We've all heard about the scandal surrounding athletes like Tiger Woods and Ben Roethlisberger. We've also heard that despite their more than questionable behavior and apparent disregard for women, Nike has not dropped their endorsement deals with these two.

In an article from the New York Times, Timothy Egan brings to light that Nike is sending the wrong message by continuing to sponsor two men even after their string of infidelities, sexual assault cases and general indiscretion have long since overshadowed their successful athletic careers.

Why is Nike glorifying two men that obviously have no idea how to treat women? There is no arguing that these two are excellent athletes, but should that take precedence over their character?

Why doesn't Nike strike a deal with one of the hundreds of amazing female athletes instead of merely supporting those that degrade women? What kind of message is Nike sending by continuing to work with those like Woods and Roethlisberger while cavalierly disregarding many world-class athletes that are women? Egan believes that Nike is saying, "It’s O.K. for a buffoon of a man to disrespect women, so long as he continues to throw a football well."

So do we really want one of American's most popular brand names saying that it is not only okay to disrespect women but also to ignore them? Our country has come so far regarding the issues of equality and sexism but, sometimes, it does not appear to have come far enough.

"Ms. Moore’s situation is both odd and typical, Mr. Schumacher said. 'Middle-aged women can have huge careers on television but not as much in movies. It’s like they celebrate you when you’re the pretty young thing, then there is a dead zone until menopause, when they rediscover you and give you an Academy Award.'"

Demi Moore, now a wife to Ashton Kutcher, has returned to the big screen after a time of rest for the sake of her children. Because Moore was once portrayed on screen as G.I. Jane, Jennifer Steinhauer wrote an article for the NYTimes about how this mother put her children first.

The fact of the matter is that our culture is not career-woman friendly-- not nearly as much as it claims to be. But because of the large push against this attitude, it is not very domesticated-woman friendly either. Women are often caught in the middle of trying to gain recognition for the work they do during their middle age, but also trying to raise a respectable family out of motherly love.

The article works at making Moore sound approachable but also very wise. She believes that she made the right choice in taking time off for her kids-- and apparently everyone else also approves.

"'She’s happily married, her kids are grown and seem fabulous, and she’s very active in politics,' Mr. Schumacher said. 'So let her be Demi Moore.'"

Click here to view article

Gina

In the article “The Mean World Syndrome”, the author talks about the multiple adolescent shootings that have occurred throughout the years such as the Columbine High School shooting, Virginia Tech and other killings in Arkansas, Kentucky and Illinois. What could have affected these people, these adolescents, to do such horrific acts?

A possible answer came in the form of the ‘mean world syndrome’, as offered by Sprague. Sprague is a co-director of the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behaviour. He says that by viewing heavy amounts of violence and cruelty through the media such as movies and video games it can “become their reality”. There is too much violence in the media, it enforces an unbalanced view of what is really going on.

To support this, Gerbner and his Cultivation theory state that heavy media use can cultivate attitudes that are more consistent with the TV world than the real world. Heavy violence watching can homogenize or level a person’s perception of actual violence that goes on in the world. It is as though the perception is blended with the raised level of violence shown on TV and the actual lower level that exists in the world. This is the basis of the mean world syndrome.

Resonance can also help influence an individual’s susceptibility to violence. That is, if a person’s environment is similar to the TV’s representation of the world, then they will have stronger feelings towards it. It will become more realistic for them because it is similar to what they live through every day. This can lead to first and second order effects. First order effects are those that are generalized views of the world. These are basically emotions that come from watching violence or crime-filled TV such as fear, anxiety or paranoia. These first order effects can lead into the second order effects, or the attitudes held about violence or crime. Such attitudes can show themselves through thoughts on crime punishment or acceptance of law enforcement brutality. These in turn can be the foundation to an individual’s actions.

It is important to remember that the mean world syndrome did not cause these adolescents to commit these horrific acts. There can be multiple factors that could contribute to influence these people to act in a certain manner. Correlation does not prove causation. But the mean world syndrome provides a plausible factor in negatively influencing our youth.

~Kimberly

Nike came out with a new 30-second Tiger Woods ad recently. In it, a mute Woods stares blankly at the camera. Speaking from the hereafter, his father, Earl, says: “I want to find out what your feelings are. And did you learn anything?” Nike refused to offer context for Earl Woods’s words. When did he say it? What were the circumstances? He sounds disappointed in his son when he made these comments, but what had Tiger done? Earl, who died in 2006, couldn’t be addressing his son’s scandal. How deep did Nike dig to find these paternal nuggets to justify their use in an ad that debuted less than 24 hours before Tiger teed off Thursday at the Masters? And why did the son consent to having his father’s words repurposed to push no just a personal message, but also Nike Golf? The last image of the ad is the swoosh. Natch.

