Posts Tagged ‘media literacy’

Breaking news: Ads on Twitter!

Friday, February 26th, 2010

Speaking on a panel with the IAB Annual Leadership Conference on Monday, Twitter’s head of product management Anametra Banerji announced that the company is in the test phase of an advertising platform which will be released in about a month. Cue the theme from Jaws—ads are coming to Twitter!

Except, they’ve been there for a long time by now. Not only can any user tweet to their heart’s content about the wonder of a product, but there are a number of services like Twittertise, AdCause, TwittAd, SponsoredTweets, reTweet.it and BeTweeted which exist to promote the practice of being paid to tweet. There are already a lot of ads of Twitter that many people don’t even realize are ads; back in December, fans of Kim Kardashian were shocked to learn that her odes to things like Reebok EasyTones were less than genuine. She gets paid by ad.ly up to $10,000 to tweet about certain products, as do other celebrities like Soulja Boy, Dr. Drew and Lauren Conrad.

With no further details released by the company, all the announcement really means is that soon there will be something created internally by Twitter which will enable advertising. It is unclear what exactly the platform will do or how it will function, but (as reported by MediaPost) Banerji did say that Twitter will make it “explicitly clear that a sponsor” paid for the ad, which will be “relevant and useful, so the doesn’t think of it as an ad.” What? How can an ad be both explicit about the fact that it is an ad, and yet not be thought of as an ad? This sounds like more of the incognito advertising happening every day, unbeknownst to most people on Twitter. (Never mind that Banerji also said, “Innovate very, very quickly, before someone innovates on top of you.” Really, who hasn’t been innovating on top of Twitter?) The company does need to monetize, but they may have missed the boat on doing it with ads.

With ever more ad platforms being built, consumers seem to have never considered that a celebrity might be paid for an endorsement, and even television channels are being created as a result of advertising demand, it is clear that more attention needs to be paid to media literacy. Advertising is not going away, and it is not inherently a bad thing, but it is important for people to know when they are being coaxed into buying something.

–Emily Long

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

Can China be media literate without Google?

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

The news that Google threatened China to cease operations and search result censorship in the country due to the possible hacking of email accounts by the Chinese government belonging comes as no surprise. China has a long history of censorship, and for a while now, certain Google searches have returned blank results. Back in March, YouTube and Facebook were banned. Possibly China’s sole source of true investigative reporting was Caijing, the financial newspaper, but back in November its founding editor, Hu Shuli, resigned along with other senior staff. The reported reason for Hu’s resignation is that she was offered a tenured position at Zhongshuan University, but questions remain as to whether she has simply been sidelined by a government growing increasingly nervous over her reporting.

So, again, no surprise that Google is censored, and has been since Google.cn was started. But what is surprising is that in recent months, China has been taking steps to incorporate media literacy into its educational institutions.  In November, days after Hu’s resignation, British, Japanese and Chinese scholars gathered in Beijing and formulated an action plan to incorporate media literacy with existing primary school curricula.  The forum itself was organized by the University of China. Just three days ago, Li Xiguang was announced as the head of a new journalism academy in Chongqing; Li also happens to be known for his recommendations to the Chinese government for increased transparency, and his Tsinghua International Center for Communication (TICC) is the designated as the training base for government spokespersons. He also plans to bring his existing media literacy course from TICC over to the new academy.

Given these steps, it will be especially disappointing if China wants to continue censoring Google results and hacking Gmail with zeal, prompting Google to remove itself entirely from the country. A decision to stop censoring Google (and YouTube, and other sites) would fly in the face of China’s deep-seated policy towards free speech, but do the people of China really believe media literacy is possible without the embrace of an open Internet? Obviously, Google and YouTube were still being censored during the forum in Beijing and when the announcement was made about Li Xiguang; perhaps the hope that this was a herald of change in Chinese media policy was sheer naivete. News literacy is an essential component of media literacy, and without it, progress seems unlikely.

Every blank screen that shows up after a search for “Dalai Lama” is like a light bulb reminding the Chinese people who is in control (though, I’m sure if you ask them, it is not easily forgotten). In Northern Ireland at the height of The Troubles, television screens went blank when the station was not allowed to broadcast a documentary about alleged prisoner abuse in Belfast. This was done in favor of running a comedy program; everyone who tried to watch at that time was alerted to the fact that something was being kept from them. During political unrest in Fiji last summer, the Sunday edition of the Fiji Times was published blank, except for a statement announcing that content had been censored.

The power of blank can be great, and surely Google knows that. I don’t blame them for perceiving their Chinese operations as a waste of time and money if they will continue to be censored and have their systems hacked by the government, and I would be very surprised if they do not carry out their threat to leave. It won’t be long before the people of China are left without even a blank from Google, and the dream of media literacy slips further away.

