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
-- 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.
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
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.
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.
In his book The New Media Monopoly, Ben H. Bagdikian raises a similar point:
Direct censorship isn't the only threat to the free flow of information. Bagdikian goes on to say:
"To meet the profit pressures, newspapers have been cutting reportorial costs by reducing staff size and news space, and broadcast media have cut serious air time on radio and and television. As a result, many newspapers have lost some of their best journalist, and the public has lost daily access to their reporting" (105-106).
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.
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.
"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.
As an intern at Entertainment Tonight over the summer, my labor was used for various purposes. A lot of the time I was a tape vault intern; I would file tapes for seven hours. Boring. One day I was asked to work in the newsroom and search out stories. As a future journalist, this interested me. I would finally get to see how a big television show got its stories. What I found disappointed me.
I surfed the Internet all day. Nothing wrong with that, since I do that quite a bit at school; however, I was disappointed to see that new-world journalism was to let other Web-sites break stories before our own reporter was sent to the scene. One of the sources that I was required to check repeatedly was TMZ.
For people who are not into the gossip scene, TMZ is a start-up, Time-Warner subsidy that specializes in celebrity gossip. For a large part, they send out recent graduates with video cameras to follow around the stars. Because they have so many "reporters" out on the streets, TMZ has quickly become one of the leading sources in the business.
Recently while surfing "The Smoking Gun" I came across the following story. TMZ paid $165,000 for a taped audio recording of O.J. Simpson and his collectible dealer that captured their confrontation in a Las Vegas hotel. My ethical radar went off when I saw this and I decided to analyze. I have a few questions.
What are the implications on the media? If one "news" outlet is willing to pay excessive sums of money in order to break a story, does this hurt the free flow of information? To the best of my knowledge the whole reason we have a First Amendment is to help facilitate democracy. If free speech is hindered by the government, an oppressive government like pre-Revolution Britain is possible? Is paying for information or paying for a story hurting democracy because speech is no longer free? Perhaps I'm making a big deal out of nothing since TMZ only paid for media, supplementing another part of a story that had already broken, I can just see these methods hurting journalism in the future.
"The Smoking Gun" says that TMZ is the only Time-Warner subsidy that is allowed to pay for its stories, but in a world where the exclusive is a prized concept I can quickly see other smaller news organizations going toward this method in order to gain notice amidst the major news outlets. I see this as a detrimental exercising of someone's right to free speech, but when someone sells his speech for $165,000 is it free any longer?
I hope everyone watches the above movie before reading further. Done. Good. My comment on the situation is WTF. That's not exactly a precise analysis of rhetoric or ethics, so I'll strive to be a tad more professional.
Larry Sinclair is suing Barack Obama for slander. I think the reason why the Smoking Gun, and myself find the situation ironic, is that if the claims that Sinclair is making are false, then he's the one that's slandering... twice.
I'm trying to put my finger on the rhetoric of a homemade video, shot in a hotel room. There is clearly someone else in the room, as the jolt at the end suggests, yet the video is shot slightly off center. Someone either didn't know how to center a shot, or there was a reason for keeping the window in the frame. Why shoot in a hotel room, and not a permanent residence? Clearly lots of things can happen over the course of nine years, but back in 1999 Sinclair had the means to acquire a limo. To me, a limo is a sign of disposible income. Sinclair either doesn't have it anymore, or doesn't want to use it anymore since he put together a really cheaply made video.
YouTube is an accessible medium. Anybody who has a camera and a computer can put together a video and have it viewed by millions of people. The national media does the same thing, and it's slightly more credible. I think the media feels like I do -- the burden of proof is on the accusor. Sinclair has details that make his story sound slightly plausible, but he's got to do more to convince me than to ask Obama to take a polygraph test.
Finally, I'm still trying to decide what the motive behind the video is/was. There have to be easier ways to get attention than to admit to drug use, and claim to have given oral sex to another man. If he wanted money (which would seem likely since he's suing Obama for slander) he seems to be getting desperate since it's not looking like the national media is really running with the story. With no story, Obama can keep on trucking with the election, and use his money to secure a place in the White House.
On Sunday at the Grammys, Amy Winehouse was recognized for work on her album Back to Black with four awards. In addition to winning best new artist, Winehouse was also recognized for having the song of the year for "Rehab." Interestingly enough, for all the refusal of rehab that she does in the song, she had to miss the Grammy ceremony due to the lack of a visa, which stemmed from her drug use and being in rehab. Now I know that it's chic to be a rehab-going celebrity right now. All the stars are doing it. Does Winehouse lose credibility, though, if she refuses to go, and later on goes. If this was John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election we would call him a flip flopper. If music is an expression of one's self, should we hold artists morally responsible for being true to what they say in their songs? More to come.
It will largely be remembered for being the day that the New York football Giants brought the "Evil Empire" of football to its knees. Eli Manning made one of the most improbable throws of all time, David Tyree made one of the most improbably catches of all time, and just like that, respect was restored to a once proud football city.