“Did you learn anything?” Earl Woods asks. A valuable question, and one that his son has attempted to answer in his no-questions news conference in February; his brief interviews with ESPN and the Golf Channel last month; and his pre-Masters news conference on Monday. But the answer to the father’s question appears to be that serial philandering and addiction rehab can be positioned as a commodity – and that you can roll it out in phases leading to the Nike amendment to the 12 steps: a TV commercial. Nike wants Woods to reclaim some sort of moral high ground so that he can return to regularly representing the company and the golf division that he is crucial to. But an ethical authority Woods owned – undeserved as it turns out to have been – was lost amid the revelations of his many affairs all the tawdry text messages and the Vanity Fair takedown that starred four mistresses in various provocative poses. If Nike felt it had to interrupt the conversation before Wood’s return to play, it should have given him his pal Charles Barkley’s old slogan: “I am not a role model.” Modeling occurs simply by watching others, without any direct reinforcement for learning, and without an overt practice. So with his championships, his scandals/mistresses, as he apologized, this recent ad from Nike – what should be America’s view on Tiger? Dominant American ideas and ideals serve as resources for program development, even when the planners are unaware of them, much as we all take for granted the air we breathe is incorporated as symbolic representation of America society, not as liberal portrayals.

Nike may have thought it was barging into the Masters at an appropriate time, on the eve of Wood’s return to competitive golf. But on Wednesday, as ESPN carried the par-3 contest from the Augusta National Golf Club, Woods was nowhere to be seen, among family-oriented elders like Jack Nicklaus or contemporaries like Phil Mickelson. Having betrayed his wife, Woods may have wanted to stay away from the course, where golfers and their kids had great fun. But showing up at a friendly get-together would have given him far more good will than using his father his return from ignominy. Maybe his fans would have seen a big smile Wednesday – not a Nike-made expressionless face – when Arnold Palmer sank a long birdie putt on the ninth hole.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/sports/golf/08tv.html?ref=media

__Andrew____

Kotex has re-vamped the feminine care brand once again. Ladies, you might have seen that little black box recently on the shelves next to all the white and light blue boxes when shopping for your tampons, pads, or panty liners. This little black box filled with brightly colored wrapping is part of Kotex new look and their ads and website are a response to the lack of information provided to women and ridiculous past ads that have shown in the past.

These ads have been both parody like in the new commercial of a girl expressing her feelings about her period with clips of past commercials depicting what she is discussing she opens with, “How do I feel about my period? I love it.” Throughout the commercial she sarcastically shares with the viewer that “Usually, by the third day, I really just want to dance,” which then continues and after in text it states, “Why are tampon ads so ridiculous?” This ad to the right is a new ad released this year to promote their new U line from Kotex.

This new line from Kotex is changing the meaning of having a period, what it’s really like, how a woman is feeling, at least in the advertizing world. Women know but now they don’t have to watch an obnoxious ad of a girl twirling in the fields in her white spandex. Who does that on their period?!

This new line, essentially an apology and major correction for past feminine care ads, is a bold new step towards educating, being truthful, and transparent in advertising. On the website, UbyKotex.com, shows viewers anatomically correct pictures, helpful guides, important information for both young and older women, what a period is, and of course… the products.

Media scholars tell us that ads are geared fundamentally to sell. Sell. Sell. Sell. And various ads even demonstrate to us that we can actually purchase happiness and satisfaction by buying their product. This ideology and selling tactic is apparent in most of the past commercials for tampons, illustrating women having the time of their life while on their period, showing that once you have purchased this product your period will be wonderful. Kotex has challenged this ideology through past ads such as their adaption of the universal red dot in 2000, being quite frank and making the word period useable and identifiable to all women worldwide. Media scholars have said in the past that advertising promotes only specific values, geared to private life rather than a globalized message, yet Kotex and leading brands are beginning to change this idea. A need that all women have, though it is quite personal too, is to deal with her menstrual cycle and that is universal. Kotex fits. Period.

So what does this mean for you? Why care? Advertisers have always been tuning into their audiences but perhaps we are beginning to see more humble and honest ads. Kotex has opened its doors to look at this business critically with its audience and consumers. A leading product is also crossing over to teach their consumers and is quite frank which is helpful and shows the consumers that a company can be honest too. Can we expect to see similar honesty from other leading producers? Might this transparency begin to be the norm with other brands and product?

The articles used:

Rebelling Against the Commonly Evasive Feminine Care Ad

A new campaign for Kotex aims to send a message to women worldwide

Bill Carter recently wrote an article about CNN's plummet in ratings for the New York Times.

"CNN had a slightly worse quarter in the fourth quarter of 2009, but the last three months have included compelling news events, like the earthquake in Haiti and the battle over health care, and CNN, which emphasizes its hard news coverage, was apparently unable to benefit." This is particularly interesting because CNN prides itself in timely and engaging reporting about world news coverage.

"About the only break from the bad news for CNN was that March was not as bad as February, when the network had its worst single month in its recent history, finishing behind not only Fox News and MSNBC, but also its sister network HLN — and even CNBC, which had Olympics programming that month." Besides this being somewhat sad and pathetic, it also shows the shift that the media is making. Even television is becoming less popular than online news updates-- especially when it comes to world news.

Is all of this happening because people do not like hearing and seeing bad news? Are they too self-focused to listen to what's happening globally? No. CNN is just not offering what the public wants-- on principle. "CNN executives have steadfastly said that they will not change their approach to prime-time programs, which are led by hosts not aligned with any partisan point of view." Objectivity is the best thing for the public, but what if the public doesn't want it? At the expense of millions of viewers, CNN is holding steadfast. But who's to say what their true motives are? How can this possibly benefit them in the long-run?

"CNN has given no indication that any changes in its lineup are imminent, but recently announced that it would try a series of specials in a talk-show format at 11 p.m." Hopefully this will help. We might be witnessing the slow and painful decline of a dependable news source.

