http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/labotz081008.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhwhMXOxHTg
This economic crisis is not only hurting big business, but for some reason we hear more and more on the news about those companies folding. Could it be that maybe we need to start from the root of the problem, rather than those people who are many the big bucks. The book talks about U.S Corporate Community and relates it to politics, uses the NAFTA and the Mexican Financial crisis for an example. The media covered this telling everyone that this agreement would be help the Mexican communities to get out of the slump, but where they wrong. They are still struggling and trying to make ends meet. Most people couldn't image working for less than a dollar a day or even an hour. To them that is second nature. Even though this was a bigger issue in 1993, it seems it keep lingering with our country and theirs.
"Media Editorials, news coverage, and a selections of "experts" in opinion columns were heavily skewed towards the elite perference; their judgment was that benefits of NAFTA were obvious, were agreed to by all qualified authorities and that only demagogues and "special ineterest opposed." This bothers me, but the special interest are women, minorities and the work force. The media tired to cover the best of what they thought would help, however the polls don't live and people weren't sure about this aggreement. The fact is that the U.S Corporate Community has power that sometimes the public cannot control. The media could play a big outlet for this issue and for some reason they have put it in a book and put it on the shelves.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Corporate influence and power is continually growing each day. “The world’s 200 largest corporations have combined sales greater than the combined GDP of all countries except the world’s 10 largest economies, and 18 times greater than the combined annual income of the roughly 25% of the world’s population living on less than $1 per day” (Lobe). These large, extremely profitable corporations are known not to give comparative benefits to their business’ employees. 82 of the 200 most expanding businesses are U.S. based. The business’ earnings expanded 362.4% from 1983 through 1999. However, there were no new, known workers benefits established. According to the Institute, while the company’s profits skyrocketed, the quantity of workers that the companies had employed rose by merely 14.4%. This has raised public awareness of corporate power and has frightened many. According to Business Week, some refer to this time as the “New Economy.”
This “New Economy” of technology based companies is “leaving workers and their families ‘feeling overworked and stressed out… and about three out of four respondents agreed that big companies have too much influence over ‘government policy, politicians and policy-makers in Washington” (Lobe). In addition, the enlargement of private power has massive economic effects. The result of privatization is overpoweringly harmful. It results in a large decrease of “public controls over an increasing number of living conditions which were hitherto regarded as public responsibilities, and the consequences are irresponsible behavior of private providers and deterioration of living conditions” (Prof. Dr. Jörg Huffschmid). This is predominantly relevant for those who do not have the funds to purchase the privatized merchandise on the markets.
Corporate Influence in Television Broadcasting
Proctor and Gamble Threaten to Pull Their Advertisements Due to CBS Program's Content
In August 2001, Proctor and Gambel (P&G) forced CBS to pull a re-run episode of "Family Law" because they felt the content of that episode was inappropriate. The episode focused on a child abuse case in which the main focus was that the mother owned a handgun. Once P&G made their threats, however, CBS pulled the episode and replaced it with one of spousal abuse. P&G, being one of CBS' biggest advertisers, showed their major influence on the television station. Since the company typically purchases four 30-second commercial spots during the show, CBS could not risk losing the company as an advertiser. When the episode originally ran, P&G pulled their advertising, but CBS was able to find replacement commercials; this run, however, they weren't so lucky.
This example of corporate influence on television broadcasting shows how much corporations actually control the media. If the advertiser doesn't like the content, they can force media to censor broadcasts or risk losing advertising bucks. This influence can make for a scary world. Corporations are making it so that viewers may never see a controversial topic again. Who's to say that the viewing public wouldn't want to see a story about a woman carrying her handgun? How does a board of elderly men sitting around a conference table know what America wants? As Chomsky talks about in his book, companies get flak from their advertisers about content deemed inappropriate. This influence is so great, that broadcasters don't really choose what we watch; advertisers do.
In August 2001, Proctor and Gambel (P&G) forced CBS to pull a re-run episode of "Family Law" because they felt the content of that episode was inappropriate. The episode focused on a child abuse case in which the main focus was that the mother owned a handgun. Once P&G made their threats, however, CBS pulled the episode and replaced it with one of spousal abuse. P&G, being one of CBS' biggest advertisers, showed their major influence on the television station. Since the company typically purchases four 30-second commercial spots during the show, CBS could not risk losing the company as an advertiser. When the episode originally ran, P&G pulled their advertising, but CBS was able to find replacement commercials; this run, however, they weren't so lucky.