–Emily Long

Me, Myself and Media: Ten Years in Review

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

New years lend themselves to reflection, but this is especially true for new decades. I am no exception, but what strikes me as I look back is how closely my personal development has tracked with the development of new media and new technologies. I started college in 1999, back when the .edu email address as standard issue for incoming students was still a pretty new concept. I was no longer identified by whatever silly nickname informed my first email address I used in high school. For the next four years, my online correspondence and identity was linked with a handle assigned to me by some computer system, and there was nothing I could do to change it. In high school, I had a name, but as I began to pass into independent adulthood, I had a user ID.

The first time masses of people around me believed the end of the world was near was with Y2K, all because computers might not be able to understand a date change. Of course, life went on, and when 9/11 happened, the Internet was the first stop for those of us who couldn’t get an intelligible news story from the bewildered commentators on TV in the student union. For me, television was the only media that was able to fully communicate the destruction and fear of that day and those that followed. The images were somehow comforting. If I had only learned of the events by radio or through still pictures (video was not yet commonly found online), I know that my imagination would have dreamed up something even worse than reality.

Also in 2001, I got my first cell phone, since I finally had a car at school and my parents were worried about me driving between Chicago and Champaign by myself with no phone to use in an emergency. Though less clunky than the car phone we had in the family minivan, this one was still fairly cumbersome. I could fit a whopping twelve names in my speed-dial, got whatever ringtone the thing came with, and the digits on the screen looked similar to the digits on a clock radio.  By comparison, I can now program a nearly infinite number of contacts into my phone, have the choice of thousands of ringtones which can be customized to match the person calling me, plus I can watch video, check email, take pictures, send pictures, play games, play music, organize my calendar, get directions and much more that would have been a challenge for the desktop computer I had in college.

I graduated college in 2003, and when I moved to New York City for graduate school a few months later, I purchased a refurbished laptop to replace my ancient desktop PC. I upgraded to a snazzy new flip phone with a color screen. I purchased my first television, which also had a VHS and DVD player. Early in 2004, I met the man who is now my husband—through something called Friendster. Also in my grad school years, I first heard of something called “media literacy” in a class I took with Todd Gitlin, and I was hooked. The next year, pinching pennies while writing my thesis, I began a personal experiment/money-saving venture where I cut out TV altogether, and used the set solely for watching videos and DVDs. I quickly came to love the absence of commercials in my apartment, and found that watching things on demand from my library was far better than living by a schedule devised by someone else.

The innovations since 2006 may have been greater in number, but none impacted my life as much as the earlier years. As I grew more independent in my own life, the media and technology industries seemed to grow with me, making their products more accessible, personalized and interactive. I used to feel embarrassed when I got upset with my computer for losing a file or with my phone for dropping a call. With technology having played such a large role in my life, it was easy to put my gadgets through a process of anthropomorphosis. Ten years ago, I was being taught that media happens to me—like it or not, you get an email address, crashing computers will end our planet. On the surface it seems that now, I happen to media—watching what I want when I want it, choosing wallpaper for my smart phone, creating an online space to socialize with people I choose, loading up my laptop with any number of applications and programs to adapt it to my needs. But the more I think about my relationship with media then, now and into the future, one thing seems certain: The line of control will always be blurry. The pursuit of media literacy is just one way to keep that power in check.

–Emily Long

Give the gift of media literacy in 2010!

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

Media literacy can change lives.
Each week, the average youth watches a full 24 hours of television. Recent studies show that without skills to think critically about media like TV, young people are more likely to smoke, become obese and do worse in school. When you donate to The LAMP, you invest in our programs bringing free media literacy training to hundreds of New York City youth, parents and educators.

Donate now!

I Support The Lamp

“I hope we have more awesome experiences like this!”

Digital Remix students“This workshop was an awesome experience because we learned how to use iMovie and how to edit commercials…
We learned how to use sound, text, pictures, movies, and special effects on iMovie to create a remix of the commercials. [LAMP Education Director] Katherine [Fry] was talking about a special program called The LAMP (Learning About Multimedia Project) where she taught us about how commercials have hidden messages and how some can lie to persuade people to buy their product…I thank everyone in MOUSE Sqaud for an awesome experience on that day. I hope we have more awesome experiences like this!”


–Yvette, age 19, Queens; student of The LAMP’s “Digital Remix” workshop sponsored by MOUSE

Join Our Mailing List

The LAMP will not share or sell your email address.  Period.

