Archive for February, 2009

For Immediate Release: Makers of Flip Video Camcorder Partner with The LAMP

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

Makers of Flip Video Camcorder Partner with The LAMP (Learning About Multimedia Project)
Flip Video Spotlight Program matches camcorder donations to enterprising non-profit media education organization in New York City

NEW YORK, NY: Pure Digital Technologies, Inc., the makers of America’s best-selling camcorder, Flip Video, have invited The LAMP (Learning About Multimedia Project) to participate in the Flip Video Spotlight Program. The program, announced at the Clinton Global Initiative in September 2007, aims to put one million Flip Video Camcorders into the hands of qualified non-profit organizations over five years. Flip Video Spotlight works directly with non-profit organizations through a matching program: for every 60 minute Ultra camcorder the non-profit purchases, Flip Video Spotlight will donate one to the organization. Each kit costs $150. As part of the matching program, The LAMP joins other prominent organizations such as Kiva, American Red Cross, PBS, National Wildlife Federation and Livestrong.

“This is an incredible opportunity for The LAMP because our most popular and engaging media education workshops require video cameras,” says D.C. Vito, Executive Director of the LAMP. “Initiatives like the Flip Video Spotlight Program enable us to continue bringing basic media education training for free to young people, parents and teachers throughout New York City. We’re so proud to have Pure Digital support our efforts to help people make smart choices in a media-saturated world.” LAMP students use video to make their own news broadcasts, commercials, family video albums, documentaries and more. By creating and editing their own material, students explore how and why different media messages are constructed. They also gain workforce development skills to help them join the modern marketplace, which is increasingly dependent upon technology.

With over 1200 approved partners to date, Flip Video Spotlight is steadily expanding its support of non-profit organizations such as The LAMP. “We want to make sure that all qualified non-profit and charitable organizations have affordable access to video equipment and the means to tell their story. We feel that the small size, low price point, high quality, and onboard sharing software make it the ideal companion to any organization’s communications strategy,” says Basho Mosko, the Flip Video Spotlight Program Manager.

Companies, foundations or individuals are also encouraged to participate and can find out more at the Flip Video Spotlight website, www.flipvideospotlight.com.

Groups or individuals interested in sponsoring Flip Video Spotlight Kits should contact The LAMP at info@thelampnyc.org. More information about The LAMP is available online at http://www.thelampnyc.org.

About The LAMP:
The LAMP (Learning About Multimedia Project), founded in 2007, is a certified non-profit organization which strives to provide critical media literacy skills to the inter-related groups of youths, their parents and educators throughout New York City. Media literacy workshops offered by The LAMP demystify the constant flow of media these three groups encounter, bridge the gap between generations, and provide workforce development skills.

Contact:

Basho Mosko, Program Manager
Flip Video Spotlight
inquiries@flipvideospotlight.com

Emily Long, Communications Director
The LAMP
718-789-8170
info@thelampnyc.org
http://www.thelampnyc.org

###

Posted in News | No Comments »

The New York Post’s backhanded apology

Friday, February 20th, 2009

Most New Yorkers are aware by now of the cartoon by Sean Delonas in the New York Post, which unites the news of President Obama’s stimulus bill with the story of Travis the pet chimp, who was shot dead earlier this week after attacking his owner’s friend. The cartoon is of two officers standing over a dead monkey, rifle smoking from the shot, and one says, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.” The response from some members of the American public has been so strong that last night, the paper issued an apology on its website which was also published in this morning’s edition.

However, using class relationship-therapy speak, the apology amounts to little more than a statement saying, “I’m sorry you were hurt.” In no way do the editors take responsibility for the fact that they made a gross oversight by not anticipating the reaction and offense that the cartoon would elicit from all the Americans who celebrate the destruction of a significant racial barrier. With that in mind, I don’t think the Post’s editors are stupid. Insensitive, yes, but also cunning. They got us to turn our heads in their direction. I believe in free speech, and while the cartoon infuriated me, they do have a right to print it–what really got to me was the so-called “apology,” which feels more to me like a slap in the face with their inclusion of the below statement:

“However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past – and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

To them, no apology is due.

Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon – even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.”

The accusation that those who spoke out against the cartoon are vengeful opportunists is nothing short of petty and childish. Not knowing the inner thoughts and secrets of every public figure who issued a statement, I can’t say for sure that their response had nothing to do with a grudge against the paper, but this is neither the time nor place for the paper to make that claim. If just one person, or even a few, were leading a crusade against the Post as a result of this column, that would be one thing, but the feeling I get from people I speak with about this is one of genuine disgust. Political cartoons are often meant to rile, and I’m a huge fan of clever satire that exposes something new (see: Thomas Nast). But there’s nothing clever about Delonas’ cartoon. There’s nothing witty. He absolutely has a right to print it. But, the New York Post should understand that we are no longer grade schoolers fighting on the playground, and take seriously the response to their work.

Posted in News | No Comments »

Free Speech for Students on the Internet: Part II

Tuesday, February 17th, 2009

First, Justin Layshock was suspended after taking to MySpace and making a fake profile for his high school principal. Layshock’s family successfully sued the school district after the court ruled that his First Amendment rights had been violated; in effect, designating the Internet as a space where speech, even by students, is protected.

Now, a Florida student by the name of Katherine Evans is facing a similar predicament. Evans was suspended from her school for an alleged crime of cyberbullying after posting a rant about her English teacher, Sarah Phelps, on Facebook. But while Evans’ case is similar to Layshock’s, in many ways, it is even more outrageous.

According to The New York Times, Evans’ rant was triggered by her frustrations with Phelps for “ignoring her pleas for help with assignments and a brusque reproach when she missed class to attend a school blood drive.” She posted a short message on Facebook—a little heavy-handed but no worse than a complaint aired over lunch with some friends:

To those select students who have had the displeasure of having Ms. Sarah Phelps, or simply knowing her and her insane antics: Here is the place to express your feelings of hatred.

The response was minimal, and mixed; some students agreed with Evans, some defended Phelps. Evans removed the post after a few days, only to be notified two months later of her suspension. Now she is suing the school district to remove the offense removed from her record.

This whole episode reminds me of Gossip Girl, the CW’s hit show all about a group of ridiculously good-looking high schoolers at an elite Manhattan private school. The show is not only arguably one of the best teen dramas to ever grace our airwaves, but it also deals pretty explicitly with the issue of cyberbullying—after all, the show’s titular character is the author of a snarky blog that chronicles the lives of our favorite Upper East Siders, which fuels much of the show’s drama.

Case in point, the most recent story arch: a naive young teacher defies Blair Waldorf, a rich, powerful, and villainous brunette,by giving her poor marks on her English paper. Enraged by the grade, Blair declares war on Ms. Carr and sends a tip to Gossip Girl, accusing Ms. Carr of having an inappropriate relationship with a student (who also happens to be Blair’s best friend’s boyfriend, but that’s not really relevant here). After being turned in by one of her friends, Blair is expelled, her early admission at Yale revoked.

The point here is this: Blair falsely accused her teacher of something illegal with the intention of getting her fired. By all accounts, that qualifies as slander, whether she is saying it in a crowded lunchroom, printing it in a newspaper, or, yes, even writing it on a blog on the Internet. But Evans’ Facebook post made no allegations against Phelps, nor was her impetus for the rant malicious. In fact, it was completely reasonable. As a student, Evans felt neglected by her teacher and had every right to air her grievances. Expressing “feelings of hatred” was hyperbole at best, and tasteless at worst, but in either case, it certainly did not violate the school’s rules “against threats of physical violence, verbal threats, nonverbal assaults and disruption of the school’s function” that assistant director of the school district Pamela Brown noted in her interview with the NYT. What happened here wasn’t an incident of cyberbullying—it was hardly an incident of bullying at all.

The case here seems simple to me: Katherine Evans never should have been suspended. Add to that the fact that she’s only suing for a clean record and attorney’s fees—no monetary compensation—and the answer is clear. It doesn’t take Gossip Girl to solve this mystery.