This example of corporate influence on television broadcasting shows how much corporations actually control the media. If the advertiser doesn't like the content, they can force media to censor broadcasts or risk losing advertising bucks. This influence can make for a scary world. Corporations are making it so that viewers may never see a controversial topic again. Who's to say that the viewing public wouldn't want to see a story about a woman carrying her handgun? How does a board of elderly men sitting around a conference table know what America wants? As Chomsky talks about in his book, companies get flak from their advertisers about content deemed inappropriate. This influence is so great, that broadcasters don't really choose what we watch; advertisers do.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Library resources for your papers
Here's a great set of tutorials and resources put together for your papers from Maryville's digital resource librarian, Ying. It should REALLY help!
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The Internet Expansion and the Media
In an article that was published in March 2006, Rupert Murdoch was quoted saying that businesses should beware of the booming industry of technology and the Internet. He warns that the worldwide web is such a powerful, ever-expanding media tool that it could easily put many companies in danger of being taken over or forced out of business. In heeding his own warning, Murdoch, the chief executive of News Corp, strategically began purchasing large units of Internet, setting a budget of $2 billion towards his web buyout. One of his main purchases included MySpace, a booming web site in 2005 when Murdoch acquired it, even more lucrative and popular now. This newsworthy takeover made some MySpace users weary that News Corp would begin censoring members’ expressions of themselves and charging for a once free service.
As McChesney writes in his chapter on media activism, recently the guys in Washington have started taking notice of the public’s opinion on media reform. What was once an unheard of argument has now become a defining campaign hot button issue. With News Corp’s reportedly bias views, one could understand how Internet users could become concerned with Murdoch’s recent purchase. What if MySpace becomes a mainstream advertising site (as it mostly is now), littered with advertisements geared specifically towards Fox News? Would it still be a simple space for old friends to reunite and new friends to meet? Or would it become a flood of pop-ups and banners advertising the latest at Fox’s news desk? Luckily, politicians and those in office are beginning to take note that the people want media reform and it could be a deal breaker for those running for office.
Week 4: Technology and the Internet: Social Change
In the book, The Problem of the Media, it states that “Media and technology are so closely wed that media sectors are defined by the differing technologies they employ. It is clear, too, that differing media technologies have distinct effects” (McChesney 211). These media technologies cause extreme social transformation. An example of one of these technologies would be the World Wide Web. “The Web is a layer of system upon system, an amazing array of technologies that all work together to deliver a world of communication to the user”. These technologies are a part of our everyday lives: You Tube, e-mail, banking, shopping and so on.
The internet has had such an enormous impact on society that people can't seem to remember how to live their lives without it. Today, the internet is so widespread that it touches every part of our daily lives. It has changed how societies communicate, distribute information, earn money and even fall in love. Even though the internet has created fascinating opportunities and advances, one might stop and wonder if it is corrupting our society.
Technology defiantly has its benefits such e-mail, but also has its costs such as loss of jobs. “As the world becomes smaller, and technology replaces manual labor, an entire sector of jobs has disappeared, creating a new underclass in our society”. Before the technologies of today, people did manual labor, which guaranteed jobs. How technologically advanced is our society going to get? Are we, as a civilization, making an effort to fill the holes left by hi-tech expansions? We need to think about the downside of technology and not just pay attention to the obvious benefits.
Ditgal TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIIjT3xotHU
Digital Television has been a big uproar, which has been all over the news, radios and even on the Internet, but is American ready for the switch? The date that has been set for Feb 17 has been moved back, but why? The converter boxes are available and everyone could apply for two $40 coupons to buy the box. It seems to the average person not be to costly, but actually this great deal for us. But people are aren't ready!
