Suicide on the Small Screen

In recent days two events have focused our attention on the sometimes volatile combination of teen angst and social media websites. The first was the “broadcast” suicide of a 19-year-old man who took an overdose of prescription medications while a chat room of onlookers watched his live web cam stream. Some of the viewers urged Abraham Biggs on–either indifferent to his threats to take his life or willing to take the chance that he was bluffing. Perhaps it is not much different from sidewalk gawkers calling out to a would-be suicide victim to “jump” and “get it over with,” but it still suggests a calloused indifference and sense of alienation that comes from a failed sense of community.

The second event was the jury trial of the woman accused of cyber-bullying in the Megan Meier case. The internet hoax resulted in 13-year-old Megan taking her life after being dumped by a fictitious male character created by the 49-year-old defendant Lori Drew. While found not-guilty of violating the more severe Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Drew was found guilty of three minor offenses including the violation of MySpace’s terms-of-service agreement which prohibits the use of phony names and the harassment of other users. Still, Drew could face up to three years in prison for the conviction. The trial highlighted the fact that we currently have few law-enforcement tools designed to address these new forms of computer crimes, and we’re likely to see new cyber-bulling legislation enacted in response.

These sad episodes of teen suicide raise serious questions about the porous nature of the LCD screen that separates our online and off-line lives. Megan’s response to a make-believe “boyfriend” and forum members’ collective failure to respond to Abraham’s calls for help have this in common–both speak volumes about how we relate to others in virtual space and how those virtual relationships have life-changing, real-world consequences.

Sex on TV Promotes Teen Pregancy

teen pregnancyAccording to a recent study published in Pediatrics, teens who watch more explicit sexual content on TV are twice as likely to become pregnant or father a child before they reach age 20.This is the first time that a study has actually shown a relationship between exposure to explicit content on TV and pregnancy. This is alarming when you consider that the US has double the teen pregnancy rate of other developing countries. It is particularly troubling now as the country has seen its first increase in teen pregnancy in 14 years.

It’s not just that kids are watching sexually-charged content on TV, but also that the sexual content fails to portray sex in a realistic way. According to one of the researchers, “most TV shows portray sex as having few life-altering implications, such as pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases” (quoted in USA Today). And while there are many variables that affect a teen’s decision to become sexually active, the researchers indicated that, “TV-watching was strongly connected with teen pregnancy even when other factors were considered, including grades, family structure and parents’ education level.”

And what were the TV programs that contained sexually-explicit content? Several mentioned included; Sex and the City, That ’70s Show, and Friends.

If this study is replicated and the finding supported, what should be our response as concerned citizens and consumers of media?

Read more

Free Speech or Hate Crime?

Trick or Treaters in West Hollywood, CA may be shocked to find an effigy of Sarah Palin part of the seasonal decorations at the home of Chad Michael Morrisette. A likeness of John McCain is displayed in the chimney surrounded by flames. While some say that it is simply a visual prank, others are calling it a hate crime that should be removed. National media and the blogosphere have begun to take note and according to the LA Times, MSNBC television host Keith Olbermann on Monday gave his “worst person in the world” award to Morrisette.  “This is not the spirit of Halloween, sir,” Olbermann said. “It is the spirit of violence.”

The LA Times story goes on to report on local law enforcement’s reaction. “The sheriff made this clear: This is a country that has freedom of speech, and we protect that right even when we think it’s idiotic and stupid and in bad taste,” said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Sheriff’s Department. “If it is nonviolent and doesn’t cause any problems, then they have the right to do it.”

Some have questioned whether a double standard is at work for those who argue that this is simply a free speech issue. To emphasize their point, they question the national response had the effigy been of Obama instead of Palin.

The website includes an online poll asking readers to weigh in on whether the display should be removed. As of Oct 29, respondents to the poll voted 82% in favor of removal of the display. What do you think?

Where’s my paper?

A student came by my office the other day to talk about the CSU Today newspaper. He wasn’t too happy that the newspaper was missing, in his opinion, a key ingredient…namely paper. If you’re new to campus you should know that the newspaper published by the Mass Communication department has evolved over the years from a weekly newspaper (printed on real paper) to an online paper that is updated on a more timely basis. In addition to the online news website, the department publishes a supplemental quarterly magazine (on glossy paper) in which feature stories are published.

This decision was made in response to two trends…1) increasing costs associated with printing and delivery of a traditional paper-based product, and 2), the movement by mainstream newspapers away from paper and towards electronic delivery. There will always be people who want to hold a “real” paper in their hands as they have their coffee each morning…but more and more that model is failing the sustainability test. Ink squirted on dead trees is a legacy medium that has greater environmental costs, greater production costs, a diminishing economic structure, and an aging user base. In short, the paper is dying.