In 2007 there was a violent assault on Baghdad by the US Army that left several men dead. Recently, a website known as WikiLeaks released previously unseen footage of this fight.

WikiLeaks is a three year-old, volunteer-run site that, as the name might suggest, "posts classified and sensitive documents" according to Noam Cohen and Brian Stelter, authors of the New York Times article addressing this (to read entire article, click title above). On the WikiLeaks website (wikileaks.com) is numerous documents and things regarding issues such as 9/11, toxic waste dumping, Guantanamo Bay, etcetera. The releasing of this video is drawing much more attention to the website than it has had in the past.

This 38 minute video, along with the shortened 17 minute version that has been more widely viewed, features obviously graphic violence within this attack that the website calls "provoked" and has named the video "Collateral Murder".

This site seems to be intent on getting 'the real message' to the public and informing them of what is 'really' happening. "The site is not shy on its intent to shape media coverage", say Cohen and Stelter. Site co-founder Julian Assange considers himself to be an activist as well as journalist and asserts that he feels it is time for the media to upgrade and utilize the "high-tech investigative journalism" he and his fellow volunteers do.

If WikiLeak's purpose is to leak unreleased government "secrets", so to speak, in an attempt to better educate media consumers of the truths of our country, I would say they were doing a decent job, considering the lengths they must go to in order to retrieve much of that information. However, is their media, unlike much of mainstream media, unbiased? On that note I would say no. Why? Well, an example directly from this New York Times article states that "WikiLeaks did not merely post the 38-minute video, it used the label “Collateral Murder” and said it depicted “indiscriminate” and “unprovoked” killing". By using words such as these, they classify their documents, specifically this video, as something to be looked at with disdain. The site's editors are clearly telling their audience how they should feel about the clip, without actually saying 'we feel xyz towards this action or document and so should you'. Though perhaps it is not on purpose, media audience can still be easily swayed by this. On the other hand, should we hold the same opinions anyway? After all, it is a clip which depicts the killing of "our boys". To decide for yourself if this video should have been posted, if this site is a good idea, if all news should be more like this, and if the "Collateral Murder" video's content was unnecessary killing or not, view the video and other 'stolen government documents', as it were, on the WikiLeaks website.

Choosing what channels and outlets to take in media from can be very difficult and stressful for consumers. As I have mentioned above, even without meaning to media can be biased and can influence the thoughts of its audience because of it. I would suggest gathering your news updates from several different sources. This way, you can compare stories and hopefully be able to better formulate your own ideas and opinions regarding the headlines.

It's s sticky situation with WikiLeaks; aren't they essentially stealing government secrets, then broadcasting them for the world to see? Some things, not all but some, are better left unsaid and unseen. Not all journalism rules can apply to this new media either. Like the article states, whereas before judges could delay or stop the publication of some things, this "digital sphere" enables information to appear instantaneously. So consumers: 1) gather information from several sources to ensure you truly are getting the full picture, and 2) what do you think about this WikiLeaks- a good idea, to get the 'true stories' of what 'they' aren't telling us out there, or are they sticking their nose where it probably shouldn't be?

-Sheila

A lot of controversy has been around the idea that video games influence or encourage violent thoughts and behaviors, especially those of teenagers or children. Well, what about video games centered on the main character stalking and raping, yes that’s right raping, a young girl, her sister and her mother? I believe the line has been well crossed.

RapeLay, as discussed in Leigh Alexander’s article, is a Japanese video game that focuses on sexually groping and eventually raping three characters. The crime occurs in the subway as the player stalks his victim on the platform, sexually assaults the girl on the subway, and ultimately rapes her in the bathroom or in the park or some other given location. The player has to option of “prayer” which causes a gust of wind to lift up the girl’s skirt. While on the train, the player can actually grope the young girl, even while surrounded by other passengers who remain silent through the entire encounter. And finally, a “series of interactive rape scenes begin”.

The true horror lies in the fact that not only can the player rape the young victim, but the game actually portrays the crime as consensual intercourse! Based on the twisted fantasy of the main character, it is believed that the victim actually enjoys being attacked. After the rape, the player is left with three choices: a) stabbing the victim to death during sex, b) after impregnating the victim, force her to have an abortion, or c) if refusing the abortion from option b, the player commits suicide by throwing himself under a train.

The tragedy is that this actually occurs in Japanese subways where “64% of Tokyo women reported that they’d been groped on a train”. According to the 7 contextual features that can influence violence, talked about by Strasburger, Wilson and Jordan, certain features may enhance violent acts, such as the groping or eventual raping of more Tokyo women. If the reason for violence seems justified, just as the player believes that the women enjoy being attacked, then the act may become reinforced. It becomes morally acceptable. The consequence for the victim may be enough to diminish aggression by seeing the victim either murdered or the player commits suicide, but the option of abortion gives a less brutal outcome and thus an escape of any real abuse. Finally, desensitization of the severity of these attacks can occur because the individual playing the game may feel like this is a regular occurrence, and that it is acceptable in a way. If groping occurs on a subway, the individual will be less likely to intervene (just like the other passengers on the train shown in the game) and stop the act from happening.

