The Center for Public Integrity is Watching the Watch Dog...

Dunbar explains theories in his article, Who's Watching the Watchdog about how the industry and government are essentially working together to build big business and industry in the Multi-media and entertainment industries. The Center for Public Integrity is an organization that is in place to watch over policies made by the FCC and wants to make sure that they are making fair policies that the public is informed about.

The "Spinning Door" theory refers to people in government positions for the FCC moving jobs and being hired directly within the industry and vice-verse. The example used in the book refers to Dorothy Attwood who began as chief of local telephone regulation at FCC and then moved to SBC as the senior vice president for federal regulatory strategy. Dunbar summarized the problems by stating that moving between government and industry jobs is not illegal, it causes issues because proprietary information that is confidential may be compromised and used in this new position. There are policies in place that are suppose to prevent such issues from happening, however in the FCC, because Attwood did not work a high enough position, she was overlooked and was able to work immediately.

"Frequent Flying" refers to members of the FCC that accepted travel and entertainment gifts from big media telecommunication and broadcast organizations. These gifts included anything from tickets to games to "frequent flier" miles, which is where this theory gets its name. This article/theory highlighted examples of FCC members taking over $8.2 million dollars in these gifts. The problem comes when one considers how FCC officials can make unbiased and objective decisions that will benefit all, when they are constantly being courted and bought by industry executives. For example, "FCC officials took 330 such trips to Las Vegas during the period, 173 to New Orleans, 102 to New York and 98 to London"(136). Dunbar states it best when he states that "the trips are unseemly and represent and improper coziness between FCC officials and the businesses they regulate" (137). In simple terms, FCC members were using organizations to pay for trips, which create and uneasy relationship that would not necessarily allow members to do their jobs effectively. The practice was viewed as wrong, rightfully so. Essentially, "frequent flying" is bribery.

When some one speaks about things done "Behind Closed Doors", they are usually refering to things done privately, out of the public eye. The same applies for FCC officials and industry executives. These meetings allow FCC officials and broadcast industry executives to discuss policy reform in private. This does not contribute to the idea of democracy. Called "ex parte" meetings, they are allowed by the FCC and are not recorded. They are closed door meetings that FCC outsiders must put in notice to attend. Essentially, meetings and issues are covered out of the public eye so that there are no interferences between the industry and manipulating the issue.

Posted in an article by Cnet news on December 2, 2008, Free Press is another organization that is pushing for Obama to persuade the FCC to prioritize an Open-Net policy and to make news channels and radio stations more local again. The most I see concerning reforms within the FCC currently are articles appealing to Obama, highlighting the fact that change does need to occur. The immense media coverage shows me that people are beginning to be more concerned with the policies that pass and affect us all.

Is it or is it not cool?

Media and marketers understand that the demographic of young people, teens in particular between the ages of 13-17 are impressionable and spend the most money in our economy. Young people in the United States spend billions and billions of dollars each year. With media, advertisers, and marketers constantly competing for the attention of the public and the youth in particular, people have become immune in a sense to advertisements and marketing efforts. These days, products and brands just become lost in the "sea of messages" American society drowns in everyday. Although traditional advertising and marketing tactics are failing, professionals are adapting and creating new tactics that penetrate the minds and inner beings of the consumers. With the new neuro-marketing that has entered the scene, consumers are being persuaded more than ever to make unnecessary purchases and to be loyal to particular brands based on the campaigns they put out.

In keeping with the theme, the teen demographic is the most profitable of them all. Marketers have realized that if a brand can identify with or as something that is cool, The brand will be promoted, the company will make a profit, and people will seek to purchase the product and/or service. Marketers have done much research and studies to try and figure out what is cool and what makes things cool, and how things become cool. The media has generally been successful in this endeavor and many times have determined what is cool based on what they feel mirrors teen culture and teen ideas. The question then forms as to whether media and marketers have mirrored teen desires, lifestyles, and actions, or if they have begun to manufacture teen desires. Personally, I feel as if the media and marketers have begun to manufacture teen desires. Media marketers have used nuero- marketing techniques to identify with consumers and to create a culture that will persuade them to purchase and act according to a product, a brand, and/0r a lifestyle.