Posted in News | No Comments »

FTC to Advertisers: Self-regulate, or…oh, nothing.

Friday, February 13th, 2009

How much do you want to own your privacy, and how much do you want someone else to manage it for you? That’s one of the questions raised in response to a report released yesterday by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding online behavioral targeting by advertisers. Notice how when you do a search for something like “phone” you get a string of ads for long-distance providers, mobile phones and the like? That is (or, as we’ll see, used to be) a basic example of online behavioral targeting. Advertisers send you ads based on what you like, and at a higher level, advertisers are tracking you as you surf the Internet, storing your data and sending you ads based on your overall habits. Privacy advocates find this to be a violation, but many advertisers claim they’re just trying to reach their target audience and monetize the Internet in an era where print ads seem to be less and less valuable.

In 2007, the FTC issued a set of guidelines that advertisers should give surfers the chance to opt out of having their data tracked by advertisers. Again, these were just guidelines, and not legally binding, thus empowering advertisers to regulate themselves, and in turn putting the onus on consumers. The report yesterday was a review of these guidelines, and mostly redefined the terms of what is considered behavioral advertising (for example, serving up an ad based on one search term is no longer considered behavioral advertising). However, it did nothing to address the issue of self-regulation, which, in the wake of the report, seems to be the thing most advocacy groups wanted the report to discuss. So really, not much has changed. Self-regulation can continue to remain at the bottom of an advertiser’s priority list, if that’s where they want it.

Should the FTC have a heavier hand in regulating advertisers and behavioral advertising, or should we, as consumers, take responsibility for what we do and don’t want to see? Some argue that if the FTC did more regulating, it could squelch an industry which is constantly moving and thrives on innovation. I see that point, and I understand that advertising is an important part of new media. However, I also think that nobody but me should be responsible for my media choices, and we all should know our rights as consumers. Right now, opt-out information is usually buried in fine print, demonstrating that advertisers still know the meaning of subtlety. I should be given the option of whether or not I want to be bombarded by ads when I’m just trying to search for directions online, and I think advertisers should have to give me that right and let me know my choices, loud and clear. The power to surf ad-free? Now, THAT’S innovation.

Posted in News | No Comments »

Mememememe!

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009

Over the past month, Facebook has been taken over by the digital equivalent of pink eye–a highly contagious Internet meme titled “25 Random Things About Me.” Users use the Notes application to write posts comprised of 25 random facts about themselves–any random fact. They range from funny (“I would make an amazing superhero”) to random (“I love right angles”) to heartwarming (“I adore my baby brother”) to uncomfortably personal (“In seventh grade, the boys at my school started calling me butterface. I ended up switching schools the next year”). Upon finishing the list, the poster “tags” 25 friends, and then the cycle continues.

But what are these Internet memes, and why is this one so popular?

The word “meme” actually comes from a book written by Richard Dawkins, a science author most well-known for his books about evolution. Memes in Dawkins’ work parallel genes in that they are replications, but instead of DNA and RNA, memes replicate cultural ideas or themes. The term “internet meme” is used much more loosely to describe anything from a catchphrase to a viral video to a questionnaire that spreads quickly throughout the Internet. Chain emails were the first evolution of Internet memes, but we’ve since graduated to more sophisticated products–Obama Girl was an Internet meme, as is the classic bait and switch prank, Rickrolling. It’s easy to write memes off as fleeting, sometimes annoying fads of the digital era, but I feel there’s more to them. After all, the Internet is a big place with a lot of users and a lot of content. To make your way through all of that to the point that you’ve saturated our cultural material as much as, say, LOLCats is nothing short of incredible.

There’s no formula for a successful Internet meme; indeed, most of them happen by complete accident, as I’m sure is the case with this most recent Facebook meme. But I think there’s something here that might’ve helped the “25 Random Facts About Me” meme take off. It’s easy. Many memes involve long lists of obscure questions; others involve combing through your iTunes library. I can only imagine that they are just as, if not more, mind-numbing to complete than they are to read. 25 is a big number, but random facts are a dime a dozen, especially when in regards to one’s own life.

