Emily Long « The LAMP

Posts Tagged ‘Emily Long’

What to expect from Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze.com

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

Last night, according to Mediaite, FOX News star Glenn Beck unleashed his very own news site called TheBlaze.com. The site launch follows Beck’s Restoring Honor rally in Washington, D.C., which was held on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and attended by maybe 78,000 people, or perhaps 500,000, depending on who you ask. Whether it was a few hundred thousand or not, Mr. Beck has a concrete following which more or less guarantees heavy traffic to his new site. But, with his own radio show, talk show, best-selling books and his existing website at glennbeck.com, why does Mr. Beck also need a news site?

According to him, it is because “too many times we find mainstream media outlets distorting facts to fit rigid agendas” and “there comes a time when you have to stop complaining and do something.” However, the site seems to be anything but independent of an agenda. According to the “actual journalists” writing for The Blaze, UCSD professors are trying to dissolve the nation through a mobile GPS application which includes “poerty” (sic)–all of which is reported to us through a mashup video of interview and presentation snippets, mostly from 2009, provided with no context. And, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat’s statement that he might have underestimated Glenn Beck counts as a news item on The Blaze. In fact, as of this writing, the top five most popular pieces on the site mention Glenn Beck in their titles. I read the biographies of the four members of the editorial staff, and can’t find any credentials which separate these “actual journalists” from pretty much anyone else who might claim to be a journalist. Most notable of them all is Managing Editor Scott Baker, co-founder of Breitbart.tv, lately famous for the Shirley Sherrod debacle. The “Message from Glenn” implies that putting together a news site in just two months which is worthy of his lofty ideals should stand as a point of pride. I understand it as, at best, an explanation for the quality of the site. At worst, it’s a disclaimer.

I’m not going to take away anyone’s right to start their own website; it’s one of the things I love most about the Internet. And, I’m certainly not going to claim that all liberal-minded news outlets represent a journalistic ideal–The Huffington Post is quite far from perfect. What makes The Blaze so ridiculous to me is Mr. Beck’s assertion that the site strives for transparency, and, as implicated by its mere existence, that it is filling some kind of need.

I’ll grant that The Blaze is only a few hours old, so perhaps my criticism of it as a legitimate news source comes too soon. Still, If Mr. Beck wants to do something new, and really confront the inadequacies he finds in mainstream media, he would do better to encourage critical media literacy rather than add to the noise he claims to hate.

–Emily Long

Posted in News | No Comments »

Park 51: The Protest Video

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

Whether you refer to it as “Park 51” or “Ground Zero Mosque,” the ongoing turmoil about a proposed cultural center with a prayer space for Muslims near Ground Zero has captured headlines across New York City and beyond. But yesterday at a protest rally, the story hit a crucial milestone when the story’s obligatory viral protest videoemerged on YouTube.

The viral protest video is usually one which is shot from perspective of an ordinary person attending or observing the protest, and the ones which have the most impact tend to somehow encapsulate the entire conflict while touching emotional chords. As such, it’s an important part of the narrative–it gets our attention and offers a glimpse from the ground of a conflict which may be very distant to us. It is not edited and it is not shot using professional equipment; usually it’s made with a shaky camera of questionable sound and image quality, as compared to footage captured by broadcast news networks.

Perhaps one of the most notable examples of a viral protest video is the clip that came out of the protests which followed the Iranian elections. In it, a young Iranian girl named Neda Agha-Soltan is shot in the streets of Tehran and dies on camera. Most versions of the video on YouTube are less than a minute in length, but the impact of the video lasted much longer, as Neda became a martyr and was even mentioned in one of President Obama’s press conferences. For those of us on the other side of the world, the video of Neda’s death helped us to access emotionally a scale of violence which is fortunately rare in the United States, and offered a personal narrative from the streets.

Far less violent is the footage caught by Aaron Webber (above) of a black man passing through protesters outside Park 51. Members of the crowd wrongly assume that the man is Muslim, and as invectives fly, he becomes a symbol of so much confusion, hate and passion surrounding the issue of whether the cultural center with a prayer space for Muslims should be constructed so close to the Ground Zero site. Here is an individual plainly accused of somehow conspiring in acts he did not commit, and threatened for holding beliefs which are not his. It is difficult not to see this as exemplary of mob mentality, and how misinformation and prejudice have taken over the issue. Justin Elliott at Salon.com reports that the man’s name is Kenny, and comments from him suggest that he actually works at Ground Zero. While it is clear in the video that Kenny is not indifferent to the issue, there is no opportunity for him to explain his side to his detractors. It’s just this kind of calm, open dialogue that might actually be helpful but has been sorely lacking in mainstream media.