Branding has become ever so important in our society. People associate brands with better products concerning food, drinks, clothes, shoes, and accessories. Although this is an issue concerning everyone, it seems especially common for young people and teens. I remember when I was was in middle and high school, and I remember asking my mom to only buy my Tommy Hilfiger, or U.S. Polo, or DKNY, or other name brands that essentially make the same clothes as the no name brands. Young people felt at that time and more than likely still do to identify with branding as being a part of a particular culture. I do still like name brands and designer clothes, but I have since grown out of this stage. However, the obsession with Nike seems to be an excellent example to highlight as brands become a culture and promote a lifestyle, so much as so that people almost ignore the product. When speaking with my friends about Nike, they agreed with me also in saying that even though you aren't an athlete, the Nike commercials make you want to exercise, make you want to push hard, and make you want to pursue a sport. Nike has created a culture of determination and unity among athletes as far as promoting that you give it all you got, all the time, and that Nike can help you do that.


Even though this commercial depicts pain, it unifies all athletes with the idea that sometimes your all isn't good enough. It shows that glory and achievement is painful. One must push past the hurt!


This video is an example of the competitive athletic culture Nike promotes. It makes you want to be an athlete and work hard.


An example highlighted in the advertising/marketing video we watched was Sprite. They noted that Sprite built a culture around it's brand, having direct correlation with hip-hop, which at the time was cool and steered the cool factor among teens.

Branding and creating a brand culture is not the only tactic used by marketers to claim this money filled demographic. A tactic that was not very influential to me but what penetrated many youth was the idea of a Cultural Character. An example of this would be characters on the show Jack*ss. By appealing to young, teenage boys, marketers are able to promote a "cool" lifestyle that ultimately works to sell products and lifestyles.

Narrow-casting is word choice. This is when marketers or public relations practitioners work to choose words that a target demographic or audience is most receptive to. The most notable example I can thing to use was the entire political campaign during this election. Politicians catered their messages specifically for select audiences, changing the language so that people could more thoroughly identify and understand the messages they were sending out. I will not highlight one over the other, because narrow-casting can be found acted upon in both parties. This is definitely an effective way to penetrate consumers and to get them to understand and to do things in the desired way.

To conclude, all the tactics I mentioned were used in my era, and are still being used today. For future marketing, narrow-casting would be ideal. Using word choice to reach specific audiences is effective because once marketers know how their audience thinks, they can put out messages and promote products that will "solve" their problems. The question then is, are marketers "solving" problems or making more? I also am considering what can happen beyond narrow-casting and using word choice, and how it can change to being specific to change messages per groups of people. For example, a tide commercial would have a commercial catered to parents, another to students, another for men, for women, etc. The future of marketing seems to be more and more direct.

Marketers continue to pick the brains of the public and to invade any personal space, creativity, and thoughts left in our culture. The media and marketers claim to promote diversity and to contribute to culture, but in some ways, I think it is taking away.

Reading Quiz 10.30.2008

1. CWN's are Community Wireless Networks. These potentially contribute to communities by allowing open, non proprietary wireless access to citizens for little or no cost to them at all. Being built and run by the government, maintenance fees and building fees would be covered with the taxes of the land. Students and community members will have more free and open access that will contribute to the overall sharing of communication and information. The "Digital Divide" between resource rich and resource poor areas can potentially be closed as information and wireless access become available to areas that were overlooked or not targeted by cable companies. Wireless networks are generally less expensive than the cable and wire networks we are familiar with now. That being said, CWN's will provide equal access to wireless and Internet technology which will contribute to the overall flow and sharing of information.

