Posts Tagged ‘New York’

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

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!

Vaccination for the media?

Friday, September 25th, 2009

As some of you may know, I am the co-chair of the Youth Services Committee for Brooklyn’s Community Board Six. I’ve served on the committee for several years, and in fact The LAMP was born from my work there. Last night we had our first meeting of the year, and were given a presentation by a representative from the New York City Health Department about the steps they are taking to combat the seemingly imminent H1N1 virus. The information she provided was excellent, and if you live in the city I do suggest you visit the flu information section of the DOH website.

When we arrived at the obligatory Q&A portion of the presentation, I raised my hand and asked if, among the various public awareness campaigns planned, they had anything in place to address misinformation from the media. The response was essentially that they have a PR department.

Really? That’s it?

When the H1N1 virus first broke last spring, the media descended on the story with zeal. Of course, it is part of the job of news media to keep us informed, but what happened last spring went far beyond adequate coverage, both in the volume of stories reported and the level of drama within them.  As reported by the Pew Center for Excellence in Journalism, 31% of the news stories sampled in the week of April 27-May 3 were about the H1N1 virus–as PEJ further points out, this was the same week in which Barack Obama reached the 100-day mark of his presidency, Arlen Spector switched party affiliations and Chrysler declared bankruptcy. By April 26, before nearly one-third of the media was devoted to the flu, traffic to cdc.gov spiked a whopping 442%. Extensive coverage is no doubt a product of a 24-hour news cycle with space to fill, but as previously stated, there was plenty of other news in the spring that perhaps deserved more coverage and analysis.

With so much media coverage, it can be even more difficult than usual to determine what to trust. It would behoove the DOH not only to send messages about how to avoid or vaccinate against the flu, but to establish themselves as the definitive first source of information for New York residents. I know that this is partly the point of their public awareness campaigns, and that the DOH is not a news outlet (maybe they should be?), but they should be prepared to deal with misinformation and help people cut through the noise to get them through to what they need to know.

–D.C. Vito

The Means, The Ends & A Glass of Fat

Thursday, September 10th, 2009

On August 31, the New York City Health Department launched a public awareness ad campaign against soda and other beverages that are high in sugar. The need for the campaign is clear; as we delve deeper into the debate about health care reform, we are urged to consider health issues that afflict a sizable proportion of Americans, such as Type 2 diabetes and obesity. But there are some people, including Bob Garfield of Advertising Age’s Ad Review blog, who think the ad goes too far. From a personal standpoint, the ad makes me sick to look at (a nice irony, given that it’s for health). However, as stated above, obesity is a major problem in our country; according to the CDC, over 34% of Americans aged 20 and older are considered obese, and 1 in 7 children also meet criteria for obesity.

That said, is the ad campaign going too far if it does succeed in getting people to drink less soda and sweetened drinks? Are cause campaigns exempt from common standards of decency if they effectively market against something which we can all agree is a problem?

I’m inclined to say yes. As we move closer to Halloween, I’m bracing myself for disgustingly graphic ads for movies like Saw. I don’t like ads that are overly graphic; I find them numbingly disgusting. However, until and unless formal standards are put in place to prevent graphic ads from being published, I think the Department of Health has just as much of a right as Saw. Let it also be said, though, that this where media literacy comes in, because I think it’s important for consumers to understand why an ad might be exceedingly graphic. The team that designed the ad campaign set out to make a point. And that, they did.

What ads do you think are too graphic? Share them with us by emailing info@thelampnyc.org, with a brief explanation of your thoughts and where you found the ad. Visit The LAMP’s Ad It Up! Ad Archive to comment on other ads.

–Emily Long

The New York Post’s backhanded apology

Friday, February 20th, 2009

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

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

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

To them, no apology is due.

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

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

Is nothing sacred?

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

Upon hearing of plans by the MTA (New York City’s subway authoritative body) to ramp up their advertising throughout their property, it brought to mind a scene from Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report where the main character is trying to avoid surveillance in a world where advertisements are customized based on a scan of your retinal that identifies who you are.

The MTA has already rolled out plans where they are placing ads on the floor and ceiling of subway cars, but also now they are placing ads on the exterior shell of the subway car. The bombardment of the captive commuting audience is reprehensible, blurring the lines between the real world and the advertised world even further. But, it doesn’t stop there.

The MTA plans to gobble up every available piece of its real estate, and slather it with advertisements. That means soon the turnstiles will be covered in Nike Swooshes, the platforms of the subways will be pasted with Absolut Vodka ads, and even the walls of the tunnels will serve up the latest Microsoft gadget they’ll do their damnedest to convince you that you can’t live without.

In a city where the average adult sees over 600 instances of advertisements already, how much more are we going to take? How much more can we handle? How much more invasion into our daily thoughts and activity will we tolerate?

