media effects – Page 5 – Media Matters

March 7, 2012

The Beginning of the End for Joseph Kony

If you’ve ever wanted to see an internet meme take off…here’s your chance. If you’ve ever wanted to get on the ground floor of a global movement that has great potential to do good…here’s your chance. If you’ve ever wanted to see what it takes to harness social media to motivate millions of people to get up off the couch and take action…here’s your chance.

[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/37119711 w=398&h=224]

A friend of mine posted a link to this video in facebook yesterday (March 6th) around noon MST. When I started to watch the video I had no idea that it was 30-minutes long…but I was quickly caught up in the story of a madman doing terrible things to children in the interior of Africa. Thirty minutes later I knew several things: 1) this filmmaker knew how to use video effectively to tell a story, and 2) the story was one that would compel anyone who watched to care about this terrible situation. If you read just a few of the many comments on the Vimeo page you’ll see people who have been genuinely moved to action.

I shared the link on fb and twitter and began to see others doing the same. When I watched the video yesterday, it had been viewed by several hundred thousand people. As I write this on the morning of March 7th it has been viewed 5.3 million times! I’ve never seen something take off this quickly. This is big folks, and is only going to get bigger. A couple of days ago the number of people who knew about Kony was a fraction of those who recognize the names Kobe or Kim Kardashian…but that will change. And that is a good thing.

March 8 Update: As promised, here are links to a critique of Koni2012 and Invisible Children’s rebuttal. Remember, as traditional mass media editors and gatekeepers become less important, individual media consumers must become adept at evaluating media messages using a full-range of critical thinking skills. The challenge is to become a critical thinker without becoming overly cynical.

February 6, 2012

Pink Ribbons and PR Missteps

The social media buzz machine turned into a buzz saw late last week for the Susan G. Komen Foundation. If you’ve been anywhere near this social media maelstrom you know that the Komen Foundation has taken a major hit for its decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, and then reversing the decision, all within a 72-hour period. According to Advertising Age, the incident “showed how a brand can boomerang from one of the most loved into one of the most reviled in a head-snapping two days.’’

First a little background. Over the years the Komen Foundation, and their Race for the Cure, has raised billions of dollars for diagnosis, treatment and research of a disease that kills about 110 women every day in this country. The foundation gives away tens of millions of dollars every year and some of that money, about $700,000, had been going to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was using that money to provide screenings and mammogram referrals to women who might not otherwise be able to pay for these services. But Planned Parenthood is also the largest provider of abortions in the US, and that has resulted in close scrutiny by members of congress who want to ensure that government funds are not being used to provide abortions. Planned Parenthood is currently under investigation by congress with regard to its financial dealings and that was the initial reason cited by the Komen Foundation as to why they were withdrawing funding from Planned Parenthood. However, as negative responses mounted the story began to change. The Foundation countered that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms, only referrals, and that this change in funding was about being more responsible stewards of precious resources. You can see their initial response in this YouTube video.

Proponents and opponents have taken sides, sometimes determined by their view on the always-contentious topic of abortion. Critics of the Komen Foundation’s decision to halt funding to Planned Parenthood saw the decision as knuckling under to political pressure from the pro-life lobby. As you might guess, the reversal fired up the pro-life crowd who had been pleased with the earlier decision.

This blog is not a forum to debate the relative merits of either side in the culture war raging around abortion, but this case-study provides an opportunity to observe how a non-profit, known for years of service in the battle against breast cancer, could so quickly find itself under attack by many of the people that it claims to serve. The power of social media to aggregate discussions and dissent is once again center stage. Reaction to SOPA and PIPA last month, and now this…demonstrates the raw energy that can be focused by the impassioned use of these modern-day megaphones. There’s another angle that students of media should consider. How you learned about this event may also be shaping your understanding of the issues at stake. According to an op-ed in the NYT, the media’s coverage of the story has been biased by the media’s failure to understand the perspective of those on the pro-life side of the issue.