2. Major wireless network companies protect their monopoly's by creating proprietary networks and products that are not adaptable to other networks or technological products. According to Meinrath, "technological standards (often set by industry groups to ensure their own profitability rather than establishing the best option for the public) of these technologies" (220). Instead of caring for the best interest of others, industry providers usually care most about the profitability of the company. Company and industry mergers contribute to locking the industry. An example given in the book is the merger between Cingular and AT&T. Logically, one would think that prices would go down when something like this takes place, however when Cingular the new AT&T decides to pay to use Sprints infrastructure, it is just another way to limit and control service instead of expanding it. The plan is to confuse the people so that switching and searching for the better service and better options become more impossible and unable to do.
Bundling is also an issue in the competing technological industry. This is another way to lock out the competition and to mislead the public by selling inferior products to maintain control over competition (221). Intel sells a bundle like deal where you can get two chips and two different services for one price. However, less expensive options do exist and have proven in some cases to be more reliable than this bundled chip. Meinrath states that, "a Centrino notebook is a 'bundled' product. Like most bundled products, (for example, the add-on services that phone companies always try to sell their customers), this is a bum deal for the end user" (221).

3. Corporate consolidation and the early buying of technologies result in fewer companies controlling more of the wireless market shares because if larger companies are buying out all of the small technologies, than they are cornering the market and securing profitability for only a few people who can afford to act quickly. The example from the book features Behemoth wireless telecommunications companies investing in, "new technologies before they had even entered the mainstream consumer market, often paying an enormous premium to protect themselves from possible future competition (and passing these costs on to consumers)" (220). Companies lock the market and overcharge consumers because they can. With no competition, there are no other options for the consumer who is looking to save money. Companies like Microtell Communications have bought up all the assets of companies like MobileStar that have gone bankrupt for cheap, and, "the end result has been a steady march toward fewer and fewer companies controlling more and more of wireless market share" (220).

Money as Debt

In class, we watched a video dealing with money as debt and it truly opened my eyes. I always wondered where money came from and why it didn't just grow on trees. This entire discussion reminds me of one as a little child. Do you often recall the times when you may have asked for money from your parents and they say, "Who do you think I am? Do you think money grows on trees?" Children often reply yes, and parents are quick to share that the abundance of money is not the case. Through this movie, I was able to see how money is "created", how it becomes important to us, and why there is generally limited access to it. In easy terms, money used to be limited because gold, what people traded and considered to be valuable was limited. However, through the banking industry little paper promissory notes have been developed that are easily traded through society. This is great initially if each paper really did accurately represent the amount of money backing it up in the safe, yet it doesn't. Bankers as well as the government are able to make up money through loans and mortgages a.) according to the signed agreement of the patrons obligation to pay the debt back, and b.) based on the actual money they have in the bank. For example, for ever gold dollar that actually exist in a banks safe another 9 dollars can be created.
There a few problems with this system. First, if the initial gold depositors desire their gold back, then much of the system will collapse because the bank may not have enough to accommodate the requests. Second, money is made up to give out loans and mortgages from the banks. The banks add interest, and that leads to the question of where that money will come from. If people are borrowing money to begin with, where would they really get money to pay this additional expense? It is a moral, ethical, and practical issues. The last issue I will bring up and discuss is that we are forever put in a system of debt. If everything were paid off, there would be no money because there would be no loans or made up money to support other made up money. My opinion is that this system is inconsistent and unreliable, and needs to be completely revamped. I like the ideal of the local barter system where people can borrow money and pay it back without interest.

Looking at Grignon's 4 critical challenge questions, I answer as follows:

1. Why do governments choose to borrow money from private banks at interest when the government could just create all the interest free money it needs itself?
* Governments choose to borrow money from private banks instead of creating it themselves because these private businesses and corporations, including banks are what drives the economy and are what support the world trade system.
2. Why create money as debt? Why not create money that circulates permanently and does not have to be perpetually re-borrowed in interest in order to exist?

3. How can a money system based on perpetual accelerating growth be used to build a sustainable economy?

4. What needs be changed to allow the creation of a "sustainable economy"?
* The entire system of money needs to be changed in order to create and encourage a sustainable economy.

FCC Reading Response

1. Do broadcasters use radio and television to quickly and effectively respond to the local communities needs and interests? Give examples to support your answer.