–Emily Long

Posted in News | No Comments »

The LAMP is in the New York Daily News!

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

Reporter Clem Richardson spoke with D.C. Vito, Katherine Fry and Emily Long about LAMPcamp and why media literacy is so important. Be sure to check out the article online, or in the print edition of today’s paper!

Posted in News | No Comments »

FIFA’s lesson in media literacy

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

Non-goal on Germany by England's Frank Lampard

One of the best things about soccer is its simplicity. All you need to play the game are people, a ball, and a playing area with goal space at either end. Each time tries to hit the ball in the other team’s goal space, using anything but their hands, and that’s pretty much it. Scoring is easy; one goal equals one point. Except for the off-sides bit and perhaps a couple of other finer points, soccer is easy to play, easy to follow and fast. It’s been this way since game rules were first codified in England in 1863, but with the current World Cup, it appears that it may finally be time for soccer to adapt to a technological era. FIFA, soccer’s international governing body, does not do instant replays, so every call is subject to the perspective of one ref on the field and two sideline assistants. Under this system, FIFA referees in the South African World Cup have disallowed one good goal by England and two by the United States, and allowed what was clearly not a goal from Argentina in their match with Mexico. In light of all this, FIFA president Sepp Blatter announced yesterday that he would consider using technology to settle disputed goals.

When I heard this, I imagined Rip Van Winkle waking up to find everyone around him peering into laptops and cellphones, and learning that someone was live-streaming him as he drooled in his sleep. It’s hard to believe that it took multiple controversial goals during a World Cup series to make FIFA think twice about using video to review goals. For one thing, the pitch is already surrounded by cameras. In most professional soccer games, a line of cameras are set up on the ground behind each net, and peering over the barricades are photographers from every major media outlet throughout the world. Inside those barricades and over the top of the stadium, additional cameras are working to bring the game live to millions of people watching on television. We watch those disputed calls over and over again on our televisions, phones and computers, seeing clearly what the ref did not, and maybe getting angrier with each replay. I understand that part of the fun of soccer is the human element, but in a world constantly adapting to technological advancements, it is crazy for FIFA to think it would be spared the task of growing up at least a little.

So what does this have to do with media literacy? For one thing, it exemplifies the subjectivity which is so present in our media–a referee, like a journalist, is making a call based on his perspective. It would be dishonest to make a call based on a report from the other players or coaches, because they have their own perspectives and agendas. The referee is the anointed judge with final authority, and in a perfect world, the referee is also completely impartial to who wins or loses the game being played.

The referee calls also point to how frustrating it is when opinions and facts cannot be contested. As Americans, we are used to the idea of freedom of speech, and are more often than not actually encouraged to openly question leadership. We talk back on blogs, we write letters to the editor, we write emails to our representatives, we protest loudly outside the buildings where decisions are made. It is perhaps especially infuriating for us to be told that even though we have hard evidence of a mistake, the evidence does not matter and the wrong will not be made right. Our freedom to talk back is one we take for granted, and instances like phantom goal calls (trite as they may be to some) remind us of the luxury of that freedom. It’s easy to abuse it or forget about it entirely, until it is taken away.

Finally, we come to FIFA itself, the body which for so long and so strongly resisted integrating technology with the beautiful game, and which has now been painfully and publicly kicked into reconsidering how the digital era changes a sport. The rest of us also have to adapt and become media literate if we expect to thrive in a digital world.

–Emily Long

Posted in News | No Comments »

The Vogue Point of View, Translated

Thursday, June 24th, 2010

Take a look at this page from the July 2010 issue of Vogue:

And now let’s take it apart:

“I am woman. Hear me roar.”

Reference to women’s lib anthem: Check.

“Hear me issue stock-purchase orders from the Wall Street trading floor.”

According to Federal Bureau of Labor statistics from last year, just 29% of American traders were women. While the growth of women in the financial services industry is not to be mocked, there is still a long way to go. Are the only roaring women the ones who work in a male-dominated industry, and are they roaring only because they are doing a job which has traditionally been done by men? I think not.

“I am woman; I am not girl. I do not emulate the pop-burlesque fashion stylings of Ke$ha or Katy Perry.”

Just a few lines in, we’re already talking about what a woman is not. Plus, Katy Perry’s style was already celebrated in June’s Teen Vogue, and Ke$ha was featured in Teen Vogue’s May music issue. In a few years, Big Girl Vogue will tell former Teen Vogue readers that the “Katy and Ke$ha are awesome!” thing was all a joke.