But Facebook memes (and, I would argue, this meme in particular) are indicative of two of the most pervasive trends of our Internet culture that are two sides of the same coin–narcissism and oversharing. Both have been documented problems on the Internet, most notably by Gawker writer Emily Gould in this article for The New York Times, so I won’t belabor the point. But suffice to say, the Internet is now being used to fuel our culture’s self-involvement to the point of awkward. After all, it’s one thing to spill-all in the physical world, over lunch with a friend or on the phone with your mom; it’s another to do it on Facebook where using the word “acquaintance” to describe your friend list can be a stretch. And maybe we should all think twice before sharing our “random” facts with the world. After all, Girl-Who-Dated-My-Best-Friend’s-Roommate-Two-Years-Ago, I didn’t really want to know that last summer, you went nine days without showering. That’s kind of gross.

Posted in News | No Comments »

February 17, 2009–The End of the Television Era

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

The transition to DTV–exclusively digital television signals–happens in only a few more days.  It’s not clear just how it’s going to go.  Will it all happen smoothly?  Will those who have analog sets, and no cable television, be prepared with their  converter boxes?  Will many of them know they need converter boxes?  If they do, will they know where to get them, AND that the NTIA is offering coupons to offset most of the cost of converter boxes?  We won’t know the real answer to any of these questions until sometime Tuesday, February 17th.  

What I know is that this technological signal change signals a bigger cultural change.  This is the end of the television era.  The television era started in the late 1940s, when analog television broadcast stations, and specifically the network system, began in earnest to take over for the radio network that dominated broadcasting in the U.S. for about two decades prior to that.  Radio had to change, and began to narrowcast, serving a very different function once television became the broadcast medium that became a kind of cultural glue binding the country with shared visual programming, and more.

Over the air broadcast television, free to anyone in this country who owned a set, changed news, changed advertising, changed politics, changed family habits, changed us.  Network broadcast TV defined us for decades.  But that’s all over now, and it didn’t happen over night.  We’ve been headed in this direction since cable began.  We’re now residing in the digital era. 

Completely digitized signals, in the works for a long time, allow for interactive viewing, sharper visuals, and more communication options.  Television will soon be more like the Internet.   This is a huge change, making obsolete many television sets that only receive analog signals.  Sure, the converter box will work for awhile, but all sets now manufactured will be digital only.  The last time something similar happened to broadcast signals was when the government mandated radio stations to broadcast in AM and FM to encourage development of the FM spectrum. 

But this is even bigger.  We’ll still have television, but it’s not going to be the same technology, and it’s not going to serve the same cultural function.  Television has meant shared programming through over-the-air broadcasting.  Broadcasting was analog, narrowcasting and interactivity are digital.  Digitization will shape us in very different ways.  

This is definitely the end of an era.

–Katherine G. Fry

Posted in News | No Comments »

E-Learning

Sunday, February 1st, 2009

In a recent post, Claire Cain Miller of the New York Times writes about a new website called DreamBox Learning that helps teach children math through a series of interactive games. Using technology inspired by Amazon.com’s feature that generates suggestions based on a user’s previous purchase and searches, DreamBox tailors the lessons to each individual student’s skills and progress.

While the program itself is certainly worthy of note and discussion, Miller also makes another really interesting point that addresses the overall idea of “e-learning.” “Education,” she writes, “is one area that Internet has not yet transformed.”

The Internet has some amazing capabilities as a learning tool, but many educators have largely ignored its potential. In fact, schools tend to go in the opposite direction, limiting students’ access to computers or imposing time constraints. Certainly schools are justified in some of these restrictions that promote healthy online experiences, but the resistance educators have to employ new and innovative educational online programs and tools in the classroom indicates that they are not eager to explore this new terrain.

However, by refocusing our approach to the Internet in schools, we might find, as DreamBox has, that e-learning creates both a thus-far untapped market for developers and a new, interactive method of teaching our students.

Posted in News | No Comments »

Grassroots.org
Creative Commons License