Part of the problem facing Komen is that they appear to be giving in to political pressure…first from pro-life, then pro-choice, political operatives. Even after issuing an apology for their earlier decision plenty of anger remains. Some of their funding sources are now saying that they will stop giving to the Komen Foundation and only time will tell if the Foundation can bounce back from this misstep. Somewhat ironically, both the Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood are reporting increased giving in the wake of the scandal. Planned Parenthood reported that it had raised $3 million in a 72-hour period, including a $250,000 pledge from NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Additional Resources: Kaiser Health News has collected summaries of news organizations’ reports on the debate.

NOTE: if you respond to this post please do your best to keep your comments focused on the media issues related to the story.

October 31, 2011

What is Herman Cain’s Communications Director Smoking?

We’re quickly approaching an election year, and you know what that means…political ads 24/7. More and more we’re seeing ads launched and tested online where ROI can be extremely high if an ad goes viral. Even better is an online ad that attracts the attention of traditional media. The result is free exposure when broadcast and cable news outlets spend precious airtime talking about or even screening the online ad.

That may be the strategy behind an online ad for Herman Cain, who is running for the Republican nomination to challenge Barak Obama in the 2012 Presidential race. The ad, with more than 1.2 million views and counting, features Cain’s chief of staff Mark Block who, at the end of the spot, takes a drag on a cigarette. You can watch the ad on [Youtube]. This is an unconventional approach, to say the least. As Block says in the spot, “we’ve run a campaign like nobody’s ever seen.”And while Block says the ad is not intended to promote smoking or to send a subliminal message, that’s not stopping media critics and journalists for looking for the subtext beneath the subtext. Some are suggesting that it is defiant gesture towards the nanny-ism of Big Government that wants to tell people what they can or cannot do.

Another bazaar web ad is the long-form, He Carried Yellow Flowers. Conner Friedersdorf at the Atlantic calls it a “Dadaist Meta-Western.” I don’t know where to begin with this one, so I encourage you to watch it on [YouTube] and leave your comments below. What do you think is the message? And does it make you think of Herman Cain as a viable contender for the office of President of the United States of America?

April 6, 2011

Nuclear’s PR Problem

Some time ago I wrote about the PR problems confronting the climate change community. Questions about the integrity of the supporting scientific data were raised after leaked emails suggested that researchers had a hidden agenda.

The nuclear energy industry in America, and the world, is experiencing a PR problem as well. Part of the problem can be attributed to historical events while another part appears to be based on irrational fears surrounding nuclear technology. But certainly a significant part of the problem surrounding public perceptions about nuclear energy can be traced to mass media portrayals of real and imaginary nuclear events.

This blog post will not be an attempt to defend or defame nuclear energy or the nuclear power industry, but rather to explore the source of public perceptions about the nuclear power industry and how the media have contributed to that perception.

The China Syndrome, starring Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas, arrived in theaters on March 16, 1979. According to the NY Times, “With the no-nukes protest movement in full swing, the movie was attacked by the nuclear industry as an irresponsible act of leftist fear-mongering.” But then, just twelve days later, the nuclear industry experienced a devastating blow when an accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania raised new fears about the safety of nuclear power. I grew up just down the road (and down wind) from Three Mile Island and was quite aware of the pandemonium that ensued in the days following. In fact, the fallout from Three Mile Island is frequently blamed for a virtual halt to nuclear power development in the US. While public fear and panic was substantial, the physical damage from TMI was relatively minor. Again, the NY Times:

The T.M.I. accident was, according to a 1979 President’s Commission report, “initiated by mechanical malfunctions in the plant and made much worse by a combination of human errors.” Although some radiation was released, there was no meltdown through to the other side of the Earth — no “China syndrome” — nor, in fact, did the T.M.I. accident produce any deaths, injuries or significant damage except to the plant itself.

The most serious nuclear accident happened in April of 1986 at the Chernobyl reactor in the Ukraine. The accident resulted in 57 deaths, primarily among workers involved in attempts to contain and clean up the damaged reactor. And most recently, news coverage of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility damaged by the 8.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami has contributed to widespread fear of nuclear radiation poisoning, although no effects of radiation exposure have been recorded to date [link].

Despite the relatively few deaths and injuries related to nuclear power production, a significant segment of the public is strongly opposed to nuclear power based on concerns over safety. Media coverage of the Fukushima story continues to emphasize “potential” harm from radiation exposure even though there is little evidence of real consequences.