“I do not aspire to passe morning-after chic, with bird’s-nest hair and shredded leather leggings. No.”

Vogue suggests you try this look instead.

“Of Lana Turner and Barbara Stanwyck–and Lena Horne–I sing.”

You, the same magazine whose French edition did a photo shoot of Lara Stone in blackface; you, the same magazine that ran a questionable cover of LeBron James and Gisele Bundchen; you, with a notorious tendency to debut international editions with white girls at the cover’s focal point–you sing of Lena Horne? Not to mention that a search for Lana Turner on vogue.com turned up just 2 results, and 1 for Barbara Stanwyck. Sure, I hear you singing.

“(Have you felt the smooth, snug tug of fine leather gloves being pulled on? Have you considered the rebellion, the nonconformity, inherent today in a Mamie Eisenhower knit suit? Have you worn a crinoline lately?)”

So–we can wear leather gloves but not leather leggings? And you ask the Woman Who Roars if she knows anything of rebellion? I’m also not sure Vogue gets to send a shout-out crinoline in the same space where they criticize burlesque-inspired fashion.

“Reader, if you’re older than fourteen, fashion for fall 2010 offers more wearable options than it has in eons.”

Yes, Vogue is talking to you, teens who should not be reading Teen Vogue! The wearable fashions–nay, “2010 Fall Essentials”–recommended by Vogue include a $250 Michael Kors belt, a $380 sweater by Inhabit and a Cynthia Rowley feather tutu for $410. In fairness, I suppose they did say ‘wearable,’ not ‘affordable.’ Though that still doesn’t explain the feather tutu.

“Skirts fall below mid-thigh.”

In the fall fashion collections? You don’t say!

“Designers are giving us dead-cool-but-still-practical streetwear uniforms for work or school.”

See: feather tutu; sweater that costs more than half of what the average family of 5 spent on groceries each month as of 2009.

“Can we get an ‘Amen’ up in here?”

In a word: No.

–Emily Long

(more…)

Posted in News | No Comments »

Grasping at Gay

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

Elena Kagan

Earlier this week, President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Since then, mass media seems intent to maintain not many more than two talking points about Kagan: She has no prior experience as a judge, and maybe she’s gay.

In a way, the two points are related. With relatively little background on Kagan, the media doesn’t have much to talk about. She has been immersed in the academia side of law since 1999, and has been very private about her life and ideological views through the better part of her career. Even the New York Times, when highlighting her notable writings and statements, pulled almost exclusively from her 2009 confirmation hearing as Solicitor General. We don’t have anything like the “wise Latina woman” statement from Sonia Sotomayor, or Samuel Alito’s membership to a Princeton alumni club accused of trying to limit entry of women and minorities to the university.

Instead, we have her opposition to military recruitment on the Harvard campus because of the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, and a picture of her playing baseball in 1993. The Wall Street Journal ran that photo on its front page for Monday, May 11, the same day Obama officially nominated her to the Court. Some gay activists were incensed over the picture, other gay activists thought people taking offense to the photo were being hypersensitive, and the White House refused to comment on Kagan’s sexual preferences. Towleroad.com, “a site with homosexual tendencies,” has a section devoted to Kagan news which runs the gamut of friends claiming she’s not gay, critics saying that if she is gay then she is unfit to judge, others asking if she would have to recuse herself from “gay cases” and a slew of other opinions which more or less enforce the idea that what a Supreme Court nominee does in her personal relationships is, in fact, our business.

That Kagan’s sexuality has become one of the dominating lines of her media narrative is not especially surprising. However, it is still disappointing that, lacking some other controversy, mainstream media is happy to fill its news cycle with stereotyping rather than taking the extra effort to dig deeper into facts and perform a meaningful analysis of them.

–Emily Long

This post was originally published on the IFC Make Media Matter blog here.

Posted in News | No Comments »

Why Australia’s Ban on Cigarette Brands May Not Be a Good Thing

Friday, April 30th, 2010

Yesterday, the Australian Federal Government announced that by July 2012, all packages of cigarettes sold within the country must be devoid of any logos, branding images and colors. In addition, an increased tax of 25% will raise the cost of a package of 30 cigarettes by roughly $2 USD. A packaging mockup for cigarettes sold in Australia is pictured at right.

