Five Dollar Media Journal

As the election season rolls around here in the U.S., people—voting citizens, namely—have to be extra careful about the media content they witness and consume. Each day the news is filled with accusations and counter-accusations by members of each political party. With this confusing morass of truth and untruth, how is the voting public supposed to make educated choices regarding the well-being of America? How is a citizen of any nation supposed to do so?

The defining element of danger in any media lie is the assumption that news organizations and individuals of similar influence are trustworthy. National publications (such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal) and broadcast networks are especially influential upon society because their reports are believed to be fact-checked and based on substantial evidence. Even accounts of bias and gatekeeping do not prevent most people from consuming media of any sort. When a lie is presented as evidential truth, whether intentional or not, the damage is done.

Upon realization of error, reputable media outlets will publicly address mistakes, correcting or retracting statements. But no matter the efforts taken to unmake a lie, its mere exposure is enough to distort public opinion. Immediately, a correction or retraction undermines the reputation of a media outlet, bringing to question its trustworthiness. When even one example of infidelious reporting is found, it beckons the search for other examples. And what of those individuals who do not notice the admission of error? Media outlets are hesitant to diminish their own reputation. But more importantly, a researcher leafing through archives may not notice that a certain article may be discredited.

The open lie, slight as it may be, is now vulnerable to the exagerrations and magnifications of propagation. A popular example is the childhood game of "Telephone", where a phrase is passed along, each child adding his/her own alteration, until the resulting phrase no longer resembles its original form. What these children do for fun, others do out of bias, misunderstanding, or unknowing.

My example is a Des Moines Register article about John Kerry, where he addresses President Bush's impatience towards war in Iraq by saying, "The greatest position of strength is by exercising the best judgement in the pursuit of diplomacy, not in some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted, but in a genuine coalition." Over on Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds claims that this statement amounts to "crude insults at our allies" on the part of Kerry. He focuses on the latter part, "some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted...," alleging that Kerry is directly referring to Britain, Australia, Spain, and other allied nations in the current Iraq struggle. Instead of reproaching Bush, Kerry is taken to be demeaning to other democracies. This line of thought is extended over on ThinkIndifferent, where Kerry is represented as disdainful to democracy itself, with the help of other statements. I'm guessing that InstaPundit and ThinkIndifferent are conservative, or at least anti-Democrat in nature, which explains how Kerry is bent from advocate of diplomacy to adversary of democracy, how a statement of concern is dissected into a statement of contempt. What began as a verbatim account of a public statement was reconstructed as a lie.

Many news stories are turning attention towards public opinion polls. At this time, Kerry and Bush seem to be closely matched. Now, depending on where the remaining percentage points lie, "Kerry leads Bush", or "Bush leads Kerry". Regardless of the minute difference, this seems to be enough cause for those on either side to say that one leads another, which implies a larger degree of magnitude. It also seems to be enough for either side to say that a rising trend will put one in front. These polls are not restricted to gross public opinion, but are also subdivided into cultural groups, age cohorts, and occupational segments. In the same way that Kerry's statement was shown to be reduced irrepresentatively, a statement such as (this obviously fictitious), "Kerry leads Bush among imaginary friends of under-the-bed monsters age 500-1000," may be reduced to, "Kerry leads Bush," only to be countered by something like, "However, imaginary friends note that Bush appears resolute in his stance on Iraq." We haven't yet figured out which among the polls are irrepresentative, and already they are being exaggerated for political gain.

A media lie is powerful because it raises a possibility. It throws into question what would otherwise be set solid. I believe that the conservatives are especially savvy to this, as many now throw accusations of dishonesty along with their distortions and lies. This may also be true of liberals, but I feel that that there are more conservative outlets for untruth, as well as more extreme examples of such. Even worse is that there are millions of people who will refuse their opinions, even when confronted with contradiction. I'll leave that for my next post...