Of course who can blame us for being a little nervous. Godzilla, a mutant product of a nuclear explosion, wreaked havoc while the movie’s anti-nuke message resonated with post-WWII Japanese. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles gained their power from nuclear ooze while their impressionable adolescent fans “learned” nothing about the actual physics behind the technology. And with an inept Homer Simpson at the controls of the local nuclear power plant, disaster appears to be inevitable.

Whether it is sensational and/or uninformed reporting of news events or fictional portrayals of our worst nuclear nightmares, the media have been steadily building a case against nuclear in the court of public opinion. Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt, authors of Freakonomics, dubbed the media’s role the Jane Fonda Effect and concluded their article by predicting that the future of nuclear power in the US, “may all depend on what kind of thrillers Hollywood has in the pipeline.”
What do you think? Have the media given nuclear power a fair shake?

References:

February 28, 2011

Digital Detox

I’ve been assigning a “media fast” for several years now as part of the Media & Society curriculum. The assignment provides an opportunity for students to see just how much their lives revolve around mass media, especially electronic media that provides an appearance of being both omni-present and omnipotent. In the past several years, the idea has found more and more proponents and more and more calls urging us to unplug, log-off, and catch our breath.

The National Day of Unplugging is one such effort. With distinctly Jewish overtones, the Sabbath Manifesto website encourages people to, “reclaim time, slow down their lives and reconnect with friends, family, the community and themselves” from “Sundown, Friday, March 4 to Sundown, Saturday, March 5.” You can find their 10 principles here, and their YouTube channel here.

Here’s a video short that also encourages people to take a break from their media-saturated lifestyles.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUIZx3OWZh4&]

How about it? Are you ready to go cold turkey?

February 5, 2011

Radical Transparency in the Internet Age

When it comes to managing your online identity you typically find yourself caught between the two extremes of full transparency and complete control of your image (which, BTW, is only possible by avoiding all online interaction). You may know some Facebook and Twitter users who fit into that first category. They post updates about every hiccup, paper cut, and causal encounter with photo and video documentation for good measure.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, argues that “you have one identity.” What he means is that internet-enabled transparency makes maintaining more than one identity difficult at best and impossible for most. So if you accept his premise that you really have only one identity, the next decision you’ll have to make is how to manage that one identity to ensure that your multi-faceted personality is both appropriately presented but not inappropriately exposed? Whose going to be in control of our digital identity, if not us?

Even if we are limited to one identity online, we have ways to manage that identity so that we can provide some separation between personal and professional roles. We all manage our presentation of self in “real life” based on contextual cues. For example, manners are simply the managing of our behavior and speech to reflect socially accepted norms for treating others with respect and dignity. Our language changes when we move from a close circle of friends to family to professional contacts. We’re constantly adjusting how we present ourselves depending on the social situation, and people who are unable or unwilling to do this are seen as rude, ill-mannered or socially inept. In a similar way, your profile on Facebook may have a very different tone from the one that you keep on LinkedIn. However, the problem here is that public access to both profiles may be possible depending on your privacy settings. An acquaintance may make the transition from friend to professional colleague, or in the other direction, and thus have ready access to both profiles. This may or may not present a problem…my point is simply that managing distinct identities becomes cumbersome or impossible.

Add to that new services or updates that constantly change the ground rules. Facebook has had a string of problems with privacy protection. The launch of News Feed in 2006, Beacon in 2007 and privacy setting changes in 2009 are just some of the examples of Facebook policies that led to user rebellion. Facebook’s own privacy policy makes it clear that personal data “may become publicly available” and may be “viewed by unauthorized persons.” According to David Kirkpatrick, writing in The Facebook Effect, a poll of US companies found that 35% of them had rejected applicants because of information found on social networks. This was not information hacked from the sites, but rather personal information that the applicant had posted without consideration of who might be in the online audience. Facebook itself admits that only about 25% of users actively use the privacy controls.

Walking the fine line that is personal privacy, many make the mistake that they can control their digital footprint. As your digital footprint grows, and as computers “scrape” your online behavior and link it to other databases, managing your exposure becomes increasingly complex. Simply remembering all of the intricacies and complexities of your multiple profiles becomes unmanageable. And if you employ deception, the task is even more difficult. You’ve heard it said lies beget lies. In other words, we often have to tell a lie to cover up another lie, and the web of deception becomes increasingly complex and difficult to maintain. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar.”

