Media Matters – Page 29 – Mass Communication, [multi]media, methodology and much, much more!

December 1, 2010

The End of Secrecy?

Julian Assange, the Australian founder (and some might say diabolical mastermind) of WikiLeaks, would like to put an end to secrets. And now, modern internet technology is bringing us closer to that reality. For as long as there have been secrets, people have been revealing them. A few months ago a college student outed his gay roommate by using a strategically placed webcam connected to the internet. The same global internet technology is now being used to anonymously distribute state secrets and classified military documents to a global audience.

I’ll briefly summarize recent events in the news. A 22-year-old Army PFC by the name of Bradley Manning is alleged to have downloaded hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents while on assignment in Bagdad. Manning then allegedly gave the documents to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks – an organization of volunteer hackers devoted to, depending on whom you believe, “opening governments” or destabilizing the US and other world powers.* Because of the structure of WikiLeaks, the identity of leakers is protected by destroying any link between documents and their source. The reason Manning is a suspect is because he bragged online that he downloaded the docs and copied them onto his home-made Lady Gaga CD to make it easier to get them past security. WikiLeaks has made several “dumps” of these documents over recent months, the most recent being this weekend’s release of approximately 250,000 documents related to world diplomatic efforts. One world leader called it the “9/11 of diplomacy.”

It should be noted that WikiLeaks is not acting alone. First, WikiLeaks’ technical infrastructure is supported by servers rented from Pirate Bay and ~~Amazon~~ (Update: according to the NYT, Amazon has booted WikiLeaks from its servers). Additional server resources have been necessary as WikiLeak servers have suffered DOS attacks at the hands of a self-described “hacktivist for good” who goes by the name of the Jester. Second, WikiLeaks depends on disgruntled insiders to feed it with information. And third, and perhaps most importantly, it needs the cooperation of the world press to make its actions visible to society. In this most recent case WikiLeaks has the cooperation of the New York Times in the US, and the Guardian in the UK. Once leading mainstream media report on document releases the story is out and the effect is fully realized.

This the not the first time the NYT has been involved in a leak of US government secrets. Perhaps the most famous example is Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. In late 1969, Ellsberg used an earlier technology (photocopying) to leak classified military papers to the NYT and other newspapers. Convinced that the US government was misleading congress and the American public, Ellsberg acted hoping that the revelations revealed by the documents would force the government to change course. Many believe that the release of the Pentagon Papers was a significant turning point in our commitment to the war in Vietnam. Time will tell if Pfc. Bradley Manning’s actions will have a similar effect on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the mean time, those who believe that his actions are those of a patriot, and not a traitor, can join the Bradley Manning Support Network here.

The recent actions of WikiLeaks remind us of the challenge of balancing first amendment freedom and national security in a modern world where technology allows us to set in motion significant actions with a few clicks of a mouse. And while the ends sometimes justify the means, it is also true that actions taken for what may appear to be a noble cause may have far-reaching implications that demand and deserve careful consideration.

P.S. It’s not easy being a rogue leaker. US Senators are calling for Julian Assange to be tried under the Espionage Act of 1917. Assange, who is already on-the-run, is now listed on INTERPOLs Most Wanted List for an alleged crime of rape and molestation that took place in Sweden. Not surprisingly, the timing of these allegations is questioned by WikiLeak supporters.

*There is an interesting interview on TED Talks that will give you some additional background on Assange.

November 14, 2010

Online Recipes, Public Domain, and Internet Vigilantes

Last week we talked about Dog S*!t Girl and the Chinese crush video…two early examples of the effectiveness of Human Flesh Search Engines for uncovering and punishing misbehavior, both off- and on-line. Wikipedia even has a page on Internet Vigilantism that discusses the phenomenon and references the two examples above and several additional examples.