The story reached Reuters a few hours ago. Here, it is depicted as a blow to the terrorist group and Palestine, and a victory for Israel, which initiated the assault. Looking at the sidebar, you'll notice some pretty graphic pictures—the main one shows a Palestinian lamenting the dying al-Rantissi.

Elsewhere on the Internet, pictures of Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay are available, up to their post-autopsy state less than a year ago. Here is a major difference between the West and the Middle East. In the western world, it is considered disrespectful or even obscene to show pictures of the dead or the dying. While it may be so for the Middle East, the decision to show them suggests that they serve instead to motivate and infuriate.

If President Bush or any other Western figure were to die, we might never see another picture of them. The death of Princess Diana seems to set the precedent—photos of the crash site are readily available, but not of her corpse. Notable exceptions to this are Western deaths in Eastern lands, like those of the Halliburton contractors in Fallujah weeks ago. Similarly, the rationale to show these were inspiration and validation for a Middle Eastern cause.

It is necessary to note that not every Middle Easterner feels joy and pride looking at one of their lost, nor does every Westerner grieve at pictures of their dead. The distinction seems to be merely one between media outlets. When people demand to know, where do the ethical lines lie?

They're being hailed as many things: the next incarnation of Queen, the new champions of spandex, the return of heavy metal, and so on. What I'm excited about is their CD packaging. For decades, the publishing companies have hated us through their insanely difficult-to-open wrappers. It's a mere step down from those molded plastic cases that are the choice of new electronics—you can't open those without blood loss. CD wrappers are annoying, albeit criminally so.

Not so with The Darkness' first album—it features a zip line! Packaging technology is finally catching up! The dilemma for me now is: do I zip this most righteous of lines, or do I let my sister make me a copy of her copy? Play into a system that profits off the work of talented people while leaving them with a meager percentage of the proceeds, or subvert it through a technologically simple yet ethically straining practice?

One day, my work will be part of the stuff that drives the entertainment industry. My scripts, or my direction, or even my acting (glory forbid that something like this happens) will be a tangible work of art, reproducible and sellable. Would I want cheapskates in second-rate countries, or even next-door, depriving me of a few bucks so they can save a few more? How important is it for me to claim ownership of an album, being able to leaf through its liner notes, admiring the visual properties of the disc? No copy I've ever received came with a playlist or lyrics—I repeatedly have to check on the Internet or compile one (based on occasionally second-hand transcripts). There's a certain satisfaction in having an original copy, a satisfaction I have to balance with ideals of sharing, especially between people I call "family".

The BBC reported Thursday about Wal-Mart plans to sell a DVD player with programmed filtering. Back-ended by ClearPlay, it features multiple levels of content aversion through muting and skipping. ClearPlay already offers a service that operates on PCs—their service is now being bundled with DVD players. The content to be screened is chosen in advance by a "staff of movie professionals."

How can I apply to this company? Better yet, is there a way to "inverse" the censoring technology so I can watch just the naughty bits? Seriously, it's an interesting dilemma: judicial tactics applied successfully to ClearPlay can be leveraged against TiVo, minor differences aside. DVRs are already unpopular with certain elements of the entertainment industry. ClearPlay can argue, "...instead of making new versions of films ... its technology is simply another way of playing the existing movie..." This echoes the utility of already controversial features that are standard on TiVo boxes and other DVRs. Remember VCR+? (Remember VCRs?!) It was just a catalogue of machine-readable scheduled showtimes that eased recording on the consumer end. Similarly, ClearPlay has the potential to be hassle-free.

How is privacy handled in the ClearPlay system? A server-based, pull-oriented system—one which requires sending information to ClearPlay—invites opportunities for data mining. On the "good" end, this allows ClearPlay to focus screening efforts on the likelier video choices. On the "bad" end, ClearPlay can tie DVD choices to individual set boxes. Either system seems to limit the entertainment choices available to the user.

