viewer already feels. If you believe that Tiger still has penance to perform, this spot is unlikely to convince you to give him a pass.

Nike may be hoping that his fans are predisposed to extend an olive branch to Tiger…but early responses suggest that the public is not quite ready to do that. The Tiger brand was built on his squeaky-clean image and his role as father, son and husband. That all came crashing down with revelations of Tiger’s “transgressions” and rumors about his father’s indiscretions.

Nike may have erred by jumping the gun and this spot may, in the end, be a detour on Tiger’s road to recovery.

Posted on

Global Warming’s PR Problem

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but global warming (aka climate change) is a divisive issue. Amongst scientific theories it ranks right up there with the origin of human life as a topic on which scientists, and non-scientists, hold strongly to contrasting positions. Global warming evangelists, think Al Gore, have made a career espousing the dire consequences of ignoring the obvious fact that the earth is getting warmer. Melting polar ice caps and the resulting inundation of coastal regions, increasingly violent weather, and the inability of the world to feed itself are just a few of the consequences of standing by while the earth as we know it self-destructs.

One the other side are a few climatologists who are skeptical not so much of the gradual warming of the earth but of the causes of the warming. They also question the apocalyptic tone of those who are leading the charge to do something now to change our course.

But the bigger problem (in the eyes of Al Gore and friends) may be the growing skepticism of the American public about the claims of global warming. Why are American’s so skeptical about something that is very complex and difficult to understand? Perhaps it is the perception that those advocating for programs to address global warming are motivated by political concerns. Recent cap and trade legislation has been pushed by democratic members of congress but appears to be stalled by a lack of Republican support in the Senate.

Skepticism can also be tied to recent revelations of cover-ups, manipulation of data, and other unethical behavior on the part of global warming advocates. The release of incriminating emails and other documents suggests that even climatologists can be compromised when they commit to a position before all the evidence is in.

A recent article in the NY Times suggests yet another reason for a skeptical public. Meteorologists, aka weather forecasters, are frequently speaking out in opposition to the climate scientists’ dire predictions of global warming. According to the Times,

A study released on Monday by researchers at George Mason University and the University of Texas at Austin found that only about half of the 571 television weather-casters surveyed believed that global warming was occurring and fewer than a third believed that climate change was “caused mostly by human activities.”More than a quarter of the weather-casters in the survey agreed with the statement “Global warming is a scam,” the researchers found.

Since local news weather forecasters are often seen as a credible source of information about weather-related issues, this difference between climate scientists and meteorologists poses a serious PR problem for those who want to convince the public that not only is global warming real, but that steps need to be taken now to avert disaster in the future.

Posted on

What Have We Become?

Sociologists, psychologists and others who study popular culture have been lamenting the decline of civil discourse for decades. Recent events have brought to light disturbing behavior that will, once again, become fodder for those of us who wonder about the role that media plays in the coarsening of communication.

First up, a text message exchange that led to the brutal beating of a 15-year-old female middle school student in Florida. According to the Washington Post, a 15-year-old male is being charged with premeditated attempted murder of his 15-year-old victim after repeatedly punching and stomping her with steel-toed boots. The boy’s 13-year-old girlfriend is being charged as an accomplice for pointing out the victim. This was necessary because the accused had never met his victim before the assault. But they HAD exchanged text messages in which the victim voiced disapproval of the relationship between the two accused teens. According to reports, the text exchange may have also included a reference to the fact that the boy’s older brother had recently committed suicide.

This past week has also seen passage of historic domestic legislation that will have enormous consequence for future generations. As Vice President Joe Biden exclaimed on live TV,  it’s a “big f***ing deal.” The Health Care Reform Bill passed by congress and signed into law by President Obama has been hotly debated and continues to generate strong passions on the part of supporters and those who oppose the bill. Some of those who oppose the bill have been accused of yelling racial epitaphs at members of congress and spitting on one member. ABC News has reported that the name calling on twitter has degenerated into calls for Obama’s assassination. According to ABC,

Another Twitter user who called himself THHEE_JAY and was identified as Jay Martin, tweeted “You Should be Assassinated!! @Barack Obama.”

