Posts Tagged ‘law’

Gaslight: July in Media History

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

July 14, 1995: On this day just fifteen years ago, researchers from the Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits officially christened MPEG Layer 3 technology with the file-name extension of mp3. In development since the early 1970s, mp3 changed the world of music forever because of its ability to efficiently maintain high standards in compressed audio files. In other words, mp3 allowed people to begin storing music on their personal computers, enabled CD ripping and also meant faster download times from the Internet. Today, there are thousands of mp3-related devices available worldwide which are used to store, sort and play music.

MP3 also ushered in an era of change for the music industry, which continues to struggle in a marketplace where the practice of buying a CD is taking a backseat to downloading and sharing music instantly, cheaply and illegally. Multi-million lawsuits have been launched by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) regarding copyright infringement, royalties to artists and labels, illegal file sharing and piracy not only of mp3 files themselves but also of the technology used around them. On the flip side, the mp3 format has allowed millions of people to connect with and discover new music, and it means that you can listen to your music virtually anywhere–it’s been a long time since you had to sit by your stereo to hear your favorite song. The pros and cons of the mp3 are emblematic of so much media technology today which may make some things easier, but also demands that we make responsible choices about how to use it.

July 21, 2007: It is difficult to overstate the ubiquity of the Harry Potter franchise, and on this day in 2007 the series came to its literary end. In its first 24 hours on sale, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows sold a record-breaking 8.3 million copies just in the United States. The books may have contributed to increased literacy rates , and author J.K. Rowling has used their appeal to support numerous charities worldwide. The series has spawned films, a theme park, companion books, fan sites …you name it. It seems our media landscape will always have a place for the boy wizard.

Robert Tappan Morris

July 26, 1989: Robert Tappan Morris becomes the first hacker prosecuted for spreading a computer virus. Then a graduate student at Cornell University, Morris claimed the worm was intended as an experiment to find out how big the Internet really was. However, an error in the code programmed the virus to continue replicating itself, ultimately infecting more than 6,000 university, research and military computers. In 1990 he was sentenced to a $10,050 fine, 400 hours of community service and three years of probation. Today he is a teacher and researcher at MIT, and thousands have followed in his footsteps as enterprising hackers in their own right.

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 »

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 »

The “All Access” Pass

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Cartoon

Cartoon from "Under the Jacaranda Tree"

According to the results of a recent survey by BBC World Service, 4 out 5 adults around the world believe that having access to the Internet is a “fundamental right.” I completely agree. I’ve written before about the Internet as a public utility, and I consider equal access one of the cornerstones to a modern world where opportunities and resources are spread out for the masses rather than coveted by a few. However, when people talk about Internet access, they can be talking about (at least) two different things. “Access” can refer to the ability to go online, in a strictly technical context, or it can be related to censorship. The technical side of Internet access is doable–it is a tall order, but doable. For example, satellite technology has allowed countries lacking land telephone lines to move on to cell phones. But censorship is an entirely different issue, and one which is key to the question of access. After all, if someone can only view websites which are in line with one agenda, can they really be said to have access? If having access, in all senses of the word, is a “fundamental right,” shouldn’t all people worldwide have the unfettered chance to view whatever they want online?

Like free speech in general, this can be a fuzzy area. I think most of us can agree that child pornography and bomb-making instructions do not really need to be available, but in principle those websites should be allowed to operate freely. As always, drawing the line is hard. Here in the US, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently reaffirmed the American government’s commitment to protecting free speech online around the world. However, both the United States and, by way of another example in the Western Francehave taken steps towards a porn-free Internet. So who are we to condemn other countries for taking action against items which fall under their definition of obscene? (For a quick rundown of other instances of ‘net censorship around the world, see this 2002 articleby Adam Thierer of the Cato Institute.)

When it comes to global policy, one might turn to the United Nations for guidance. Secretary Clinton mentioned in her speech that Internet freedoms are included in a resolution to the UN Human Rights Council. However, the United Nations track record regarding foreign policy and Internet censorship is no clearer than the United States. In November of 2009, the UN held a forum on Internet governance in Egypt, but UN officials demanded that an anti-censorship group remove a poster shaming China for its firewalls–effectively censoring their own anti-censorship conference. In January of 2009, a resolution crafted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference was presented to the UN General Assembly, which asked all other UN member nations to ban the “defamation” of religion (though it was opposed by many nations, it was ultimately adopted). A resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Council in April of 2008 was criticized by other human rights groups for its perceived emphasis on limiting free speech rather than protecting it.

Throughout the world, what one person thinks is freedom might be someone else’s idea of destruction. Bringing Internet access to more homes and communities around the world is a good thing, but with that, we will eventually have to figure out how we can get along and share a planet of readily-accessible resources and ideas. Until and unless this is addressed, we’re not living with true Internet access.