Obviously, the tobacco industry is not happy. Without branded packaging, it will be far more difficult for consumers to differentiate between brands and types of cigarettes. For example, when I look at a rack of cigarettes in a store, I know that the Marlboro cigarettes with gold are Marlboro Lights, I know that the ones with red are Marlboro Reds, the greens are menthol and so forth. Most of us can tell pretty quickly the difference between Camels, Parliaments, Newports and the rest, but a rack full of cigarettes that all look essentially the same would be dizzying, and would diminish brand loyalty. (Disclaimer: I started smoking at age 17. I quit seven years ago.) This is all on top of Australia’s existing limitations on tobacco advertising, which are pretty harsh. For example, according to tobaccoinaustralia.org, absolutely no international or sporting events in Australia have been allowed to carry tobacco sponsorship since October 2006. For my part, I cannot begin to imagine what a NASCAR racetrack would look like without cigarette advertising, but that is the case in Australia. With this latest measure, then, the government is essentially amputating the last limb of tobacco advertising in Australia (not counting arguably more discreet promotions, such as stars smoking in movies).

Let’s consider what would happen if this measure were taken in the United States. The backlash from the tobacco industry would be harsh, especially in an economic downturn. I imagine we would hear opponents talking about how our country is rooted in a culture of tobacco, beginning with settlers in Jamestown and Plymouth. The “babysitter” argument would also be made, where people bemoan their government for trying to make choices for them about their personal health and lifestyle. Further, just as the New York City subway ads against sugary beverages and smoking have been called overly graphic, there would be those who complain that the federally mandated packaging is just gross and they shouldn’t have to look at closeups of cancer-ridden lungs while they pay for their groceries.

But there would also be people like me, who would claim that education is the key, and that if the number of smokers continues to rise, then our current programs aren’t working. I do not think we will live in a world where tobacco is fully banned; we will always have smokers. We can, and should, take other measures which restrict tobacco advertising, particularly to people who are underage. However, from a media literacy perspective, I fear that Australia is going too far. I think it is more valuable for us to have branding and be taught to make our own decisions as consumers, just as it is my responsibility to learn how to read a nutrition label. While I am glad that I can go into any bar or restaurant in New York City and know that I won’t be faced with second-hand smoke, I do think that this is a decision best made by the independent establishments. Then it’s up to me to choose which of those places I want to patronize. People smoking around me does impact my health, but the presence of branded cigarettes behind a counter does not. Taking them away removes my responsibility to make my own informed decisions, begins to smack of censorship, and frankly makes the world a little too baby-proofed for me.

–Emily Long

Posted in News | 1 Comment »

The Comment Conundrum

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold

Last week, Cuyahoga County Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold announced that she and her daughter, Sydney, were filing a $50 million lawsuit against the Cleveland Plain Dealer for publicly disclosing their connection with anonymous and disparaging comments made on the Plain Dealer website regarding cases heard by Saffold. Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that Huffington Post will be moving towards a comment policy which tiers commenters in terms of user credibility, as decided by other readers. The ability to publicly and anonymously comment on online content is a cornerstone of the Internet as a democratic entity, but what could cases like these mean for future comment policy?

Policy and credibility are at the heart of the Saffold case. Shirley and Sydney Strickland Saffold claim that the Plain Dealer violated their user agreement by announcing their connection with ‘lawmiss’, the handle used by Sydney to post insults about relatives of the reporter writing on a death-penalty case decided by Judge Saffold. Susan Goldberg, an editor at the Plain Dealer, has responded by saying the paper is compelled to report the ‘lawmiss’ identity: “These are capital crimes and life-and-death issues for these defendants. I think not to disclose this would be a violation of our mission and damaging to our credibility as a news organization.” To what extent should readers be protected, and informed? The knowledge that certain comments have been posted by the daughter of someone closely connected to the case is relevant, and does impact credibility, but ‘lawmiss’ did not and was not required to willfully disclose the identity of the user.

Under the Huffington Post comment model, ‘lawmiss’s comment would be placed according to how well other readers trusted her. In this case, the previous 80 comments posted by ‘lawmiss’ could have pushed the comment in question to the bottom of the comment thread, if other readers identified ‘lawmiss’ as highly biased or not credible in other instances. This would be an attempt at compromise: As long as ‘lawmiss’ stays within the bounds of Huffington Post’s comment policy, the comment will be posted, but people will have to look a little harder to find it.

Finding the middle ground between credibility and anonymity is not easy, as credibility and knowledge of the source of information are necessarily connected. A potential pitfall of the Huffington Post is that only “middle of the road” comments would be among the most visible; it’s not hard to imagine users downgrading extremist viewpoints, or perspectives which are among the minority in a group of readers. For example, Huffington Post readers tend to be liberal, but what about people who disagree with its reporting or perceived agenda? Would those dissenting voices ultimately be drowned out from the dialogue? Similarly, should the opinions of commenters with personal connections to the story be considered less valuable and pushed to the edge?