Now it appears that a new virtual firestorm has overtaken the internet…or at least the corner of the net that is populated by food bloggers and online magazine publishers. According to an article in the Los Angles Times, a food blogger by the name of Monica Gaudio had one of her articles lifted and reprinted by the food magazine Cooks Source. Cooks Source is published in print, as well as on Facebook. But don’t go looking for their Facebook page or website because both have been removed after hackers and netizens have come to the aid of Gaudio by blasting Cooks Source (and its managing editor Judith Griggs) for not only misappropriating an online article and using it without permission, but because of the clueless (and rude) email response that Griggs sent to Gaudio after Gaudio asked for both an apology and that a $130 donation be made to Columbia School of Journalism in lieu of payment. According to Gaudio’s blog, this is the email that she received from Griggs at Cooks Source:

“Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws. It was “my bad” indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.
But honestly Monica, the web is considered “public domain” and you should be happy we just didn’t “lift” your whole article and put someone else’s name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me… ALWAYS for free!”

Well, it appears that the online “spanking” may have been well deserved if the facts of the case are as they have been presented. In any case it will be a lesson for any future online publisher who is tempted to “borrow” someone else’s work without permission.

There are several big ideas here that should be noted: 1) copyright is copyright, both in print and online, 2) information travels at the speed of light on the internet, and the viral potential of social media is an amazing thing to behold, and 3) vigilantism is no substitute for the judicial system. The attack on Cooks Source and Griggs may be deserved…but do we really want angry mobs delivering their version of justice before all the facts have been reviewed?

Additional sources for your consideration:

November 2, 2010

Political Ads: Stimulus for Local TV Stations

Political advertising is finally coming to a close in most markets and you can hear the collective sigh of relief from nearly everyone. Everyone that is except for local TV stations who have been raking in the dough as candidates have spent a reported record $3 BILLION! Most of that money has been going to local TV buys and for most local stations the revenue has been just what they’ve needed to counter the hard-hitting recession. Besides major sporting events, e.g. Olympic games, Superbowls, World Series and college sporting events, political ads are a regular boost to TV stations’ budgets. But these are not always a sure deal. Just ask Fox who had the rights to the World Series this year. The short series left a lot of advertising revenue on the table.

There are several reasons why so much money has changed hands. First, there were a lot of hotly contested races between Republican, Tea Party, Democratic and Independent candidates. Second, there was an influx of money from outside organizations such as labor unions and corporations. Just this past Spring a Supreme Court ruling (Citizen’s United v FEC) opened the door to more spending from outside interest groups. And third, there seem to be more and more candidates who self-finance their races. Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, spent a reported $142 M of her own money.

In the end it all adds up to a big paycheck for TV stations around the country…including Colorado where the Senate race between Bennet and Buck is too close to call. So when you turn on the TV tomorrow, just think of all the TV station owners and managers who may be shedding a tear or two that the political spots are gone…at least for the next 18 months or so.

October 27, 2010

Apple PR v Student Journalist

An online spat with Apple may have contributed to a student journalist’s invitation to cover the release of Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7. Chelsea Kate Isaacs, a journalism major at Long Island University, received a class assignment that involved finding out more about an initiative at her college to buy iPads for all incoming students. As any good journalist, Chelsea contacted Apple requesting a quote about using iPads in an academic setting. But after the Apple PR department failed to return multiple phone messages, she sent an email to Steve Jobs…who, in hindsight, probably wished he hadn’t responded. But he did respond, leading to a back-and-forth that quickly deteriorated. A final email from Jobs reportedly said, “Please leave us alone.” You can read more about the reported email exchange here.

That might be the end of the story, except that Microsoft saw an opportunity to promote its Windows Phone 7 by selecting Isaacs to travel, all expenses paid, to the Microsoft launch event. According to CNET news, “Despite two radically different experiences, Isaacs said she has no plans to cover either company any differently.
Read more.

What corporate PR lesson, if any, should we take away from this incident?