Many of us who grew up reading a “paper” are sad to see this era come to an end…but the writing is on the wall, or perhaps I should say, the writing is on the screen.

Movies by and about Michael Moore

There’s a new film out by Michael Moore (Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko) but you won’t find it in theaters. In an attempt to allow as many people as possible access to the film, Moore is making the film available as a computer download at slackeruprising.com

The documentary chronicles Moore’s sixty-city tour in 2004 to get out the youth vote for John Kerry. In large stadium rallies, Moore challenges those in attendance to go to the polls. To help sweeten the deal, Moore is seen handing out Raman noodles and clean underwear to those who take his pledge to vote. Of course the outcome of the 2004 race turns this film into a review of what went wrong for Moore and his campaign. One suspects that the release of Slacker Uprising now is another attempt to motivate the college crowd to get out the vote….this time for Obama.

The documentary also chronicles Moore’s celebrity pals who show up to lend support. Eddie Vedder, Joan Baez, Viggo Mortensen, and Rosanne Barr are just some of the celebs who adoringly introduce Moore to the auditorium crowds. Film critics have been accusing Moore of being self-indulgent since Roger & Me premiered nearly 20 years ago…and this film will fan those flames again.

If you want to see a totally different perspective on Moore you can check out David Zucker’s comedy spoof called An American Carol, out in theaters now. This parody pokes fun at a character clearly modeled after Moore who is trying to abolish the Fourth of July holiday. While conservatives rail against Moore’s “liberal bias”, liberal critics accuse An American Carol of being “right-wing propaganda”.

What do you think?

Slacker Uprising trailer at blip.tv

An American Carol trailer at YouTube

I’m Sam Ebersole, and I approve this message.

Vote for Sam!
Vote for Sam!

Have you ever wondered why nearly every radio and television political ad contains the line, “I’m so-and-so and I approve this message”? Well, wonder no longer. It is required by law. According to the “Stand By Your Ad” provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) aka the McCain-Feingold Act, candidates must indicate responsibility for a spot by using this disclaimer. This is intended to cut down on attack ads in general, and outrageous claims in particular. Also, in order for a candidate to receive the lowest-unit-charge when purchasing TV/Cable airtime, an image of the candidate must appear in the commercial spot and a statement of approval must appear on screen and remain for a minimum of four seconds.

The unintended consequence of this legislation has been the raising and spending of soft money by so-called “527 organizations” or PACs (Political Action Committees) who are free to create and distribute political ads that do the candidates’ dirty work while giving the appearance of being independent. These spots are often funded by partisan organizations with such innocuous sounding names as, Colorado First Project, or Democracy for America. Because we live in a “swing state” in the 2008 elections, we’re seeing and hearing more than our fair share of political ads and will continue to do so for about 5 more weeks. But look on the bright side–the political TV spots are crowding out the normal lineup of ads for Frank “the strong arm” Azar and erectile dysfunction medications!

Sources: The Campaign Finance Guide, Political 101, and Open Secrets

MySpace Music to the Rescue!

The music industry has had a tough time of it for the past decade or so…but help may be on the way. According to a news story reported in Business Week, MySpace Music is about to launch in a few days.

MySpace Music is a joint venture between News Corp.’s social networking site and the three largest record labels—Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and Warner Music.

This effort is a direct response to the plummeting revenue that music labels have been experiencing since 1999. Part of the reason for the decline is online music piracy…but some would argue that it also reflects a shortage of hit records. Whatever the cause, record labels are trying new tricks to monetize their creative assets.

According to Business Week,

The idea behind MySpace Music is that it can help generate revenue for artists every day, not just around an album’s release. The venture gives the labels access to MySpace’s global audience of 118 million users and its ad sales team of more than 250 people. It also provides the labels with a prominent venue to pull in audiences and advertisers with new types of nonmusic content, including music news, behind-the-scenes videos, and artist interviews.

MySpace is designed to do more than bring in ad revenue, though. It also gives the industry a new channel through which to sell songs, ringtones, T-shirts, and tickets. With 5 million artists using the site to promote their bands, MySpace has already become a major destination for discovering new music and upcoming concerts.

One thing is fairly clear–the major record labels have been slow to embrace new media and only time will tell if this is a case of “better late than never,” or “too little, too late!” What do you think? Will MySpace Music revive the ailing music industry?