In the book Senator McCain states, "One of the great rip-offs in American History. They used to rob trains in the old days, and now we rob spectrum." If it available is will enhance our viewing pleasure, why shouldn't we go with the technologies. This country is always developing and figuring out new ways to enhance the media. Whether it is HD radio, Fiber optic Internet or digital television, most of us embrace this, but many still don't take the time to understand what the change with do for them. I think the DTV will eventually make everyone happy and once it takes off I think it will allow Television Technology to grow and people will be happy. It is just like when DVD's came out, my parents were not really sure to give in to that kind of technology, because VHS have been apart of their lives so much. But my father broke down bought a DVD player and now he has embraced the technologies that are out or coming out.
The FCC needs to come up with regulations that go along with the new technologies that are being developed, maybe redoing the 1996 Telecommunications Act. We need to take into consideration that things are developing not only with Television,but the Internet. I think technology is wonder and we need to embrace it but its hard to regulate it when it comes to technology because there is so much gray area. So do we just leave it in the FCC hands?
Digital Television has been a big uproar, which has been all over the news, radios and even on the Internet, but is American ready for the switch? The date that has been set for Feb 17 has been moved back, but why? The converter boxes are available and everyone could apply for two $40 coupons to buy the box. It seems to the average person not be to costly, but actually this great deal for us. But people are aren't ready!
In the book Senator McCain states, "One of the great rip-offs in American History. They used to rob trains in the old days, and now we rob spectrum." If it available is will enhance our viewing pleasure, why shouldn't we go with the technologies. This country is always developing and figuring out new ways to enhance the media. Whether it is HD radio, Fiber optic Internet or digital television, most of us embrace this, but many still don't take the time to understand what the change with do for them. I think the DTV will eventually make everyone happy and once it takes off I think it will allow Television Technology to grow and people will be happy. It is just like when DVD's came out, my parents were not really sure to give in to that kind of technology, because VHS have been apart of their lives so much. But my father broke down bought a DVD player and now he has embraced the technologies that are out or coming out.
The FCC needs to come up with regulations that go along with the new technologies that are being developed, maybe redoing the 1996 Telecommunications Act. We need to take into consideration that things are developing not only with Television,but the Internet. I think technology is wonder and we need to embrace it but its hard to regulate it when it comes to technology because there is so much gray area. So do we just leave it in the FCC hands?
Friday, February 6, 2009
New Beer Marketing Strategy
The previous video shows Beck's t.v. marketing strategy, but HERE Becks tries something new. Interestingly enough, Beck's main site has now joined the "Blogging Scene". The "Daily Different" is their themed blog, that is led by a comedian from London that is the voice of the brand. This idea is building off Miller's Beerblog.com that hit the internet in 2006, but instead of sticking to only beer topics, Beck's is allowing the comedian to come up with his own material, in hopes of keeping it engaging.
I don't think it is the best idea, but I suppose it is better than nothing..I mean what can a beer company really have on their site anyway?
Monday, February 2, 2009
Extra Post: Superbowl Commercial - Branding
I saw this commercial during the Superbowl last night and thought it was interesting. It's a new Anheuser-Busch commercial featuring the famous clydesdales. It's basically the story (told by a clydesdale) about the horse's ancestor migrating from Scotland to America and not being able to fit in until he joins the Anheuser-Busch clydesdales. It ends with the inspirational "all American, proud to be so" message. I thought it was interesting because In-Bev, a foreign company, recently proceeded with a hostile (hostile for the consumers and employees, not so much for the owners making buku bucks on the sale) takeover of the Anheuser-Busch corporation. So, now, to cure the hatred that has formed against them, they've put out this commercial saying how they're proud to be Americans, etc., etc. Basically, it's them trying to get Americans who drink Anheuser-Busch beverages to keep buying their products.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Lots of Influence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crirZyrvvWg
As reading about Paris Hilton, I've come to the conclusion that the media channels that normally should cover what is going on in the world, would rather stop the important news to tell the world that Anna Nicole Smith died(for example). I couldn't tell you how many hours they covered this. I know we see news on channels such as this, but when is it enough when it comes to celebrities, and what we see in the media that is suppose to be news.
Journalist are meant to report news that will inform us, but as quoted in the book, "Journalists figure they might as well profit and some stooped to hawking products. If you ever read articles that talk about the latest products, have you ever wonder what the journalists are getting out of that article, or is that even what they really want to do. Writing is so em powerful still today. One of my favorite journalist is Lisa Ling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL3r7jnH7Oo
She was on the view for awhile, doing the talk show thing, but however she studied journalism and wanted to get information out there. She left the view to start her life of traveling and bring information back to the states. She is doing the updated version of journalism, which is documentaries. She covers everything from how other countries are living to our very own meth epic that is happening in the states.
