Musings: in search of a muse.

Today we had a homelessman walk into work.  This is the story he told...

Last night I walked in from the blustery snow

I found an interesting website today and I was able to map all the places that I have been this year. I hope to be adding to this map throughout the year, but it seemed like a rather unique tool. Or a method to stalk me. I don't need a stalker. Please don't stalk me.

In a mass e-mail update that I sent out to my friends and family, I bemoaned the fact that I thought I lost my literary voice.  While it could just be maturation of my writing style, and the fact that I can't get away with the shenanigans that I used pull, I think I am out of practice.  I haven't been writing nearly enough.  This is a new year, so I will try to re-develop my voice.

• I'm sure you are doing something far more exciting than I am, so if you get a moment, send me a quick e-mail letting me know how you are doing.  Or you could even come up with your own Round Robin list.
• If you are a graduated Creighton student, and won't be using your Creighton email for much longer, please send me an e-mail address where I can reach you.  Mine will be changing to jeffpeak36@gmail.com soon.
• When I get my computer fixed, I'll get all the e-mails into a somewhat anonymous list to protect everybody's safety.  Since that hasn't happened yet, if I could ask a favor of everyone.  I'm sure that I've left somebody important off this list.  If you could let me know who that is, that would be great.

Anyway, if you are like Anne Grass who will be too busy driving a bus come September to write, please drop a line when you get a free moment this summer.  Hope to hear from all of you sooner or later.

Peace, Love, and word to your mother.

Jeff

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
-- First Amendment, Constitution of the United States --

    The Bill of Rights notes how Congress can't make any laws infringing upon the freedom of the press for individuals, but I feel in today's age, it's not Congress who is censoring the press, it's money.  In order to meet the requirements for my senior perspective course (SRP 435) and combine my interest in media, I decided to see how capitalism in America is affecting freedom of speech and the press.

Frontline: The Merchants of Cool

For some, their knowledge of the media is what they see on television: Press a button the remote, and on pops a series of moving images.  Up until my Media Ethics class(JMC 438), I had no idea about how much power and clout was held in the hands of so few individuals.  We watched a PBS documentary called The Merchants of Cool, and one of the topics covered was the current consolidation of media corporations.  In America there  are five main media conglomerates, and their individual and collective holdings are something to behold.  In 2001,  when the documentary came out, PBS launched a Web site to allow more in depth exploration of the material.  One of the  activities on the Web site shows the spider web of the holdings of  each individual company.   The data is a little old, but the point is still valid.  Five companies own a lot.  The big five are:

Time Warner

Viacom

Walt Disney

News Corp

Bertelsmann

The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest

These holdings don't even take into account giants like Sony or NBC Universal (owned by GE).  In the introduction to his book The Business of Media, David Croteau explains the problem that arises from media monopolies.

"What is in the public interest may not be in the corporate interest.  The major corporations that own the media—and are often involved in many other lines of business—may not want certain embarrassing stories to be publicized very widely (or at all).  They may not want to encourage critical examination of their business practices or the effects their products have on communities or the environment.  They may not want stories or programs that offend their advertisers or interfere with the advertising pitch.  They may want to avoid stories on subjects they deem 'unpopular.'  Their ownership of the media gives them the potential to influence how a story is—or is not—covered" (8-9)

He goes on to say: "Media are supposed to be a watchdog of government, but who serves as a watchdog of corporate media?" (9).


This got me thinking, with the exception of Bertelsmann, each of the media giants owns at least one news station: CBS is owned by Viacom, ABC is owned by Disney, Time Warner owns CNN and the WB, and Newscorp owns Fox and Fox News.  How could the corporate side of these companies affect their coverage of news.  It's difficult to project how much of an influence the board of directors wields in the news department, but the potential for censorship could be extremely high.  I researched the Disney board of directors, in order to find out the other corporate entities that each director represented.

Fajardo_final_project_2

In my mind, the best known person on the Disney board is Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer, Inc.  I feel it's worth questioning whether Jobs would be above making a call to Disney CEO Robert Iger, and asking him to make sure that certain information is not made public in the ABC newscast.

The New Media Monopoly

In his book The New Media Monopoly, Ben H. Bagdikian raises a similar point:

American-flag

I remember back before September 11th, nobody took the Pledge of Allegiance seriously.  Sure people would stand, since it would look rather awkward for them to be sitting while everyone else was up, but the Pledge didn't hold much meaning.  As soon as planes started flying into buildings, things changed.  Everybody was up, at attention, and saying the Pledge with feeling.  Everyone except Alisha.