Hockey Mom Scores Big on TV

Everyone expected Obama’s acceptance speech last Thursday night to garner impressive ratings…and it did. With 38.4 million viewers, Obama’s speech was the most-watched convention speech ever, according to estimates from Nielsen Media Research. To put it in perspective, 4 million more viewers watched Obama’s speech than watched the Olympic opening ceremonies or the American Idol final.

But the real surprise of the convention season was the TV audience for the Republican party’s VP, Sarah Palin. Palin’s speech on Wednesday night drew 37.2 million viewers, just 1.1 million viewers fewer than Obama’s and 13.2 million more than tuned in for Biden’s speech. According to Nielsen, these numbers are even more impressive because Palin’s speech was carried by only six networks compared with ten for Obama’s.

There are several reasons that may explain Palin’s huge ratings…the fact that she was virtually unknown until a few days before the convention, the disclosure of her daughter’s pregnancy, and the high stakes involved in this November’s election. Palin’s acceptance speech did not pull any punches as she took shots at both Obama and the media.

Speaking of the media, a fair number of Republican Convention speakers made a point to criticize the media coverage of the campaign, and more specifically, media criticism of the choice of Palin for VP. Some of the sharpest criticism of Palin and her family has been at the hands of bloggers and others outside of the media mainstream. Republicans have fired back criticizing the “elite” or “liberal” media for unfair and even “sexist” attacks on Palin by questioning her ability to be a successful woman/mother while holding an office “one heartbeat away from the presidency.” The next two months should prove to be interesting as the candidates, and the media, respond to the intense scrutiny of the spotlight.

Browser Wars: Google On the Offensive

If you’re like most people you might not pay a lot of attention to the browser that you’re using to access the internet. After all, a browser is simply a program that provides access to the real content that you’re after…kind of like your computer’s operating system provides access to the applications you use. So whether you use Internet Explorer (IE), Firefox, or Opera may depend more on what is currently installed on your computer…and for most people running the Windows OS that is IE. When browsers were brand new – in the early 90s – the battle was between Netscape Navigator and IE. But Microsoft’s dominance in the OS wars led to the demise of Netscape and the victory for IE as the default browser. In recent years their market share has slipped significantly, but they still command a decisive lead over the next most popular browser, Firefox.

Enter the new force to be reckoned with: Chrome, the new browser from Google Labs. Released yesterday, Chrome has been receiving favorable reviews for its speed, simplicity, and security. If you are partial to pictures over words, you can check out Google’s comic book for an overview of the new browser’s features! (Be warned, even in comic book format some of the technical issues are beyond my level of expertise/interest!)

But Chrome is really part of a larger strategy for Google…they want to provide a complete user experience. Ideally a user would launch Chrome, conduct a Google search, then switch over to Gmail for communication and even Google Docs for word processing and other “office-like” applications. If the only thing you know about Google is their search engine, check out their other applications…the list is about 45 and growing! But herein lies the rub. By investing more and more of our internet usage/behavior with a single company, any company, do we flirt with personal privacy danger? Google–celebrating their 10 year anniversary this week–is proud of their motto “Don’t be Evil.” But what happens if they change their mind?

Welcome to Campus: Here’s Your iPhone

At the risk of making you want to transfer to University of Maryland or Abilene Christian University in Texas, you might as well know that several higher ed institutions are giving iPhones or iPod touch mobile devices to students this fall. While the “wow” factor is certainly one part of the equation, the other reasons cited are; online research, instant polling of students, and safety (students on the network can be instantly notified if an emergency arises).

In 2004 Duke University gave 20GB iPods, equipped with Belkin voice recorders, to 1,650 freshmen and encouraged the students to use them to record lectures. The iPods were preloaded with orientation information, a calendar of events, and, of course, the Duke fight song. They even envisioned a daily audio editorial to be downloaded from the campus newspaper. According to Duke University the experiment was a success on several fronts–one of which was the publicity generated for “Duke’s institutional commitment to technology.” The positive effect on learning was more difficult to measure.

Which leads us to the question: is mobile communication technology a help or hindrance when it comes to the enterprise of higher education? Clearly there are benefits to having internet and intranet resources at your fingertips when studying. And the online collaboration afforded by portable media devices cannot be denied. But what about when communication technology in the classroom competes with the professor for the attention of the student? According to the NY Times, one professor said he would ban the use of iPhones in class because it would detract from their opportunity to develop a, “wide range of complex reasoning abilities.” On the flip side one student speculated that professors might work harder to make classes interesting if they were competing with iPhones. What do you think?

css.php