See LAMP students in action!
LAMPcamp 2009
Click the image above for a video about our first-ever summer program, LAMPcamp, and browse student work.
The LAMP is on:

LAMP delicious
LAMP SU
LAMP YouTube
LAMP Twitter
LAMP facebook
LAMP flickr

Quick Links

The Salahis, Facebook and the Power Wall

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Michaele Salahi getting friendly with Joe Biden

Michaele Salahi getting friendly with Joe Biden

Like everyone else, I couldn’t help but hear about Michaele and Tareq Salahi. On Thanksgiving morning, I was eating breakfast with my parents in the hotel where we were staying, and that same bit of footage–Michaele and Tareq enter, wave, walk; Michaele holds him back for another camera opp–played over and over again. At first I didn’t realize the magnitude of what had happened; that this was a major security breach and not just a publicity stunt or a misdirected invitation. Then reading online today in the New York Times, I learned of still another sin the Salahis committed–they put the pictures up on Facebook!

Now, aside from the obvious stupidity of publicizing pictures of yourself posing with leaders of the free world at a very exclusive party to which you were not invited, I have to say I disagree with part of David Segal’s criticism. He points out that by posting photos on Facebook, the Salahis erred by making public the traditional, time-honored Power Wall (i.e., physical wall of photos of yourself with important people). The Power Wall used to exist only in offices or homes, but not anymore. Years ago, if a photo was to be seen at all, it had to be printed, so the print itself was not a big deal. Now, choosing to print a photo indicates that it is something special, and so the pictures you display in private are carefully curated by you or someone close to you. For the purpose of striking awe in someone sitting across from your desk, a traditional Power Wall is still effective, but the days of owning your image are long gone. That client can walk out of your office, find you on Facebook or Flickr, and see any old picture they want; the word ‘authorized’ means very little. Your real power wall is on Facebook, and you demonstrate power by making sure you are not tagged in photos you don’t like. One would think this would be understood in an Administration which was put in place due largely to its wielding of social media.

While a large part of this has to do with social media and technology, another part of this has to do with media itself. One of the basic points of being media literate is understanding the power of imagery, which is something we generally take for granted. The Salahis certainly did. I have plenty of friends who have posted photos on Facebook from the time they met a famous actor, shook the hand of Barack Obama as he campaigned for President, and even one friend who snapped a shot of herself with the Dalai Lama, but the difference is that no rules were violated in the process. It’s really the very well-known context of Michaele Salahi’s shot with Joe Biden that makes it so inappropriate to share, and the fact that she shared it demonstrates idiocy, naivete, lack of foresight or all of the above. But if Biden–or any other White House officials who allowed personal cameras into the event–didn’t think that photo would turn up later, he was not much better.

–Emily Long

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.

Regret, Resignation and News Literacy

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

Sean Hannity

Sean Hannity

I’m guessing most of you heard on the news this morning that CNN anchor Lou Dobbs resigned as of last night, after much controversy over his remarks about the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate.  Also last night, Sean Hannity apologized to viewers for splicing footage from two different political rallies to make one appear larger, and acknowledged that Jon Stewart was right.  What is going on?

These incidents strike me as a possible indication that we are becoming more news literate. I do believe that as far as television news is concerned, the line between journalism and editorializing seems to have blurred. I’m happy that people are asking questions, and they are asking them loudly enough that networks have no choice but to respond. I applaud CNN for its choice to remove a pundit masquerading as a reporter, and though Sean Hannity may continue to carry that mantle, I applaud him for apologizing. I have no more or less respect for his work, but it takes a lot for people to admit they were wrong, and perhaps even more so when such an admission takes place in front of audience of millions. The news frequently gets things wrong, and it frequently oversteps the boundaries of strict journalism, but it is not often that the people involved make such public apologies. (Even retractions are typically found only in fine print.) It makes me proud that the notion of news reporting as fallible is catching on.

Meanwhile, we have not heard the last from either Lou Dobbs or Sean Hannity, and we will certainly continue to hear irresponsible reporting and poorly-argued editorials. News literacy continues to be of key importance in a media-saturated environment; simply removing someone doesn’t make us more literate. But it does provide a strong example to back up what we at The LAMP say often: When we demand smarter media, the media producers will respond. After all, the best argument for removing Lou Dobbs, at least from a CNN perspective, is the ratings drop.

–Emily Long

Gaslight: November in Media History

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

Tina Fey and Seth Myers picket at Rockefeller Center.

Tina Fey and Seth Myers picket at Rockefeller Center.