RapeLay has been banned from America, and people believe that it will never be allowed or accepted here. But through the globalization of the Internet, it has spread to an online downloadable game that can be accessed, even more graphically than originally intended, by essentially anyone. The problem occurs when video games try to come out with stuff that is bigger and badder than ever before. But where should the line drawn and why does it have to be crossed in order to bring more attention to preventing the damaging effects of video games?

~Kimberly

As the iPad makes it's grand debut in the technology scene, so do the advertisers who want in on the new media. (For those unaware, the iPad tablet is Apple's newest venture- a type of laptop crossed with a smartphone). Within the advertising space in the iPad applications, companies such as FedEx, Chase Sapphire credit card, Toyota and Capital One have all bought space. Stephanie Clifford, author of "Advertisers Show Interest in iPad", (click the blog's title to view the entire article on nytimes.com) says that while it "should provide a nice boost for publishers" at first, she goes on to discuss whether that enthusiasm will fade or not over time. These companies all showed an early interest in the advertising space partly because they would then be included in the in-store demos. Along with the ad opportunities, though, comes some questions, problems and concerns.

Pricing is one problem currently being faced. Many advertisers have been arguing for a cheaper price than it is to advertise in print, the article says, and should be so as it is cheaper for ads to be electronic than it is to print them (states Steve Sturm, now former VP of Toyota Motors North America). At the moment though, prices are higher than print. No one knows how well the iPad will actually sell, despite all the hype towards it. Nothing is certain, so for now advertisers are being charged flat rates until buying and viewing patterns emerge. Advertisers are, of course, show concerns toward these high prices as no one knows how much their ads will really benefit; certainly not as much as they do when advertised during Dancing With the Stars, Clifford asserts.

Technology has been pointed out as another concern. Because the iPad doesn't handle Flash, a program used by many for moving ads, both Apple (creator of the iPad) and the ad-designers are having to work harder to get around that. It is also uncertain of how an ad will look, format-wise, on the iPad, and whether or not it will even appeal to the iPad users.

With so many uncertainties and issues, I ask you, is it worth it for advertisers to venture into the world of the iPad at all? It seems to me that television, both broadcast and cable, are at least more stable than that. With the costs of really everything fluctuating as it is, I believe companies wanting to advertise should stick with the medium most consumed by potential buyers at once (so maybe they should take another look at Dancing With the Stars, for instance). Use the money they would be paying for the iPad advertising for more ads on TV, and not only would they get more for their money but also have the continued assurance of enough viewers to make it worthwhile. It would also support television programming, as advertising is their main source of revenue. In this uncertain economic time, should advertisers really be focusing so much on new, potentially risky adventures? There seem to be so many questions and concerns regarding advertising on the iPad- is it worth it?

-sheila.

John Calipari is the Head Basketball Coach at Kentucky. He is currently preparing his No. 1 seed Wildcats (34-2) to play No. 12 seed Cornell (29-4) this Thursday in the Sweet Sixteen of the N.C.A.A Men’s Championship Tournament. He is also probably telling you what is happening in his practice via Twitter and Facebook. Okay – so maybe not what is happening in practice at this present point, but Coach Calipari is an avid user of social networking sites. Calipari has 1,113,746 followers on Twitter, 138,747 fans on Facebook, and his Coach Cal application for the iPhone and iPod touch sold more than 6,000 applications in its first month, making it the top paid sports application on iTunes less than a week after its debut last month, the author (Thayer Evans) explains. Coach Calipari says social networking keeps him in touch with Kentucky’s fans (and anyone else who is interested). His web site, CoachCal.com, which went up in July, receives more than 100,000 page views each week. People have visited it from more than 100 countries, even Kyrgyztan, which borders China. Some of the money made from the Coach Cal application and his Web site go to the nonprofit Calipari Family Foundation for Children. His technological platforms have also been instrumental in his other philanthropic ventures like the “Hoops for Haiti” telethon in January, which raised $1.3 million.

The results of Calipari’s efforts to raise money through technology have been a step in revamping his often-controversial image of a coach who took Memphis and Massachusetts to the Final Four, but both programs were ordered to give up their victories in those seasons because of N.C.A.A. violations. “He’s using it (social networking, web site, and application) for good, not evil,” said Dave Scott, who helped co-write a book with Calipari and dealing with his website and social networking accounts. During the season, Scott often spends 18 hours a day on Calipari’s Web site and overseeing his Facebook page. He also assists with Calipari’s Twitter feed, but Calipari himself makes a majority of tweets. Calipari is a good example of being a news assembler. He transfers promoted occurrences through publication (Twitter, Facebook, CoachCal.com, etc.). For example, when he posted in past weeks, how to buy tickets to the East Region, raved about eating barbecue shrimp, escargot and an “unreal split pea and shrimp soup” in New Orleans, and asked his followers to send text messages to vote for point guard John Wall as Naismith Player of the Year. These are all examples of promoting occurrences through publication that lets Kentucky fans (and whoever else is following him), what is occurring in his life at the most current or recent moment through social networking.