So what should be shown on on the news channels? Its sad to say that the media covers bullshit and forgets to tell us what is happening in our neighborhoods. I would like to see more things that deal with real life than why Britney spears shaved her head.
As reading about Paris Hilton, I've come to the conclusion that the media channels that normally should cover what is going on in the world, would rather stop the important news to tell the world that Anna Nicole Smith died(for example). I couldn't tell you how many hours they covered this. I know we see news on channels such as this, but when is it enough when it comes to celebrities, and what we see in the media that is suppose to be news.
Journalist are meant to report news that will inform us, but as quoted in the book, "Journalists figure they might as well profit and some stooped to hawking products. If you ever read articles that talk about the latest products, have you ever wonder what the journalists are getting out of that article, or is that even what they really want to do. Writing is so em powerful still today. One of my favorite journalist is Lisa Ling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL3r7jnH7Oo
She was on the view for awhile, doing the talk show thing, but however she studied journalism and wanted to get information out there. She left the view to start her life of traveling and bring information back to the states. She is doing the updated version of journalism, which is documentaries. She covers everything from how other countries are living to our very own meth epic that is happening in the states.
So what should be shown on on the news channels? Its sad to say that the media covers bullshit and forgets to tell us what is happening in our neighborhoods. I would like to see more things that deal with real life than why Britney spears shaved her head.
The Media is Slacking: It's Hot.
As McChesney states, one of journalism’s main duties is to be the “watchdog” of the powerful and those who want to become powerful. I would have to say that journalism at this time is failing its duty. McChesney states that “...the eight or nine largest media firms now rank among the two or three largest corporations in the world” (McChesney 21). Therefore, those who are powerful are in fact the media and the journalists who contribute to its success. Media outlets are some of the most powerful corporations in the United States. There are multiple stations on satellite television spouting news for CNN or MSNBC, all of which have elongated commercial segments to earn money from advertisers and segments “brought to you by..” Entertainment media has even more to gain from hungry consumers. With entertainment magazines, “rag mags”, and television shows reporting on gossip in the entertainment industry, the media that report on entertainment stand to gain quite a profit.
With money comes power, and with the power the entertainment media has it can make almost anything into an entertainment money maker. For instance, Paris Hilton. What does she do? Does she have a job? Does she really need to create a 12-episode reality show to find a new best friend? No. However, because her family name is such a money maker, Paris is now in every magazine shown eating in a cafe with her gaggle of clone friends. Fascinating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sehDaPB5Hqw (Embedding was disabled on this video)
The media has fallen down on its duty to watch over the powerful because the media itself has grown into such a powerful entity. It wouldn’t put limitations on those who make it the most money.
(FYI: I wouldn't waste your time watching these videos. They are literally videos of Paris Hilton eating for three minutes, walking into a club, and a three minute news segment from Australia of her arriving to the airport to shop. The description under her name in the 15 second interview with the news crew says simply 'socialite.' I posted these videos because I was amazed and honestly felt a little sad for the people that actually took the time to video tape and post this nobody.)
With money comes power, and with the power the entertainment media has it can make almost anything into an entertainment money maker. For instance, Paris Hilton. What does she do? Does she have a job? Does she really need to create a 12-episode reality show to find a new best friend? No. However, because her family name is such a money maker, Paris is now in every magazine shown eating in a cafe with her gaggle of clone friends. Fascinating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sehDaPB5Hqw (Embedding was disabled on this video)
The media has fallen down on its duty to watch over the powerful because the media itself has grown into such a powerful entity. It wouldn’t put limitations on those who make it the most money.
(FYI: I wouldn't waste your time watching these videos. They are literally videos of Paris Hilton eating for three minutes, walking into a club, and a three minute news segment from Australia of her arriving to the airport to shop. The description under her name in the 15 second interview with the news crew says simply 'socialite.' I posted these videos because I was amazed and honestly felt a little sad for the people that actually took the time to video tape and post this nobody.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
