Posts Tagged ‘FCC’

Big Media Versus Big Media

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

I don’t watch a lot of television, but I watch enough that I caught a PSA-style bit from Cablevision about their spat with Disney over carriage fees for the New York City region. Disney wants to charge Cablevision more money to carry ABC7 here in New York, and of course Cablevision doesn’t want to pay more. The real hitch is that unless a deal is reached, Cablevision subscribers will lose ABC as of 12.01am on Sunday, March 7, the same day as the Oscars, exclusively broadcast by ABC. (Time Warner and Fox had a similar fight last December, where Time Warner customers faced the possibility of losing access to Fox channels.) As I said, I don’t watch a lot of TV, but I am a Cablevision subscriber and the Oscars are an annual guilty pleasure for me, so I’ll be bummed if I can’t watch them.

Since I pay money every month to Cablevision so I can watch TV and use the Internet, I guess I should be on Cablevision’s side. But as I looked deeper into the feud, I come up with more questions than answers. Cablevision says Disney wants $40 million more per year, Disney denies the number but won’t clarify how much it is actually asking for. Is Cablevision fabricating the $40 million claim, knowing that Disney won’t publicly disclose the amount, even if it is less than that? Disney says that Cablevision makes millions of dollars off them every year, and the increase of $1 per customer is fair. Cablevision says that it shouldn’t have to pay more for what it’s already getting, and that it is wrong for Disney to ask for more money from subscribers during a recession. Senator John Kerry says that the FCC should get involved for the sake of consumers, but Texas Congressman Joe Barton says that it’s not the government’s place to interfere in a dispute between two corporations. The Long Island Press ran a scathing story today about how Cablevision is compromising the journalistic integrity of Newsday, its financially-troubled newspaper property. When I visit the corporate websites for both Disney and Cablevision, there is nothing on the main page about the issue, and no news releases on it either. And yet, we as consumers are asked to weigh in with our opinions.

News can be confusing enough, but it seems to get especially nasty when two major media outlets are doing battle with each other. With all of this information, how can I, or anyone else, know what to trust? This is a crux of news literacy; you’re supposed to keep asking questions and not accept information in blind faith, but when you do that it is still hard to know what to believe. However, the value of news literacy, especially with stories like these which can have an immediate and lasting impact on the public, is not to get the “right” answer.  It is that you have a variety of information from a variety of sources which are informing your opinions, so that no one news source has a blank check for how you will see and understand the world around you.

I am personally frustrated when I read about the Cablevision-Disney dispute. I have Cablevision because they are the only company which services my building, but I don’t like their service. I would switch to another provider if I could. And it’s also hard for me to read about both Cablevision and Disney both posting better-than-expected profits, and have much sympathy as they spar over money which does not seem to be the breaking point for either of them, whether spent or saved. I am not able to pick a side. Maybe you can, but the important thing is not to let the media do your job for you. News literacy is vital for responsible citizenship, but the responsibility begins and ends with you.

–Emily Long

Posted in News | No Comments »

Is broadband Internet access a public utility?

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

water faucet

Is not having broadband like not having water?

Broadband Internet access in this country is a problem, and as many of you probably know, the FCC is currently drafting a plan to change that. In findings released yesterday by the Department of Commerce, 40% of Americans do not have broadband access, and 38.9% of people who don’t have Internet access at home cite high costs as the reason. The federal government has taken on the task of increasing broadband access in part because it expects that increased access will improve the economy, as well as provide more opportunities for health care and education–all of which are cornerstones of the Obama Administration’s agenda for change. As I watch the development of the broadband debate, one question springs to mind: Has broadband access to the Internet become a public utility?

A public utility can be defined as “a business that furnishes an everyday necessity to the public at large.”  Gas, electricity and water are all considered public utilities, as is telephone service. In strictly legal terms, there is also a regulatory component in the public utility definition, but here I am concerned with the “everyday necessity” portion. One of my college professors spoke about a problem he was having with his neighbor, who wanted cable television. At the time, the only way the  neighbor could get cable service was by running a cable under my professor’s lawn (at least this is what he was told). When my professor arrived home to find his lawn in ruins, the neighbor claimed that cable television was a public utility, and so he had a right to dig up personal property in order to receive cable TV. My professor disagreed, took the neighbor to court for damaging private property, and the judge determined that cable was not an “everyday necessity.” Thus, the neighbor was denied what he believed was his right to HBO via my professor’s lawn.

I agree with the judge that cable television is not an every day necessity. It is a luxury. However, just as the Internet is a major source of information, so is cable television; the difference, I believe, is interactivity. A lack of cable TV does not make it more difficult for someone to search for a job or apply to school, and I would count both employment and education as necessities. You may be able to learn about general health-related issues on TV, but with so many health care plans and resources now being diverted almost exclusively online, it will soon be very difficult to manage your personal health needs.