November 5, 2007 marked the first day of a strike by the Writers Guild of America-West and WGA-East which lasted one hundred days. The main issue was the compensation received by writers, which was meager when compared with large studio profits, and also how writers were to be compensated for reality and online content. The WGA strike is significant for many reasons: It was a clear turning point in the business of digital media, cost Hollywood billions of dollars, and drew attention to the plight of thousands of people working behind the scenes of media which most of us take for granted as being free (not to mention illegally downloadable). On February 26, 2008, a new contract was ratified by the union, and writers went back to work with new rights and protections. However, that contract is up in 2011, and a lot can happen between now and then in the world of media and entertainment. The issue will linger as long as we have an Internet, but the WGA strike  represented the arguably first big shot across the bow of the online media business.

On November 13, 1969, United States Vice President Spiro Agnew gave a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, accusing the nation’s television networks of using bias and distortion in their reporting. He further urged viewers to “register their complaints on bias through mail to the networks and phone calls to local stations.” Agnew lamented that the media was dictated by a small group of men, informing the opinions of an estimated 40 millions Americans who watched the nightly news, and who had recently seen several newsmen harshly critique President Nixon’s November 3 speech on Vietnam minutes after it was delivered. Forty years later, this event is especially significant amid the conflict between Barack Obama’s White House and Roger Ailes’ Fox News, with White House Communications Director Anita Dunn saying that the Administration is “not going to legitimize them as a news organization.” Then, as now, the White House was trying to define the meaning and purpose of news, and possibly reign in an independent and free press. In both cases, it seems, the Presidents might have been wishing that Americans were just a little more news literate.

The Hollywood Ten with their lawyers

The Hollywood Ten with their lawyers

November 25, 1947: A group of ten screenwriters and directors, known collectively as “The Hollywood Ten” are fired from their jobs in the first systemic Hollywood blacklist. Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner, Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott and Dalton Trumbo were all held in contempt of court one day prior for refusing to testify before the House of Un-American Activities (HUAC). Ultimately, 41 artists were called to testify, and over 320 people were eventually added to the blacklist that kept them from working in Hollywood. HUAC feared that these artists were  Communists, imbuing their work with propaganda designed to recruit members to the Communist Party. Those who refused to “name names” of anyone they knew who might be a Communist were added to the list, leaving many prominent voices silent, livelihoods destroyed and promising careers cut short. Those who did testify were despised by many of Hollywood’s elite, including Elia Kazan, who, when honored with the 1999 Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences, was met with protest; many Oscar attendees refused to stand when he took the podium to accept the award. The blacklisting of the Hollywood 10 was a pivotal moment in American cinematic history, both acknowledging and condemning the power of film.

“Smart Choices” made easy? Indeed…

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

Reeses Puffs, named one of the least nutritious but heavily marketed cereals

Reese's Puffs, named one of the least nutritious but heavily marketed cereals

A few days ago, Yale University released the results of a study conducted around the television advertising of cereal to children. Also a few days ago, according to an editorial in this morning’s L.A. Times, the Food & Drug Administration made some noise about plans by the food industry to add “Smart Choices” labels to cereals and other foods which are high in sugar and other non-nutritious additives. On the one hand, I applaud the FDA for stepping up to protect consumers from misleading information, but on the other hand, I’m still furious it took this long. Really–the FDA is just noticing this now? For far too long, it has been too easy to slap a “Smart Choices” label on less-than-smart food.

Among the findings of the Yale study was research demonstrating that marketers in the cereal industry are pretty liberal with their health claims.  For example, Lucky Charms, Golden Grahams, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Cookie Crisp and Reese’s Puffs average three or more health claims per box.  A look at the Nutrition Facts box on Lucky Charms reveals that although it does provide several vitamins, it also contains a lot of sugar–14 grams per serving, and that’s a one cup/35 gram serving. And, that one serving fills 10% of the recommended daily intake of both carbohydrates and sodium. Perhaps I’m being cynical, but on top of this, I doubt that most kids eating Lucky Charms are only eating one cup.

Ok, so Lucky Charms is only advertising its strong points. That’s typical; if I wanted to sell a product I would also choose to accentuate the positive while downplaying the negative. But the real trap here is that most people see those few positive things, and forget to ask about the rest. In my opinion, the fact that Lucky Charms is 41% sugar outweighs the benefit of the calcium and vitamin D in it, since I can get my calcium and vitamin D in lots of other ways that don’t also require me to overload on refined sugar. Plus, research shows that fewer consumers under 30 years old are looking at nutrition labels.

The application of media literacy to  this issue is clear. Consumers and children are not asking questions about how something is being marketed to them (why are all the kids cereals on the bottom shelf at the supermarket?), nor can they identify the constructed message which may not tell the whole truth up front.  Like I said, I’m glad the FDA is doing something, and I hope the momentum continues. Better late than never.

–Emily Long

Grassroots.org
Creative Commons License