So it is with your digital footprint. The more data you surrender willingly, and unwillingly, to marketers and social media, the more more vulnerable you become to their schemes. Do you trust Google, Facebook and Yahoo! to protect your interests? And if not, what steps are you taking to ensure that your identity is safe?

For more information about online privacy visit the EPIC: Electronic Privacy Information Center website.

January 26, 2011

Skins Skating on Thin Ice

I hesitated to write about the new MTV series Skins, a remake of a BBC series by the same name. By pushing the envelope MTV knew that it would generate plenty of buzz–and contributing to that buzz, even in a very small way, makes me an accomplice in their marketing scheme. I’m going ahead with this post because I believe that the debate over Skins is one that must be joined if you’re going to engage modern popular culture and the role of media in shaping that culture. Recent accusations that the program may actually cross the line into child pornography is another reason why this is not just another Jersey Shore. Several of the actors on Skins are as young as 15 and that raises serious questions about the appropriateness of the acts they’re portraying on the small screen.

Skins premiered on MTV to strong ratings (3.26 million viewers 18-49) but fell to less than half this in its second episode. The premiere was likely boosted by two things: 1) people checking out the show to see what all the fuss was about and, 2) a new episode of Jersey Shore as a lead-in. Jersey Shore has been a ratings powerhouse and last week’s special episode (featuring the much publicized arrest of Snooki) drew 7.7 million viewers.

Despite the TV-MA ratings, Nielsen estimates that more than one-third of the Skins premiere audience were under the age of 18. That shouldn’t be surprising since MTV has claimed to own the teen demographic for some time.

Now, on to the controversy. David Carr, writing in the New York Times, makes an interesting point when he observed that Skins does not exist in a vacuum. While critics argue that these kinds of media portrayals are glamorized depictions far from reality, there’s also a bit of truth to MTV’s claim that much of the behavior we see in shows like Skins happens with or without media depictions. According to Carr,

Now that MTV is back on its heels, you will hear arguments that “Skins” merely describes the world that we already live in. There’s something to that. MTV didn’t invent “friends with benefits,” oral sex as the new kiss or stripper chic as a teenage fashion aspiration.

“Skins” is nothing new, only a corporate effort to clone a provocative drama that will make MTV less dependent on reality shows and add to the bottom line. True, MTV is not alone. Abercrombie & Fitch built a brand out of writhing, half-naked teenagers, as Calvin Klein once did.

But the critics of Skins also have justification to claim that media depictions of bad behavior are educational lessons, especially for young viewers. Once again Carr explains the difference between Jersey Shore and Skins in this regard.

Even in the most scripted reality programming, the waterfall of poor personal choices is interrupted by comeuppance. People get painful hangovers, the heartbreaks are real if overly dramatic and the cast members have to live with their decisions.

Not so on “Skins,” where a girl who overdoses and is rushed to the hospital wakes up to laughter when the stolen S.U.V. taking her there slams to a halt. Teenagers show children how to roll blunts, bottles of vodka are traded on merry go-rounds, and youngsters shrug off being molested and threatened by a drug dealer. And when the driver of the stolen S.U.V. gets distracted and half a dozen adolescents go rolling into a river, the car is lost but everyone bobs to the surface with a smile at the wonder of it all.

Leading the charge against Skins is Parents Television Council, a conservative media watchdog group, or, as their website puts it, “A non-partisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment.” PTC called Skins, “the most dangerous program ever” for children and their website includes an interactive feature that allows visitors to fire off a letter of disapproval to sponsors. And that tactic appears to be working.

MTV has seen important advertisers back away from Skins for fear of associating their brand with content that goes beyond edgy. Taco Bell (you know, the company using meat filling that is–surprise–significantly less than 100% beef), Gillette, Wrigley, Foot Locker, L’Oreal , Schick, and Subway have pulled spots. The movie studios and assorted products targeting the Skins demographic remained on the air in episode two. One of the spots on Monday night was for stretch mark cream. One commentator joked that it might have been a direct response ad! Oh, and you might not be surprised to learn that one of the advertisers of this week’s episode was the video game Dead Space 2 (see post below).