October 21, 2010

NPR fires Juan Williams over comments about Muslims

Last evening National Public Radio fired commentator Juan Williams for a comment he made on Fox News. Williams was being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly when he admitted to feeling “worried” and “nervous” when flying with people dressed in Muslim garb. For the remainder of the interview Williams defended the Muslim faith against those who failed to distinguish moderate Muslims from extremists.

You can watch a segment about the initial comment, and the aftermath, on YouTube.

Juan Williams responded to his firing in an essay posted at Fox News, his new employer. You can read it here.

Here’s a quote from his statement…

Now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought.

October 15, 2010

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.

October 6, 2010

Supreme Court Wrestles with Despicable Speech

We all know that most speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. There are a few exception, e.g., obscenity, defamation (libel and slander), and incitement to imminent lawless action. But the general consensus is that the First Amendment also protects crazy and hateful ideas like those espoused by Fred Phelps, who, with his small group of followers, pickets military funerals and spews hateful rhetoric about military deaths being divine retribution for America’s tolerance of gays.

In Snyder v. Phelps, the father of a slain soldier is asking the Supreme Court to rule against Phelps and speech that includes the waving signs outside the funerals of a fallen serviceman that proclaim, “God Hates America” and “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

The road to the Supreme Court involved decisions both for and against Phelps.
Snyder sued Phelps and his followers for “defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Snyder was awarded nearly $11M in damages in the original court case. Phelps appealed and the damages were reduced to $5M. Then a federal appellate court overturned the decision, thus setting up the battle in the Supreme Court.

Support for the families of fallen soldiers is widespread among veterans groups. Also, politicians from both the right and the left have spoken out in favor of a ruling that would restrict this sort of speech. However, there are plenty of folks, e.g., the ACLU and most media companies, on the other side of the issue who are holding their noses while voicing support for a decision that would allow Phelps and his followers to continue their antics.

Whose side are YOU on?

September 29, 2010

C 3-D PO coming to a screen near you

Lucasfilm Ltd. just announced that the Star Wars films are being remastered in 3-D and will be released in theaters in 2012. The work is being performed by the team at Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic.

According to the Star Wars website,

There are few movies that lend themselves more perfectly to 3D; from the Death Star trench run to the Tatooine Podrace, the Star Wars Saga has always delivered an entertainment experience that is completely immersive. Presented by Twentieth Century Fox and Lucasfilm Ltd., the cutting edge conversion will take that immersion to the next thrilling level, with Industrial Light & Magic supervising the project.Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace is expected to be released theatrically in 2012.

According to the website The Wrap, IL&M visual effects supervisor John Knoll “told Variety that there are no plans to add or fix visual effects in the films, which should please fans who were upset when Lucas made a few digital tweaks to the original trilogy.” Unfortunately, that means we’ll have to endure Jar Jar Binks once again! Oh well, hopefully the fly-throughs will make it all worthwhile.

September 25, 2010

Mocking the legislative process, or just having a little fun?

Fake news shows on Comedy Central, e.g. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, have a history of poking fun at news-makers, politicians, the media, and the whole news-as-entertainment phenomenon. But when Stephen Colbert testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law yesterday, some saw it as mockery of an institution that should be above the cheap laughs and clever word-play that are standard fare for comedians.

Colbert, who stayed in character for his entire testimony, spoke about the difficult working conditions that migrant farm workers endure. Allegedly Colbert testified from personal experience after spending a day working in the fields beside migrant workers. But with his typical dead-pan delivery of a script that was clearly more about laughs than substance, few in the room seemed prepared to take his testimony seriously. You can watch a news clip of his testimony here.

This led some critics to call the appearance, “a huge waste of taxpayer time and money” and others to call it an embarrassment. But apparently this is not the first time that a committee hearing featured an entertainer who was invited to entertain. Sesame Street‘s Elmo excepted, most celebrity witnesses testify from an area of expertise. What do you think? Does one day in a bean field give Colbert the kind of credibility necessary for an appearance on Capitol Hill?