* There is not a complete yes or no answer to this question. In some instances, I feel that radio and television quickly respond to local issues, but I don't feel that it is done as quickly and effectively as it could be. If I may be clearer, I don't feel that radio does a good job in effectively responding to local issues, at least the stations that people are listening to. There may be talk radio stations that cater to the needs and views of the local community, but many music stations, which is what my age demographic generally listen to don't focus on local issues that resonate in the community unless it is of relevance to them, their station, or in promotion of some sort of affiliate or corporate partner. Local television news shows do tend to be more local in their broadcasts, but I am noticing that they are no longer as community oriented either. For example, national coverage is put on the political election of our new presidential leader. However, there is less coverage on local elections and positions available. Overall, I feel that the television and radio could do more in focusing on the needs of the community and not just what is interesting to them. I think to accurately answer this question, we need to separate the needs of a community verses the interest and desires.


2. Are there certain kinds of local programming (Public Media Values) that should be available, but are not being provided by broadcasters? what could some examples of these be?

* Local programming and Public Media Values should be available and provided by broadcasters in my opinion. Local news programs should be provided as well as local coverage on important events that are highlighted in the community. For example, a local high school commencement should be covered in local news programs because it is relevant to the city and community. This is local news that people will really care about because it will relate to them. I think that access to local programming is made available to citizens, but the loopholes and things you have to do to access these opportunities makes it so it is almost unattainable. For example, my local news channel in Milwaukee allows for kids to read the lunch menu for the city school system and will sometimes highlight local artists and theater, but those usually come at the end of a segment or are a short segment at the end of the program when no one is watching anymore.


3. What could the Federal Communication Commission do to promote localism in broadcasting? Explain three of these examples of public-service-oriented projects that are already in process across the US.

* Localism in broadcasting can be promoted by allowing time for community representatives giving community news. This would be done in collaboration not only with news shows, but with networks to allow access to broadcasting at affordable rates for citizens. Examples of localism that are in affect currently are:
One example is the UTOPIA ( Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency), which is a project that will provide quality, low cost cable services by considering cable and the upkeep of them as general city costs. It is a large investment and is definitely localist, but will cause a lot of issues when it comes to larger cable and media providers.
Another example is the wireless public airwaves to give high-speed, wireless access in a way that is public and beneficial to the people. This would allow local community members to voice their opinions without worrying about the major companies over charging or pushing their big, broad, thoughts and ideas.
Another example of localism is the licensing of noncommercial community radio stations. Groups such as the Prometheus Radio Project in Philadelphia have helped to pioneer the movement that promote the local community citizen and artist to dedicated community listeners.
The last example I will use to describe localism is through my personal experience living home at Milwaukee, WI. Although stations are syndicating shows and are forming large conglomerates, the Milwaukee Public School system has an hour show on Saturdays I believe that highlight community happenings within the school system. I think this is an example of localism and local communities taking advantage of media access.

extras:
What Stanford professor and lawyer that we have discussed before is mentioned in this essay? What organization is he the founder of?


What is the "spectrum" that the authors refer to?

Response to the Struggle of Free Press

When reading McChesney's article and comparing his opinions to the realities I perceive in the media and government, I came to question whether the media is contributing to our society or if it is an eroding factor, contributing to the general deterioration of it. McChesney highlighted the lack of concern American society has in regards to voting and toward traditional moral values that our nation has been built on since its founding. Instead of the focus being on establishing a truly democratic society, it seems that government is solely devoted to capitalism and capitalistic ideas. Reading this essay and based on the realities that I currently live, I ask whether America society is geared at promoting democracy or if money and capital is the driving factor? Is democracy just a way to cover America's solely capitalistic and profitable ways? When commenting on the the media system in our society McChesney says, "the media system is set up to maximize profit for a handful of large companies. They system works well for them, but it is a disaster for the communication needs of a healthy and self-governing society."(11)

I agree that for a healthy and self-governing society, our media must be revamped so that it offers the most beneficial information concerning the public. In relation to our current political climate and situation, I notice the media does not really focus on the issues on the candidates, but on the candidates themselves. While this is an important aspect of choosing a leader that one must consider, policy contributes to most of what we want in a leader. We need to know what this person can do for us. We need information that will let us know whether we are choosing a leader that will have the best interest of the people in our democracy in mind, and will not have hidden agendas to expand and concentrate their business within the respective industry they are a part of. McChesney states that "the solution to the the media crisis requires widespread, informed public participation in media policy making."(12) Our media system and government system cannot and will not be positively changed until the public becomes informed on issues, and is capable and willing to participate in the creating of policies.