When Kentucky was in New York earlier this season, Calipari tweeted that he planned to attend mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. He did not specify which service he would attend, but when he showed up for the noon Mass, a teenage fan that had waited through three earlier services to get his autograph greeted him. “Hey, I knew you’d be here,” the boy told Calipari. This can be seen as a news consumer in some ways because Calipari attend a certain occurrence – he said he be at thanks to his tweet– to create a sense of public time in an area (New York), where he is normally not around. And although Calipari said he was not sure how much of an effect his social networking has on recruiting, his players have taken notice. Forward Patrick Patterson said he was shocked when Calipari tweeted that he had missed an appointment with the Grammy-nominated rapper Drake. Drake said he admired Calipari’s social networking presence, noting that he has only 526,017 followers on Twitter. “He’s way bigger than me,” Drake said. “He’s a legend. He’s a leader of the Blue Nation. I bow down to him and his followers. I’m just one of the many.”

Being green sells… Right? Since this is common knowledge we can assume that producers in every arena has picked up on this and usinging it to boost their profit. This is exactly what Sara Amandolare is writing about in The Truth About Green Advertising. Though the National Advertising Division, The Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Trade Commission has put into place some guidelines for companies that report environmental claims Congress is still determining how to solve this problem. She found that a study was done by Terra Choice (an eco-consulting firm) to see just how many claims were true. Out of 4,000 products almost all were found to be false! Greenwashing is a rising problem and little has been fully developed to penalize these deceiving companies.

Feeling helpless amongst these large corporations? An unexpected heavy-weight joins the conversation and creates a solution themselves! Wal-mart. Yup, Wal-mart has come to save the day... or even the future...? Wal-mart has announced a new policy that is requiring their suppliers to calculate their environmental costs and will be put on the products in the store with the price tag. Media scholars say that this can exponentially amplify public action and create a green competition between competitor companies. Though Wal-mart may have a huge impact on the way their personal product suppliers are regulated there is still a large amount that is being overlooked.

Different agencies regulate the advertising industry as I previously stated before. These regulatory agencies have two basic concerns. ONE, they protect fraudulent or deceptive ads and TWO, they are concerned about ads that have potentially harmful and dangerous products. In her artical Ms. Amandolare finds that, "companies are not required to disclose the use of some substances believed to be dangerous." A regulation is not a requirement, though companies may face consequences for getting caught there is no requirement or law that helps to eliminate this issue.

In obvious ways, this affects us all. I love buying organic or environment friendly products because I see this as a major issue and something worth striving for. Expect to see some changed in the next few years. While Wal-mart is changing their efforts and product labeling we can plan to also see some of the other competing large companies following suit. As for you personaly... be cautious of product advertising and ambiguous claims.

A tip from the Federal Trade Commission: "Look for claims that give some substance to the claim-the additional information that explains why the product is environmentally friendly of "environmentally safe"

-Hope

Many of us have heard of the recent emerging Chatroulette craze and some of us may have even caught on. If you haven't, it's pretty much just a glorified chat room, made more "personal" by the use of webcams. In an article for trueslant.com, Todd Essig seeks to explore why so many people are logging in. What is the fun in exposing yourself and spending hours talking to complete and utter strangers? Is this just another example of a passing Internet fad or is this proving that the Web is not only catering to everyday practical needs but also probing psychological ones?

The article continues on to say that Chatroulette "exploits two powerful psychological realities: our need for connection and our fears of connection." People need people. We crave closeness with other human beings. We like having someone to talk to, someone with which to spend time. However, there is so much risk associated with letting someone in. We fear being judged if we allow them to see who we really are; we are terrified of being hurt because we let somebody else in. Chatroulette offers a risk-free temporary connection with other human beings. We can talk about what we want and be whoever we want and know, that the second we log off, we never have to see those people again. Todd Essig argues, although he is not a fan of CR himself, that the site is an easy way to combat loneliness without the danger or drama of a real-life relationship.

How will this sort of website affect our future? Is this really the path that we want to travel down? The Internet provides us with so many endless and important resources. Social networking sites definitely have their place. They are an enjoyable and easy way to connect with friends, both new and old. However, what happens when we stop meeting new people because we can just find them on Facebook? What happens when we stop calling our friends? I mean, we already know what they're doing- we read it on Twitter, right?

Perhaps we should just take strides to ensure that websites like Chatroulette take a backseat to real life. We can appreciate how fun and innovative they are, but we should never let such things take the place of real in-person relationships.

"'When digital [shows] came in, people said, "No one is going to watch TV," ' said Gloria Rosenberg, president at Market Fusion Analytics in New York, a consult firm that helps advertisers develop growth strategies."

In Stuart Elliot's article "Old and New Media Coexisting Nicely, Thank You," it is clear that Web view of television and advertisements has not replaced TV, but is complimenting it. ESPN in particular is experiencing the benefits of the corroboration between television and Internet.

This is not an example of horizontal integration among TV networks.

"'I’m a big believer in using all the tools in the toolbox,' said Mary O’Keefe, chief marketing officer at Principal in Des Moines. 'People can get the information however they like to.'"

Each series is gaining popularity on television, and retaining viewership on the Web-- each network involved is gaining its own ratings. No networks have started sharing resources, becoming a single monopoly (part of what was feared).

However, there are some series on the Web that do not exist on television (such as "Undercover," by the Onion).

So far, there is a healthy relationship between these two outlets of media. How much longer can this relationship go, not threatened? I suspect that the amount of independent Web series will increase, and perhaps they may become more popular than those on television. It's important to keep track of media growth and decline because the bottom line effects us-- the viewers (the consumers) are the ones that control the ratings.