Alisha is a Jehovah's Witness, and according to doctrine, there is no greater power than God, so one should not Pledge allegiance to anyone or thing but God.  To me, this made sense so I accepted Alisha's right to "freedom of expression," and "freedom of religion," and considered her as American as I was, even though she wasn't a Pledger.

While perusing through one of my favorite blogs, I came across an article about a girl who was suspended for refusing to recite the pledge.

Okay, now I know that Tennessee is stereotypically a little backward due.  Their state is right below Kentucky, and everybody knows what happens in Kentucky...

All joking aside, Tennessee has a law that says that someone doesn't have to recite the pledge if he/she objects on religious, philosophical, or other grounds.  I guess I can kind of see how Tennessee law and the First Amendment are kind of hazy on the matter.

What type of lesson are we teaching to kids if we don't respect their constitutional rights.  As a society we are having enough trouble with American history and civics, we don't need to facilitate the process by ignoring the Constitution as well.

Tomah wisconsin

Okay, this ethical issue was covered in the media, and it's about an issue dealing with a medium of communication, so we're close enough for government work.  Since school districts are essentially a government entity, we're on the right track.

As part of my Media Law class, we are required to bring in articles that deal with First Amendment law issues.  I intend to submit this in class.  To sum up the story, in art class, a kid added a cross and a scripture reference to a landscape drawing.  Someone got offended, and the teacher asked the student to remove the references.  The kid said no, and then things got testy.

Somewhere in the conversation the teacher allegedly said that the student had signed away his Constitutional rights at the beginning of the semester by agreeing to the school's policy.  For other extracurricular activities that occured during the incident, the kid got suspended, and now there is a lawsuit pending.

The school states that they don't discriminate based on religion.  That may be true, but it's hard to make that case when there is iconography from other religions present around the school.

I understand that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state; however, assignments can be open to interpretation.  I know the kid was supposed to draw a landscape, but if he wants to embellish his work by adding the words "John 3:16 A sign of peace," it's not like the school district is endorsing his work.  The rhetoric used in both sources makes it seem like the opposite is to blame.  In the following phrase, the district makes it seem as if it's the victim in the scenario: "...those freedoms are not a license for students to force the school to display religious messages of their choosing or to force the school to accept schoolwork that deliberately defies the rules of the class and the requirements of the assignment."

There's the popular, now cliche, saying along the lines of: freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion.  If the kid were using the drawing to shove into the faces of other students, forcing them to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, there's something problematic with the situation.  Some of the greatest pieces of art had religious messages, or had spiritual motifs.  In school, I remember taking a field trip to the museum and seeing religious art on the walls.  The school wasn't endorsing Christianity by taking me to a place that displayed religious works.  They were just showing me art.  For me, when the rules of the class involve signing away my Constitutional rights, I think something is suspect.

The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest

David R. Croteau

"What is in the public interest may not be in the corporate interest.  The major corporations that own the media -- and are often involved in may other lines of business -- may not want certain embarrassing stories to be publicized very widely (or at all).  They may not want to encourage critical examination of their business practices or the effects their products have on communities or the environment.  They may not want stories or programs that offend their advertisers or interfere with the advertising pitch.  They may want to avoid stories on subjects they deem 'unpopular.'  Their ownership of the media gives them the potential to influence how a story is -- or is not -- covered.  If the story affects the media industry as a whole, there may be widespread interest in not covering it.  Media are supposed to be a watchdog of government, but who serves as a watchdog of corporate media?" (8-9)

The best part of my education this year has been the ability to fuse together many of the lessons that I'm learning in all my courses.  Things I'm learning about poverty and privilege fit in well with my senior perspective course.  My senior perspective course is on capitalism, and I always thought it would be interesting to see how capitalism relates to running a media company.  I just started the book The Business of Media and I already find it fascinating and yet terrifying.  As a country we place so much stock in the notion of "Freedom of the Press."  However, what if the press wasn't free?  What if it wasn't the government, but instead business that was censoring the flow of ideas and information?  For my Senior Perspective, I have to come up with a project, and I'm thinking that I'll use my blog as a means to post it.  Look for the finished product sometime around the 24th of April.