It is my personal opinion that personal involvement should be disclosed, though ideally it is the user who does this and not the website. Maybe this is what needs to be added to comment policies on news sites–a policy that people close to a story reveal their involvement could stem misunderstandings by readers. Perhaps being forced to own up to comments would entice more intelligent arguments, since personal reputation is at stake. In a perfect world, all of us are willing to take responsibility for our actions, but just as this is not true in the physical world, it is unlikely to become a reality in the digital world.

–Emily Long

Note: This entry was first published on the IFC blog, Make Media Matter.

Posted in News | No Comments »

How I (unwittingly) spammed everyone I know

Friday, March 26th, 2010

I consider myself to be a fairly well-educated, well-informed person, especially when it comes to issues of digital literacy. So, it is with great embarrassment that I confess to having accidentally spammed pretty much everyone I know.

Yesterday I received an email from a source who shall go unnamed–but who I also consider to be a very well-informed, level-headed individual–inviting me to be a beta tester for the Apple iPad through a program where I would be given an iPad to test. After two months of submitting reviews and feedback, the iPad would be mine to keep as compensation for my time. My first thought should have been that nothing in life is free, especially newly-released pieces of cutting edge technology. Instead I thought about how great it would be for The LAMP to have an iPad to use in workshops (corny, but true). And, since the email came from someone whom I respect a great deal, I followed the link and checked out the company, TestitandKeepit.com. It appeared to be completely legitimate, as I clicked through links with the company’s purpose, contact information and testimonials from people who had tested products from them. I went ahead and started the process of registering to beta-test the iPad.

At this point, I hadn’t done anything wrong. The only person I put at risk was myself, by giving my email address and name to the company. But, at Step 2, you are asked to provide the company access to your address book, so they can send emails to everyone you know and invite them to participate. And this is where I was just plain stupid, thinking they would show me a list of contacts in my address book and I would choose which people I wanted to receive the email. After all, the company doesn’t want to be accused of spamming, right? They only want to contact people who might be interested, right?

No. They sent automated emails to everyone in my address book, citing my email address. Think of all the people whose emails you have stored in your account, and that’s a lot. My book includes friends, family, business contacts and people I may have only emailed once or twice, and I had just given all of their email addresses to TestitandKeepit.com. Plus, it made my folly all the more public. The kicker was when I went on to the third and final step required to complete registration, and got an error message that the page did not exist. This is not a good sign.

Suffice it to say, this is all extremely embarrassing, but I’m sharing it as an example of how easy it is to be taken in by a spamming/phishing operation. I take only a little comfort in evidence that the spam industry continues to grow despite various education and security efforts. I thought I knew better. Apparently not.

To anyone from my address book who may be reading this…sorry.

–Emily Long

Posted in News | 5 Comments »

Hung Up on Obscenity

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

I have a thing for obscene ads–how they are defined, who gets offended by them, what they’re selling, etc. So today, when I was catching up with old posts on The Cool Hunter, I was particularly interested in this New Zealand billboard advertising HBO’s television series, Hung. I found it kind of brilliant. It tells you what the show is about in an extremely basic way, and I love the appearance that the billboard canvas is actually sagging off the frame. The texture suggested in the bulge is another nice detail. I like to imagine someone walking by and shielding a child’s eyes, only for pesky logic to creep in: Nothing is being shown that isn’t also shown on the cover of underwear packaging at kid-level in a department store, or that can’t be found on the beach. Of course, context does come in to play, and, um, size matters too.

Other obscene ads that are among my favorites (meaning, most memorable) are the Ashley Madison ads encouraging people to have affairs, the Tom Ford fragrance ads that I sometimes find difficult to look at, New York City Health Department ads railing against sugary beverages, idiotic ads for Axe Body Spray, vintage ads that might not have been offensive fifty years ago but which are horrendous to contemporary viewers, ads which just plain lie, etc. The list goes on and on, and although a few are posted below, you can find many more in Ad It Up!, an archive of print ads assembled and maintained by those of us here at The LAMP.

I’m barely scratching the surface here on my love-hate relationship with obscene ads, and obscenity in general. It serves a multitude of purposes, and can be both beautiful and horrific at the same time. The definition changes for every culture and individual, and the things we designate as being obscene tend to reveal more about us than the things themselves. It follows, then, that the conversation is more interesting when more people participate in it, so jump in–talk back to the ads which are already up, tag your own favorite (or least favorite) ads with aditup in Flickr, or email them directly to me for addition to the archive and help it grow. Media literacy is more fun when everyone plays.

–Emily Long