Click here or on the title to read the article
Gina

Yet another decision regarding the ruling of keeping the term “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and also the motto “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins is discussed in Terence Chea’s article “Fed. Appeals court upholds ‘under God’ in pledge.” Beginning back in 2002, Michael Newdow, an asserted atheist, claimed that the term “under God” violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion. The appeals court in 2002 ruled in favor of Newdow, yet the Supreme Court in 2004 denied the claim on the grounds that he did not have full custody of his daughter. Newdow filed a similar claim in 2005 which was approved by a federal judge to be reviewed, yet again, by the appeals court. Nevertheless, the appeals court upheld their previous decision claiming that Newdow’s argument did not violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

Let’s take a closer look at the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that, “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.” Prohibiting and abridging mean to limit, or basically interfere, with an individual’s freedom of speech. Students that attend public schools are not required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. With regards to “respecting an establishment of religion”, Greg Katsas, U.S. government representative regarding the currency case, has this to say: “I think these two phrases encapsulate the philosophy on which the nation was founded. There is a religious aspect to saying ‘One nation under God,’ but it isn't like a prayer. When someone says the pledge, they're not praying to God, they're pledging allegiance to the country, the flag and the ideals of the country.”

Newdow claims that the reason for his petition is that “the government [is] not treating people equally on the basis of their lawful religious views.” Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” The battle is about whether or not I, as an American citizen, have the ability to remain free, including my speech. By removing “under God” or “In God We Trust”, no one’s freedom is being honored. But keeping these phrases allows individuals to decide whether or not they want to acknowledge and say them (in the case of saying the Pledge of Allegiance). The freedom remains to say “one nation under God”, but the freedom also exists not to say it, as long as the phrase remains in the Pledge of Allegiance. Remove the phrase, the freedom is essentially removed as well.

~Kimberly

Do they ruin your internet experience?

If you're reading this post, you're presumably familiar with online advertisements. Whether they're on the side of your screen, at the top or popping up right in the middle of a page, ads seem to be taking over the internet. I found Jennifer Valentino-DeVries' blog on The Wall Street Journal's website on this subject particular interesting. In it, she discusses the technology news site Ars Technica and the experiment they recently tried: blocking the content of the site for all those users who block advertisements. This experiment ultimately resulted in confusion, apologies and ingidnation, says Valentino-DeVries. The website's editor, Ken Fisher, ended up writing an article called "Why Ad-Blocking is Devastating Those Sites You Love" to explain this little experiment and the reasons behind it.

So then the question still remains; to block, or not to block? Both Mr. Fisher and David Croteau and William Hoynes' book Media Society explain the reasoning for online advertising. Advertising is the key source of revenue for mass media channels such as newspapers, television and the internet, explain Croteau and Hoynes. Fisher states that unless a site is a subscription-based model, the majority of sites solely rely on advertising to survive, and while some ads are on a pay per click system, more are pay per view. Therefore, those who utilize ad-blocking tools are denying the revenue to the sites kept alive by those ads.

Some people block ads because they just don't want to see those annoying, often flashing or otherwise moving ads on their screen when they know they'll not likely buy anything because of them. Others block because it distracts and interferes with their web-surfing. Why should we care about this? Well, think about your favorite, most visited (non-subscription) sites online. Take out the ads and they have very little to no money to continue the upkeep of these sites for your viewing pleasure. (Example: No more Facebook?! Nooo...!) So, to echo Valentino-DeVries' enquiries, do you use any ad-blocking tools? If so, how often? And my own questions, are there more effective ways to promote online advertising without 'annoying' web surfers, or perhaps as of yet unheard of ideas on funding for sites without advertising? What do you think?

peace and love,
sheila.

20th Century Fox TV and Fox appear ready to end the long running hit of “24” after this season, the show's eighth. Studio and network executives declined comment, but the decision isn’t a big surprise. The cost of producing “24” has continued to increase, while ratings have dropped the author – Michael Schneider – explains. Critics have been busy this year with their share of kicks and knocks about the series eighth season (airing Monday nights at 9pm on Fox). But even as the bell tolls for “24” in primetime, the franchise is far from dead (which is great news for loyal watchers like myself). In the media mindset where there is a guarantee to lose money, producers will do anything to avoid that. Kiefer Sutherland (Jack Bauer and executive producer) and the “24” team have been eager on adapting the show as a feature film, and have made major strides in recent months toward making that long-term goal a reality.

News has always covered subjects that catch people’s attention and differ from their ordinary lives. News is also often used for escapism and thus every day occurrences are not newsworthy. You’re probably thinking: “Why are you talking about the news when this blog is about ‘24’?” In my eyes, “24” is similar to newsworthiness, and I’ll tell you why. Newsworthiness can be seen as a subject having sufficient relevance to the public or a special audience to warrant press attention or coverage. I know “24” isn’t the news you watch at 11 o’clock when you’re crawling into bed, but “24” is different from any other thing you watch on television and it catches people’s attention because it is not ordinary. “24” targets a special audience in the public, and enters real life scenarios, problems, and drama. Sure, there isn’t a nuclear bomb about to blow up in America – but, “24” presents what America (and CTU, Counter Terrorist Unit) would do in a one in a million chance that scenario would come about.