–Emily Long

This entry can also be found on IFC’s Make Media Matter blog, where I am a regular contributor.

Posted in News | No Comments »

Gaslight: March in Media History

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

March 10, 1949: Mildred Gillars, aka “Axis Sally,” American broadcaster for Radio Berlin during WWII, is convicted of treason. Born in Portland, Oregon, Gillars pursued an acting career in New York City, and although she did get work, she didn’t realize the success of her dreams. In 1935 she moved to Germany to teach English, but eventually was hired by Radio Berlin as a broadcaster, which gave her a chance to flex her acting muscles. She referred to herself as “Midge on the mic” but was dubbed “Axis Sally” by the American allied forces who listened to her broadcasts. Her radio program was called “Home Sweet Home” and typically tried to weaken the morale of US soldiers with suggestions that their girlfriends and wives back home were being unfaithful. However, her most famous broadcast was “Vision of Invasion,” a play about a woman who dreamed her son had been killed at sea crossing the English Channel, complete with exceedingly graphic sound effects of the exploding ship. To boot, it was aired just one month before the D-Day invasion. When she was being prosecuted for treason, it was largely this broadcast which was used as evidence of her crime (though her oath swearing allegiance to Germany didn’t help her either). Finally, on March 10, her heavily covered, soap-opera trial which also detailed her romance with German serviceman Max Otto Koischwitz, ended with a sentence of 10-30 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. She served 12 years and became a kindergarten music teacher when released.

March 25, 1954: RCA begins production of color television sets. Retailing for $1,000 each, the sets came after an intense war in the 1940s between RCA and CBS about development of the color field sequential system which was to be used as the broadcasting standard, and the system’s compatibility with existing black and white television sets. Also complicating matters was the ban on color television sets was the ban on color set production which began in 1951 with the Korean War–the need to allocate funds to the war put a halt on the development of color receivers. But, RCA eventually had its day, and we’ve never watched TV the same way since.

Jack Paar

March 29, 1962: Jack Paar hosts “The Tonight Show” for the last time. After five years of hosting and ultimately creating the late-night talk-show format still used today, Paar left because he wanted to spend more time with his family and escape the press with its ruthless coverage of his internal quarrels with NBC executives and other stars in entertainment. He was replaced by Johnny Carson, who remained the show’s host until May 22, 1992.

Posted in News | 1 Comment »

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 »

Warning: This blog post has been digitally enhanced

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

Perusing the New York Times this morning, I came across another piece about the idea that digitally altered photographs for advertising should be labeled as having been retouched. The idea is that if we’re told that a photo of a model isn’t “real” then we might not feel as bad about our real-world physical flaws and quirks. France has a law on the table that, if passed, would require all retouched photos to carry a disclaimer, just as tobacco companies have to explicitly print on their product that it is extremely hazardous to health.

Henri Robin and a Specter by Eugene Thiebault (1863)

"Henri Robin and a Specter" by Eugene Thiebault (1863)

This brings me back to a photography exhibit I saw a few years ago at the Metropolitan Museum of Art here in New York called “The Perfect Medium: Photography and the Occult.” Over 120 ’spiritualist’ photographs were pulled together beginning from the 1860s depicting ghosts visiting the living, physical manifestations of thoughts, dreams and feelings, and spirits appearing in seances. The photographs, though stunning, are fake. They were made by manipulating a wet photographic plate, but appeared in newspapers, journals and parlors across the country as evidence of ghosts and spirits. William Mumler, generally regarded as the pioneer of spirit photography, made a fortune selling these photos, but lost it all to legal costs incurred during the 1869 trial accusing him of fraud. The charges were eventually dropped due to lack of evidence by the prosecution, though the judge claimed he believed the photos were indeed fraudulent. Still, spirit photography continued for many more decades. The point here is that, almost from the dawn of photography itself, people have been manipulating images with no disclaimer.

How different are Mumler’s photographs from digitally altered advertising photographs of today? In both cases, an image is produced that is meant to inspire emotion of some sort in the viewer. That image is then sold to the masses, who may or may not think to ask questions about how such an image is made. Virtually all photos taken today are retouched in some way, whether to correct red-eye, brighten colors, correct skin tone or alter lighting. Many of these photos hang in museums as pieces of priceless art. The question is, where do we draw the line–should digitally altered still lifes also carry a label stating that they were touched up? And, when looking at a picture of an impossibly beautiful person, would a label really keep you from beating yourself up because you don’t look like the Photoshopped model? Ultimately, the label only scratches the surface of what really should be done, which is to educate people about how and why media images are made.

Posted in News | No Comments »

Grassroots.org
Creative Commons License