Now I can go into detail about the factors surrounding Super Bowl Sunday that make it the most watched annual television event. However, for any year that the 49ers are not in the Super Bowl, I know that people watch the game for one reason and one reason only: the commercials.
As I knew that I was going to be watching the Super Bowl for homework purposes this year, I watched the commercials with keen interest to see if I could ascertain anything about their rhetoric and therefore, their ethical implications.
What I found interesting about the Pepsi ad with Justin Timberlake was the line "that's not really that funny... it's childish and immature." While Pepsi didn't stoop as low as repeatedly browbeating their viewers with images of men with chopsticks up their noses (the first time was enough) they did choose to use almost every sight gag in trying to show how with every sip of Pepsi people get one step closer to Justin Timberlake music. What made the ad really hypocritical, and made Pepsi lose all credibility in my book was when Justin was magnetically pulled into a mailbox three times. As if watching a man have a mailbox rammed against his testicles once isn't enough, the exercise was repeated twice more for comedic effect.
While Pepsi's intended audience is probably the tween generation that still listens to JT's music, I just found it ironic that Pepsi established a standard for what was "childish and immature" and then proceeded to do everything possible that fit this definition. My only explanation is that Pepsi was marketing their promotion toward those people that are "childish and immature" and like someone getting hit in the balls because it's kind of funny.
Super Bowl advertising is risky business. Ad space during this year's game cost about $2.7 million for a 30 second spot. For that price, one better make sure that the message trying to be conveyed is done in an effective manner. Rhetoric better be clear and images better be precise.
The thing that I found interesting was that before the game quite a few of the commercials on Fox were trying to say how I needed something. Buy this car, go to this web-site, this product will change my world. During the game the message was one of trying to create the most memorable advertisement. In a classic game of one-upmanship millions of dollars were spent to try and entertain a culture.
The difficulty for me has to do with ethical implications. First off, I can't fathom spending not only 2.7 million dollars for an ad spot, but millions of dollars in production to make it. If all that money was put toward education, or ending poverty or hunger, what a step that would be. If Dell had used their money to support the fight against global AIDS instead of paying a load of cash to sell their laptop that kind of supports the Red campaign, that would be a step in the right direction.
As this is a class about ethical implications of rhetoric, my account of the Super Bowl wouldn't be complete without saying that they rhetoric wasn't used to sell the product. It was used to entertain people. Super Bowl Sunday is a day where millions of people get together and watch television to be entertained. After the game, we don't talk about the game, we talk about the ads. This exposure is what companies are hoping for. In a crazy mixed up way,we are the advertisers, and we are doing it for free. We are also the intended audience and we are being manipulated by companies who want us to subscribe to their culture of cool. All I can say is that they've gotten me. I know that next year at Super Bowl time I will be exactly right where I was this year at Super Bowl time: plopped in front of a television watching a football game for the ad spots.
Last week in my English class we began a discussion about what makes a good citizen. You may have read my previous blog and seen my somewhat inadequate attempt to articulate what I thought was a good citizen. While we were flushing out traits of good citizens, I came across an article online that said that the Good Rev. Fred Phelps was going to be protesting the funeral of Heath Ledger.
For those who don't know about Phelps, his group -- the Westboro Baptist Church -- visited Creighton University earlier this year to protest the showing of "The Laramie Project." "The Laramie Project" is about a college student named Matthew Shepard who was killed in Laramie, Wyoming due to his sexual orientation. Phelps believes that it is biblically wrong to support homosexual rights, and as a result God hates America.
Because Ledger starred in the 2005 film Brokeback Mountain, and the movie touched on topics of homosexuality, the WBC felt the need to protest his memorial service.
What I am having a hard time grappling with is that Phelps fits my definition for a good citizen. In his mind he has educated himself and through decision and action is working to try and better his society. Granted many of the constructs of the society in his head are contradictory to what everyone else in the world believes, but that's beside the point.
I had a discussion with a friend from back home and we were discussing action. From my God and Person's class I was able to raise the following questions.
If someone performs the right action with the wrong intentions, is it still the right action?
If someone performs the wrong action with the right intentions, is it still the wrong action?
In my mind, Phelps is not only exercising his First Amendment right to protest, but he is going out and trying to live his faith as much as possible. Granted his mind is skewed so that it subsists completely in a world of hate, but he's living his faith. Do we then criticize for it being the wrong faith?
Recent Comments
-
Jeff Peak said:
Melissa said: "I think that you must be taking the same PHL 250 that I am with a post like... read more
on The Rev. Fred Phelps: Bad man, good citizen? -
Jeff Peak said:
Gwen says: I think that the issues you bring up are good ones; ones I find myself conflicted with. I... read more
on The Rev. Fred Phelps: Bad man, good citizen? -
Jason Bodewitz said:
[this is good]What you try to close with doesn't really make sense to me. The right action with the wrong intentions, as... read more
on The Rev. Fred Phelps: Bad man, good citizen? -
Jason Bodewitz said:
There might have been a request made from the part of the 'Hillary' camp to call her 'Hillary' rather than... read more
on Not ethics related but still interesting...
on The Rev. Fred Phelps: Bad man, good citizen?