I don’t recall an argument ever being made by the government that people not having cable is an issue for real concern, but this seems to be the case with the Internet. Equally important as having Internet access is learning media literacy; otherwise we’re in a world of trouble. One thing I frequently hear is that people already know how to use the Internet, so what can media literacy do for them? My response is usually something along the lines of, “They may know how to put the key in the ignition, but that doesn’t mean they should be on the road.” It’s easy for those of us living in a big city like New York to assume that everyone has access to the Internet, and everyone knows what they’re doing. After all, you can’t get on a subway here without seeing smartphones, mp3 players and handheld video games. But the truth is that not everyone has access, whether you’re talking about New York City or the entire United States, and this is a problem because the Internet is quickly becoming essential to daily life. It may have been ridiculous to say this ten years ago, but I do believe broadband Internet access is a public utility; as websites continue to get more sophisticated, low-speed access is less and less useful . My hope is that, together with building the infrastructure to strengthen this utility, adequate attention is paid to the media literacy education which must accompany this growth.

–Emily Long

Posted in News | No Comments »

Land of the Wired? FCC and Free Internet Access

Monday, December 1st, 2008

In this economy, just about everyone is looking to cut costs that aren’t necessities.  Maybe that means cancelling a few magazine subscriptions, downgrading a gym membership or opting for a smaller cable package–but what about the Internet?  Depending on the quality and speed of your connection, the cost for having Internet in your home can run a rough average of $50/month, or $600 each year.  And that’s not even factoring in any data plans you might have for a smartphone.  What if you didn’t have to pay for Internet or Wi-Fi at all?

Sure, you’d save money, but under the plan being discussed at this month’s FCC meeting, your connection would also be a little bit slower and a little bit censored.  Part of the deal is that the content would have to be porn-free, and free of any other content that might be deemed unsuitable for children.  This makes sense to an extent, since of course a government agency doesn’t want to be seen as an enabler for inappropriate material.  According to lobby group M2Z Networks, if you decide to pay for the premium service to get a faster connection, you can turn the filter off, which is not too different from parental control options that exist with most other service providers and some browsers.

I’m for free Internet, but I also believe that with it must come a better understanding of filters.  It is too easy for a filter to act as the only form of online oversight in the home, and parents have to know that they don’t always work.  Most filters (including the one that the FCC would use) operate based on key words and phrases which are found in domain names; for example, a filter might block anything from a domain with the word ’sex’ in the name.  However, this can work against certain websites that are largely undeserving of being censored for young people.

Case in point: In college, I produced and directed my university’s production of “The Vagina Monologues,” which ran simultaneously with hundreds of other productions of the play around Valentine’s Day.  Sponsored by Eve Ensler’s V-Day Foundation, each production raised money for charities dealing with domestic abuse, rape, HIV/AIDS and the like.  All the producers and directors could communicate with each other through emails and a discussion board.  One day, I read about a woman producing the show tried to visit the V-Day website at a school library, only to find it was blocked by the school for containing keywords that triggered the university’s filter.  This was problematic for her in terms of getting information she needed to produce the play, providing details about the show for ticketholders, gaining additional sponsorships and more.  The irony, of course, was that her university was essentially blocking her proactive efforts to combat sex crimes.

So, yes, I’m for free Internet.  I really believe that in our modern world, the web is becoming more and more essential to gaining vital information for finding health care, applying to school, finding a job and managing your finances.  A computer lab is virtually useless if none of the machines can connect to the web.  Some wireless providers fear that free services will threaten their very existence, but I think it will only encourage them to be more innovative and adapt to change, just like every other industry.  However, with free and open access comes great responsibility in learning how to use it.  That responsibility lies squarely with schools, parents, librarians and other role model figures.  If all runs smoothly, free Internet and wi-fi could come to you as early as this summer.  Will you be ready?

For more on filters and having a positive online experience, please download our freeLAMPlit resource guide, “A Beginner’s Guide to Going Online.”

–Emily Long

Posted in News | No Comments »

Rethinking E/I

Thursday, November 13th, 2008

Perhaps when watching children’s television shows with your family, you’ve noticed a symbol with an “E/I” in the corner of your screen.  This stands for “Educational/Informative,” and started to show up when the FCC enacted the Children’s Television Act in 1990.  Using research showing that children watch an average of three hours of TV per day, the CTA required programmers to define the type of programs they were airing and to provide a minimum three hours of E/I programming per week between the hours of 7am and 10pm.