Although it was developed before the attacks of 9/11, which bowed Nov. 6, 2001, in many ways began to mirror the changed world, given real-life fears of terrorism and debates over torture methods. Skein's depiction of an African American president was seen as a groundbreaking precursor to the 2008 election of Barack Obama. The show’s depiction of a female president currently, shakes up some thoughts too since Sarah Palin was running for Vice President in that same 2008 election against Obama and Biden. “24” might not be exactly the news, but it is similar given these examples. In the end, newsworthiness of the story of “24” depends on the audience – as you decide what you do or don’t have an interest in.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118016256.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

-Andrew

Reported in an article by Richard Perez-Pena, the LA Times is challenging traditional limits on advertising via the newest front page ad from last Friday. The LA Times has previously used the front page for advertising in bold ways, receiving harsh criticisms: the first back in April when the southland series ad was made to look like a news article and the second was of the full page wrap around ad for true blood. Though highly controversial, these former ads were less disturbing than the “Alice in Wonderland” ad this is due to the fact that for this new ad actual pieces of the Los Angeles Times were lent over to the advertiser. John Conroy, spokesperson for the times, explained that the unorthodox ad in print, mirrors the online approach that will flash an ad over the entire main page. Whether this concept is the answer to financial need or just a fresh new idea that may change the newspaper industry, ads and the delivery of them have breached the limits.

This controversial concept has many factors and views regarding its solid "newspapering." Of course many media critics have attacked this concept that is new, unconventional, extreme, and shocking, but what does it all really mean? Well, if everyone knew the complex rigamarole of choosing front page stories, a degree of understanding may be gained as to the importance of that location. Writers’ stories are passed through the web of gatekeepers and editors, offices and additional editors, to determine the importance and news worthiness of the story. After further analysis and juggling of stories the decision is finally made as to which story reaches the sacred space of the front page. To change this conventional process disrupts an entire system that is based on routine and tradition. Placing Johnny Depp’s face as the Mad Hatter on the entire front page, while pushing back the front-page-worthy-stories to then follow was a bold move.

Does this really matter? Is it really THAT important as to what goes on the front page of a news paper? Well… This new trend for The Los Angeles Times may become a trend for more and more news papers due to financial burdens and losses. To put it plainly, this change could weaken the importance of not only front page news but how the news is delivered and disseminated to the readers. Will hard news and good stories fall to the wayside? What will this look like 10 or 15 years from now? Perhaps these are farfetched ideas, but in an era of fast paced change maybe they aren’t so distant.


The article used was found in New York Times, access my clicking here

In an article by Alan Travis found here, the issue of sexualization in music videos is addressed. Videos are only growing in their intensity of blatantly sexual and almost pornographic images, and the availability of this images to young people is astounding. Not only that, but there is growing proof that this has negative effect on how society views women. Not only are songs chock-full of demoralizing lyrics, but we are slapped in the face with derogatory portrayals of women in videos displayed to millions of viewers globally. Not only do these videos basically send the message that women are only good for one thing, but they also are raising up a whole new generation of children to have the same values.

This article more than addresses how easy it is for children to view and obtain this material, and it suggests that there needs to be a tighter limit on these things. It argues that negative and even violent attitudes towards women will not be decreased until the mainstreaming of these images is curbed.

This is an important issue to society as a whole. Do we really want the young people of our world to be so heavily influenced my media that screams sex, sex and more sex? Do we really want their role models to be half dressed women and men that talk about nothing but getting what they want from girls and then leaving them? Not only is that forcing children to grow up too soon and have unrealistic expectations, but it also giving everyone the wrong idea about females as a whole. All these videos are going to do is decrease self-esteem in girls and build up disrespect in boys.

A recent hot topic that has caught people’s attention within the past few years has been global warming. As Chris Mooney talks about in his article “On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up”, scientists seem to take a stance on the back burners instead of getting to the heart of the matter for these two heated debates.

One major blow that scientists recently received was back in November when e-mails and other documents were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of Britain’s University of East Anglia. Mooney is not necessarily saying that the documents themselves were the issue that hindered scientists’ credibility, but the fact that these scientists were found to be restraining opposing views, hiding certain information, skewing data and more did. More specifically, Mooney is calling attention to the lack of ability that scientists lack when trying to share what information they have or protect their side of the discussion when opposing views arise. It is almost as though scientists fear “[facing] the media”.

Neal Lane, a former Clinton administration science adviser and Rice University physicist, claims that the role of a scientist is to conduct the research and to leave the explanation and analysis of those findings to the science journalists. The problem is, new researchers use language that is mainly understood by other research scientists and not necessarily by the media, or any other non-science-oriented reader for that matter, in order to convey these findings to the public. In fact, Mooney argues that “many of them don’t trust the public or the press”. For this, scientists feel as though they must beat down the competition’s opposing views in order to have any chance of getting their point of view out to the public. Unfortunately, by attacking one another, it ends up that neither side is able to report what valuable information they had found.

The same concept goes with the battle between creation and evolution. More time is spent on the battle itself rather than reaching out to the public and sharing what theories that these scientists have come up with. If the focus would change to include more media coverage, it would help people to make their own decisions based upon the information that will be available to them.

The media are a way for corporate companies, the government, and even scientists to establish their ideology on the matter of global warming, creation or evolution, or any other topic deemed important enough. The media are incredibly influential to the public, but if not given the right information to spread, different mediums can go looking for that information and spread the type that they find important with any twist that they want on it to spread whichever side of the story they think will bring in the most revenue.