What do you think? Does the lifestyle presented by Skins and similar programs resonate with your personal experience? Are parents making too much of a fuss about something that will likely self-destruct on its own? Or is there something here that demands a response…something that, if left unchecked, will lead to even more dangerous behavior by even more adolescents?

January 21, 2011

Your Mom’s Gonna Hate This

Electronic Arts has taken an edgy and controversial approach to marketing Dead Space 2, a videogame described as a, “third-person horror survival game in which players must battle an alien infestation” by “strategically dismembering” necromorphs. In a viral marketing campaign, [see clip below], 200 “moms” were invited to participate in “market research” that turned out to be a way to collect their on-camera reactions to some of the most horrific scenes from Dead Space 2. Here’s the clip:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jri8LFci4xQ]

In case you missed it, the VO said, “A mom’s disapproval has always been an accurate barometer of what is cool.” But wait, this video game is rated M the by the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board), meaning it is to be sold only to buyers age 17 or older. Last time I checked that crowd wasn’t overly concerned about what their moms liked or didn’t like. Is it possible that EA is actually marketing a game rated “M” to kids younger than those allowed to buy it? This marketing campaign is going to give more ammunition to critics of video game violence: people like Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the FTC, who, according to Wired magazine, was quoted as saying that “the videogame industry’s self-regulatory efforts around the marketing of violent video games to minors are still ‘far from perfect.’”

There’s another issue here that centers on ethics of research. According to the video, “over 200 moms were recruited to participate in market research, only this wasn’t market research.” Obviously the moms were asked to sign a release form that gives EA’s market researchers permission to use the video from the hidden cameras, but the breach of standard research ethics is obvious and appalling. Beyond that, the moms may have legal recourse based on the emotional and psychological distress that they may have experienced in the process. I’m sure EA has a large legal team, but they may be well advised to “lawyer up” in order to defend this controversial example of ambush marketing.

January 10, 2011

Questioning Motives

It’s still much too early to figure out what motivated Jared Lee Loughner to shoot 19 people, killing six, on Saturday…but that hasn’t stopped many from speculating. News pundits, reporters and commentators have lined up to offer their opinion of what was behind the tragic and atrocious act. On the ride home today I listened as a radio reporter speculated that political rhetoric, amplified by the media, was to blame for the shooting.

Perhaps what has been most disconcerting has been the eagerness of some to score political points by ascribing motives to Loughner that fit their personal political views. Yes Representative Gabrielle Giffords is a Democrat from a Republican district, and yes she had previously been the recipient of heated rhetoric from those who opposed her policies. But too many in the media (both mainstream and online) are trying to link the actions of a madman to social movements and political activism which may or may not be responsible.

Even the local sheriff, Clarence W. Dupnik, weighed in just hours after the shooting with his opinion linking the tragedy to “vitriolic political rhetoric.” Others suggested that talk of “second amendment remedies” and maps with cross-hairs used to target political races across the country, including Giffords’ district, were to blame. There MAY BE a connection between heated political rhetoric and the actions of Loughner, but it is too soon to try to connect the dots when one of the dots is clearly not dealing with a full deck.

Please don’t mistake my objection to those placing blame for anything less than complete repudiation of Loughner and his heinous act. Blame should–and will–come to rest on Loughner, and anyone or anything that contributed to his decision to use deadly violence. I’m simply saying that to make pronouncements about causal relationships so soon after such a shocking event says more about the motives of the speaker than it does about the motives of those under the microscope.

UPDATE: According to Broadcasting & Cable magazine, Rep. Bob Brady (D-Pa.) is working on a bill to make it a federal crime to use “language or symbols” that could be interpreted as inciting violence against a member of Congress.

UPDATE 2: I just came across a thoughtful commentary from Jon Stewart’s show last evening that addresses this very issue. Stewart said, “you know we live in a complex ecosystem of influences and motivations, and I wouldn’t blame our political rhetoric any more than I would blame heavy metal music for Columbine, and by the way that is coming from someone who truly hates our political environment.” Read and/or watch more here.