Sounds great, right?  But only when it works, which seems not to be the case.  Yesterday in Washington, D.C., a non-profit organization called Children Now released a report of the educational quality in children’s television programming entitled “Educationally/Insufficient? An Analysis of the Availability and Educational Quality of Children’s E/I Programming.” Some of the key findings in the study include:

  • 1 in 8 of children’s television shows meet the criteria for “highly educational”
  • Only 25% of broadcasters deliver any e/i content during weekdays, instead relegating it to weekends–a practice denounced by the FCC as far back as 1974
  • E/I shows aired on commercial (as opposed to public) broadcasts are far more likely to use a high amount of physical aggression as a function of the lesson, regardless of the targeted age group
  • Commercial E/I programs dedicate 3% of their content to art, 3% to health/nutrition, and 1% to math
  • According to the Annenburg Center Reports, E/I programs judged as highly educational made up 29% of total E/I programs in 1997-1998.  That number dropped to 20% in 2000, and has continued to drop to its current low of 13%

The most troubling part of the report is the last bullet.  One would hope or even expect that as time passes and more research is conducted, the educational quality of E/I programs would improve rather than steadily diminish.  Yes, this is another argument for media literacy, but in this case the lesson is perhaps most heavily applied to parents.  We have stressed the importance of making media a family affair–parents must be involved in their children’s media habits, watching their TV shows and talking to them about what they do online.  It is not safe to assume that your child is learning every time they watch a program with an E/I symbol.  If we as a culture demand higher quality programming and loudly refuse to accept what is currently excused as E/I, the landscape of children’s media can and will change.  The FCC has power, yes, but not as much power as you when it comes to determining what shows are good for your family.

Posted in News | No Comments »

Adventures in Product Placement: Part I

Wednesday, September 24th, 2008

With the various advances made in new media over the past few years, media consumers are now able to bypass a key part of what makes media possible: advertisements.  We can skip through ads on Tivo or just rent the DVD.  A study by Sharpe Partners found that  of 865 active online video viewers (“Super Sharers”), 75% of them are finding a way around ads. All of this might be convenient for us, but it’s not so great for the people who create the media we watch.  When people stop watching commercials, not only does the airtime become less valuable and effective, but media producers have to work harder to make ends meet.  Spot ads on television have been falling in 2008, and are not expected to improve for 2009.

As a result, the time-honored practice of product placement is on the rise.  In an ideal world for advertisers, product placement is done so seamlessly that viewers don’t even realize that someone is trying to sell them something.  To even the playing field, films and television shows are required by the FCC to state that a sponsor has paid for their product to be used.  Usually this is done at the very end of a show or movie, after the credits. Now, the FCC wants to further regulate media and make product placement more explicit by expanding the visibility of sponsorship notices.

As much as I might not like being persuaded to buy something when all I’m trying to do is relax with a story, I do recognize product placement as a necessary evil.  On the one hand, a product placement alert might help people better understand media, and I’m all for that.  On the other hand, it could spin way out of control, as the technique becomes more refined, and I also think that such close policing doesn’t really solve any problems.  I’d rather actively learn about product placement, and really understand it, rather than be passively told when it’s happening (by a government agency, no less).
Like banning athletes from social networking, this seems like a coverup for the real issue.  The buying of stuff and the selling of stuff is fundamental to any economy, and we all need to have an understanding of the many complex meanings behind media messages.  However, this can be done without sucking the enjoyment out of media, and it can be done in a way that makes people more independent thinkers.  If the FCC is truly concerned with educating and informing the American people about media, they might start with, well–media education.

Posted in News | Comments Off

Carlin, the FCC, and Finding Our Way

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

Sadly, one of our most brilliant and insightful comics has died. George Carlin, who dared to be political and outspoken in his scorn for the establishment, was also a looming media presence for most of his career. Carlin was one of those personalities who showed us where the invisible lines are drawn because, thankfully, he overstepped them routinely. Cultures need such characters to not only point out their flaws, but also to help induce change. They make us uncomfortable for good reason.

What I remember him for, here, is the part he played in helping to establish federal broadcast policy regarding indecent speech. His famous 7 Dirty Words broadcast on WBAI radio in New York City, which led ultimately to the Supreme Court case, Pacifica v. FCC, established community standards as the yardstick to measure the extent to which the federal government can sanction broadcast indecency, particularly during periods of time when children could be in the audience. Before Carlin dared to say what could not be said on TV and the radio, the FCC was able to fine stations for what it considered indecent speech, not taking into consideration what was and is acceptable in different parts of the country, and at different times during the day. It took someone to (boldly and offensively) start that conversation and bring about policy change that is still the legal blueprint used today for broadcast stations. Even though now we have content carried via cable and the Internet, both of which are outside the strict confines of the FCC’s content restrictions, broadcast television and radio remains a staple for millions of Americans. When we no longer have free over-the-air broadcasting, if that day ever comes, I wonder how a counterculture curmudgeon like Carlin will be able to wake all of us up—no matter our age, income, ethnicity or digital abilities–when we’ve gotten too sleepy?

–Katherine G. Fry

Posted in News | Comments Off

Grassroots.org
Creative Commons License