ClearPlay simplifies the task of screening content—metrics are also widely available elsewhere on the Internet for such (counter-)screening. What I don't imagine happening are meaningful justifications as to why the content is chosen. This is where culture and media commingle; this is what we need to teach people. Fast-forwarding through an ad costs advertisers (both commercial and non-) impressions; fast-forwarding through swear words and sex scenes costs the public critical discourse.

There are many avenues towards parental control, but it's difficult to find anything resembling discussion of the topic. Maybe I'm using the wrong keywords. Maybe such discussion is unwanted by those advocating increased control. I would like to see a place where entertainment industry justifications appear side-by-side with arguments for creative restraint. I want to hear why parental control is or is not necessary. This is an area that would benefit greatly from an open forum. Instead, I see only companies pandering to parental fears of an industry saturated with indecent, immoral content.

I don't see the technology getting any further than DiVX by Circuit City did. But this might be an interesting topic to track.

After downsizing their broadcasting support for "shock jock" Howard Stern, ClearChannel Communications formally ended all remaining avenues for his talk show today. (In market response, shares for the media conglomerate dropped a quarter.) Infinity Broadcasting, the majority broadcaster for Stern's show, awaits judgment by the FCC—it stands to lose six times the amount suffered today by ClearChannel.

Plenty of questions to ask here. First, the FCC changes which allowed for individual stations to be fined, instead of the per-program method then in place, was only six days old by the time the show in question aired. It contained references to "oral sex", which prompted the decision. (I have yet to find these—others are not so elusive.) With one entire year to act on this, and months to do so after the Super Jackson Nipple Bowl, what kept the FCC waiting?

Next, what influence does Stern's political views have on this situation? One section of the Stern site proudly defames President Bush. To tie in with the previous observation, 2004 is an election year. Bush faces stiff opposition by candidate Kerry, as well as the current gauntlet of 9/11 investigations and a war that just won't end. President Bush, the Republican Party, and their political allies are in a good position to avert dissension in other public forums.

Lastly, why hasn't Infinity yet been fined? And why hasn't Infinity followed suit and removed their distribution support from Stern? Infinity is the more lucrative and geographically closer target—ClearChannel is headquartered all the way in Texas, G. W. Bush's old governorship. Also, Infinity is the less widespread of the two, owning around 180 radio stations—ClearChannel owns not only radio assets, but also a majority of vertical assets (from radio to concert promotion) as well as television stations and other advertising outlets, domestic and abroad. In short, ClearChannel had little to lose from even their proposed $495k fine. Also consider that the FCC regulations of the past few years have favored the growth of conglomerates forming the present media oligarchy, led by ClearChannel on the radio front.

For any of the misgivings one can leverage against Howard Stern, consider this set of circumstances.

[postdated]
When I took down Five Dollar Studios to focus on other efforts, this blog—as well as my semi-original personal blog—fell into disuse. But with all the politico going about, as well as my continuing media studies, I figured I should pick up where I left off here on the TV Media Journal.

The original purpose of this blog was to contain my entries for a TV Forms and Criticism class. Having served that purpose, I decided to retain and expand upon this blog, more secure in the art and science of criticism. In its purest form, criticism is unbiased, serving no particular agenda other than the expansion of ideas presented in a text (any criticised material).

I am not a pure person. Therefore, you will notice that my posts tend to highlight what I feel are sublime/lesser-known elements present in our modern media, things that are happening but not quite at the forefront. My concern tends to be why such things are not being readily discussed.

Also consider that I am a college student "of color" in Northern California. I admire balance, but I tend to profess the liberal side of things. Through the new Comment links on my posts, I welcome any constructive replies, so long as you understand that your words may represent more than yourself. Comments such as "fuck you, donkey!" will only support the view that my vocal readership consists only of, perhaps, conservative yokels who don't put much thought into their words. The media networks look similarly upon such feedback—it is commonly assumed that one vocal individual's opinion represents that of a thousand more that do not wish to speak.

Think carefully. I try to.