Come on Big Business, He's Just an Amateur!

The case on the Critical Art Ensemble is an interesting one to me. I always had my own personal thoughts on the pharmaceutical and food administrative industries, and this case further feeds my interest. It began when I was a little girl. My mother was always very critical of the foods we ate and the use of plastic. She always commented about the chemicals in things and how they would affect us in the future. When I was younger, I thought all the stuff she said was nonsense and that she was just being paranoid. However, as I have gotten older and have learned things for myself, I understand that there is a great deal of truth in what she was saying. Beyond what my mother taught, I took Topics in Nutrition, a class offered here at Marist and my teacher was a very purist/organic type. I appreciated her methods because she explained the different toxins in foods that our bodies do not positively react to. She also shared with us how food was not as pure as it should be because the industry is only interested in profiting at the expense of the people. She also mentioned how cures and remedies were not pursued because it would collapse the pharmaceutical industry, who want to keep us hooked on over-the-counter drugs that only temporarily relieve our ailments.

Now that I've given a little background on my views about food, pharmaceuticals, food processing, and chemicals, understand that I was not surprised by this case. Sadly, an act that was put in place for the benefit of people and American Society to enhance our public safety has been misused and abused. It is not fair that little guys are attacked when they challenge a large industry or corporation. When this happens, we loose sight of the things our country was built on. Things like freedom of speech, public opinions, and privacy. It was unfair for Steve Kurtz and CAE to be trialed on account of sharing research and bio-organisms. In this country, we are encouraged to be thinkers, be critical, and be creative. The government attempted to stifle his efforts on creativity, criticism, and expression, and I'm glad they failed. Additionally, Kurtz was not even an official "accredited" and professional scientist. All of the things he did were basic and done in the eye of the public.

By Kurtz being an amateur scientist, he felt that he was able to be under the radar. Because he was an amateur, it would more difficult for him to be corrupted by big industry because his career did not depend on it. The author of this article questions why artist are needed to be scientist in order to get public attention about the food we eat. She states that (Pentecost, 3):
"[I]t is precisely because of our status as non-scientist, as non-experts, not invested in careers in the field, it's because of our status as amateurs, that artists are able to render important issues to a public through the public space accorded to art in our culture. This is because of what is happening in the sciences, an intense case of transformation of knowledge for the public good, into knowledge privatized and applied to profit for a few."
CAE and Kurtz worked to expose the happenings of big industry. I take this subject to heart because we are the food we eat, and it is important to know what we are putting in our bodies. I was shocked when I read that there are really no studies on genetically engineered food, and the study that did happen was shut down after having found some damaging information.

When comparing this case and the discussion of The Cult of the Amateur, I feel that this is a valid point against Keens case. Keen argues that the amateur is taking over the industries and is making it hard for big businesses that have been around for a while to be profitable. What I brought up earlier in the class and what I bring up now is what if those big businesses need to be destroyed? What if the system does need to be revamped and revised? In the case of the pharmaceutical industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, I believe that is the case.

Disguising the invasion of ones house and property with the PATRIOT act is a low blow. I feel that this act was genuinely put in place to further protect American people. However, I feel that the government is abusing and misusing this tool to survey people without them knowing and using the information for their own personal interest. This is unacceptable. Privacy is one of the freedoms we have been granted as Americans, and through the PATRIOT act, we continue to loose it on tiny step at a time. The government seems to use fear to insist the use and the need for the PATRIOT act. It should be used to help protect our country, not to blind us by hiding valid truths.

In closing, the amateur has shoved industry in the shoulder. The amateur has proven to do what what the professional cannot and will not do. This is sad because we assume that doctors and scientist have the best interest of the people in mind, but many times, they are only after money and profit.