It is not necessarily true that the media will tell us what to think, but more importantly they will tell us what to think about. For as long as the media deems appropriate, they will cover stories about how real and true the global warming theories have been or have not been. This leaves the job of the scientists to bring out all the information that they have, not to skew it or to hide opposing information. Science is suppose to be objective, the public needs to be able to trust them to remain objective and to give them the facts so that we have a chance to interpret accurate information for ourselves and not simply eat any story that the government or any other influential power can dish out.

The reason why the finding of the stolen documents from the Climatic Research Unit of Britain’s University of East Anglia was so detrimental to scientists was that it answered a lot of questions that people should be aware of when dealing with ideological ideas. For example, “Whose idea is not being represented? Who are the experts and what do they know? Are complex ideas being oversimplified into a 2-sided argument? What is being emphasized or de-emphasized?” The italicized words are crucial to this topic. All this hidden information has hindered the scientists’ credibility of being trustworthy and truthful because the public now becomes wary of all new information being released. New questions arise, “What else are they covering up? Why are they giving this information out now – what are they trying to save from this situation? How do I know I can trust them this time?”

One important question still remains: How can scientists have a more positive outlook on the media in order to share what information they have found? If the scientists can trust that the different mediums can get the story straight without twisting or bending the information, then the public has a better chance of getting that accurate information and deciding whose ideology they wish to believe. The struggle for hegemony must stop between the scientists themselves if there is to be any hope for an improvement in the distribution of their information.

~Kimberly

To what lengths will an advertiser go to sell an alcoholic beverage?

$20,000,000 is how much Svedka Vodka is spending on their newest advertisement. Ironically enough, “'It’s good to have some release in this dire time at a price point you can afford,'said Marina Hahn, senior vice president for marketing at Constellation Brands in New York, which oversees Svedka." Hahn was saying that it's nice for consumers to get tipsy during an economic decline, but it's obvious that she is speaking for the company as well. Svedka Vodka can afford $20 million, but why?


Svedka Vodka has a new "mascot," according to Stuart Elliot in his article, "Who's that Grl? Svedka Vodka brings a mascot to TV" in The New York Times. The mascot is called a "fembot." It's a robotic woman from the future who is in love with Vodka. In light of their $20 million investment, Svedka Vodka is banking on this ad being completely revolutionary.

"The Svedka image, in ads that have run since 2005, is playful, even naughty, featuring the sexy fembot symbolizing the brand’s fanciful futuristic achievement of being voted the “No. 1 vodka” in the year 2033."

Consumers want to consume things that are inexpensive, but reliable. That is what Svedka is answering to on some level-- that while people are drinking more in recent years but still trying to save money, they have a hopeful and optimistic vision of what the future will be like. Who will have given the positive attitude? Svedka.

If this advertisement does what the company is hoping it will, then their Vodka from the future will be good at keeping traditions. That while, "In the first nine months of 2009, $4.8 million was spent to advertise Svedka in major media, Kantar Media reported, an increase of 4.8 percent from the $4.5 million spent during the same period in 2008..." Svedka has "an average annual compound growth rate in case distribution of 42 percent from 2004 to 2009."

That means that the risks Svedka has been taking have been worth it. There's no reason for them to think that they will come out of this up coming year regretting their decision to invest $20 million-- as absurd as that might sound.

Some people are sickened when they hear how much money is spent by advertisers because in some cases it seems pointless. But the media are fighting for your attention. They are willing to risk anything and everything because the bigger the risk, the better the reward.

-Gina

Click here to read Stuart Elliot's article.

We all do it, whether we try to hide it or allow for all to know. Sometimes we feel guilty about it, but mostly it’s our favorite past time. Some are obsessed (perhaps even most) but really, it’s just the best way to get it all out. Perhaps you guessed it? I’m talking about texting. The growing communication phenomenon that has created this new generation of “thumbers” to communicate largely through T9ed abbreviated messages (of course, I use perfect grammar) via our cellular devices. Texting has blown our communication culture to new levels, providing simpler, time effective, ways to tell your neighbor to stop mowing their lawn at 6 in the morning. Almost every individual in the United States has a cell phone, which is carried with them at all times, in any circumstance. However interesting this is on a psychological and social level, texting usage provides a perfect medium for marketing (well, perfect for the marketer, anyways.)

In an article by Michael Bush (from Advertising Age), we begin to understand the massive opportunity this medium would be if only they could figure out how to use it effectively. Since cell phone usage is the one of the most personal forms of technology that consumers use, a mass text to cell phone carriers would probably not go over well. This is the main obstacle for marketers. Bush quotes VP-public affairs for the wireless association, that if producers provide consumers with a choice of interaction an opportunity of incredibly personal communication will be obtained. As tempting and brilliant this idea is the bottom line remains: who wants to receive ads by text message? And really, who would respond?

Though it seems that marketers are stuck in a rut, I have full confidence that someday soon we will be receiving some sort of ad on our blackberries, iphones, (other not-so-flashy-cellular-devices), and droids. Not only is this changing the way we are able to freely text our friends, families, loved ones without interruptions, but this revelation could lead to additional marketing breakthroughs. Since the sale of advertising is one out of two ways to make money in media, this is a medium that will be capitalized to its fullest potential. Get ready to see some changes. They will find a way.

-Hope