Martin, who is black, followed his tweet, writing “If I lived in DC. I’d shoot him myself. Dead f***ing serious.”

Both of these instances offer sad commentary on the current state of human nature. But they also highlight the somewhat frightening tendency for online communication to quickly degenerate into exchanges that cross the line of what is acceptable in other contexts. If and when online conversations spill over into real-life actions we reap the tragic consequences.

Posted on

Why Don’t Millennials Read?

The publishing industry is facing some daunting facts about the reading habits of Millennials–i.e., people born during the decades of the 1980s and 90s. The fact is, they don’t care much for reading. While reading books and other literature has been steadily dropping for all age groups, the drop has been most pronounced for this particular demographic. My colleagues at CSU-Pueblo and at other colleges and universities are worried that text books and academic journals will no longer hold the importance that they once held for the transmission of information and knowledge from one generation to the next. An anonymous survey of students in my Media & Society class, midway through the semester, indicated that students had read, on average, about 34% of the assigned reading. Is this cause for alarm, or is it just the new reality that we must simply accept and move on?

Before you answer, consider the perspective offered by Mark Bauerlein, a professor of English at Emory University. In the book, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future, Bauerlein argues that the distractions of the internet age make it especially difficult for teens and young adults to focus on the kind of knowledge that is critical to the sustenance of democratic society. Without foundational understanding of history and the arts and a working knowledge of the world of politics, economics, and science, young people will be unable to participate in, and contribute to, the advance of civilization. And how is most of this knowledge and understanding acquired?…by reading books and other documents that wrestle with these weighty issues. This is not the kind of information that one gains by perusing Wikipedia or by skimming the Cliff Notes versions of classic texts. And it is certainly not the type of conversation that happens in MySpace or on Facebook.

Okay, I’m sure that I’ve pushed more than a few of your buttons. Tell me what you think and why I shouldn’t join Bauerlein in his pessimistic assessment of the next generation.

Posted on

Avatar Sinks Titanic and Moviegoers Turn Blue

A blockbuster is, by definition, either a large bomb (as in explosive) or a huge media sensation.  The sci-fi movie Avatar fits comfortably in that second category where it has been making news by racking up some impressive numbers….over $600 million domestically and more than $2 billion world-wide to be precise. As of late January, director James Cameron is now the proud owner of the top TWO spots on the all-time, world-wide, box office receipt ledger board with Avatar at #1 and Titanic at #2. The exceptional performance of Avatar is not only accounted for by strong ticket sales, but also reflects the additional revenue generated by the 3-D screens. Because the film continues to attract movie-goers the final total may be much higher.

But there is another story here that may be more interesting than the record receipts. According to news reports, the stars of Avatar are not the only creatures feeling a little blue. CNN and Huffington Post reported that fans of Avatar are experiencing a let-down (“Avatar-induced depression”) when they leave Pandora…er, I mean, when they exit the theater. It seems that the film is such a powerful experience for many fans that they are having difficulty readjusting to the boring reality that defines their humdrum existence on planet Earth. Wow…sounds like somebody needs to get a life!

Posted on

Balloon Boy Makes My Point

hoaxWhen I posted my blog entry about accuracy in the media last week, it was the day before the Balloon Boy story broke. Since then we’ve been served a non-stop drama that started with a young child at risk, progressed to a possible media hoax, and reached a crescendo with apparent criminal charges filed against parents Richard and  Mayumi Heene. The media circus that gave birth to the spectacle is now feeding off of the dead carcass and will continue to do so until all that remains are bleached bones. Would-be actors who craved instant fame got infamy, which they will now try to peddle to unscrupulous reality show producers and tabloid publishers. There’s even an online video game based on the whole sordid affair. The one bright spot in all of this, if there is one, is that Colorado law prevents criminals from profiting from their criminal actions. Forgive me if I come across as harsh and skeptical…but perhaps a healthy dose of skepticism was what was needed last Friday.

css.php