The LAMP at NYCyberSafety Summit 2008

Thursday, August 7th, 2008

We’ve just received an invitation to host a table at Speaker Christine Quinn’s NYCyberSafety Summit at City Hall. The event will be this Saturday, August 9, and begins at 10am with speakers including our friend Rachel Dretzin, producer, writer and director of the PBS Frontline documentary, Growing Up Online. There will also be workshops for adults, educators and young people, covering topics such as online gang recruitment, how to integrate the Internet into the classroom, Internet safety laws and more. The LAMP will be side-by-side with Microsoft, Google, Symantec and other industry leaders helping families and educators learn how to have a safe and positive experience online. Click here for the flyer with more information, and we hope to see you on Saturday!

Strapped in

Sunday, March 30th, 2008

Many of us rely on the MTA for our mode of transportation. Whether we use the buses, the subways or both, we are somewhat at the mercy of the Transit Authority when it comes to our commuting experience. Luckily, there is an organization that takes great effort in providing a critical analysis of the MTA’s transportation network. NYPIRG (New York Public Interest Research Group) has been running a Straphangers Campaign for over 10 years, where they release a report card on the various subway lines based on the following criteria:

  • Amount of service – scheduled amount of service
  • Dependability of service - % of trains arriving at scheduled time, breakdown rate
  • Comfort/usability – chance of getting a seat, interior cleanliness, adequacy of in-car announcements

Based on how well a particular line does in these areas, NYPIRG gives the line a grade from A to F. I was contemplating these criteria, and felt that they fall just short of what should determine a subway line’s quality. Depending on where you’re going and how long your commute is, you are a captive customer which I am sure is something the MTA realizes when they contemplate the advertising they plaster all over their property. I’ve often looked at the ads, some that have run in one form or another since I first moved to the city over 8 years ago, as a nuisance and a contributing factor to how comfortable my commute is.

I believe that NYPIRG’s Straphangers should include an evaluation of the advertisements in subways, buses and stations. Perhaps the following criteria could be considered:

  • % of ads that are Public Service Announcements for MTA policies
  • % of ads that are timely or out of date
  • % of ads that are inappropriate for the typical audience a particular line serves

This last one is particular important because the MTA acts as a proxy school bussing system, and i wonder how many parents would approve of the Department of Education consenting to let beer companies advertise on the big yellow buses.

Talking About Client 9 with Your Family & Students

Friday, March 14th, 2008

Sensitive items appear in news media every day, from devastating natural disasters to horrendous acts of violence. As much as we might wish to shield our younger ones from some very adult issues, it is not always possible. In a week of news that has been dominated by Eliot Spitzer and his involvement with a prostitution ring, it’s a good time to think about how to talk with your kids.

With newspapers bearing headlines such as “Hooker Happy” and “Ho No!” being sold on every corner, lots of questions can come up in the mind of a kid. Ultimately, the most important thing is not to shun that conversation. Be an active listener. You don’t have to lie, but you don’t have to divulge every little detail if it’s not appropriate. Try to think of times like these as opportunities to get to know your son or daughter better, and to engage their sense of right and wrong.

For a great resource about talking with your kids about the news (and other things), check out PBS’s Talking With Kids series.

For examples of how some families discussed the Spitzer scandal, read this brief article from the New York Times.

Spitzer in the News

Wednesday, March 12th, 2008

Like everyone else, I’ve been focused on, and riveted by, the news of Governor Spitzer’s recent resignation and the events leading up to it.  The headlines, particularly in the New York papers, have gleefully blasted the whole debacle on the front pages in the past few days.  The pundits are going crazy with this one.  And it doesn’t look like it’s going to end very soon.

While it’s difficult not to watch a train wreck in progress, I have to wonder about this story as news. What?  The champion-of-morality New York state governor gets caught participating in a prostitution ring, ending his political career, and that’s not news?  Certainly it is dramatic and timely.  It even has high consequence because the people of the state are experiencing the loss of this once-promising leader.  These news values–drama, timeliness and consequence–are touted by journalists as reason enough for an event to be considered news.  But while everyone’s busy chewing on this juicy bit, it’s helpful to consider another, less tantalizing perspective.

This is ratings stuff, it’s high circulation stuff, it’s titillating and it makes money, but it’s not really that important.  We’re not paying close enough attention to the news that really matters to us.  What happened to the history-making Democratic primary?  What about the economy, and specifically Bush’s economic stimulus package and it’s consequences for the economy?  And how did the economy get to where it is today? Oh, and what about the war in Iraq?

Anyone?

Back in 1985 media scholar Neil Postman published a cross-over (from scholarly to mainstream) bestseller, “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” which explained, elegantly and simply, how television had changed the cultural conversation from the age of print because of its strengths as a visual, high-stimulation medium and its weakness in discouraging logical thought, the kind of thinking encouraged by reading and writing.  Postman spent a good deal of that book and others decrying what the introduction of electronic media meant for news and for the health of the Democracy.

While not everyone agrees completely with Postman’s dire observation–that we are, literally, amusing ourselves to death–I have to agree with him that when the major forum of cultural conversation turned from print to television, we saw a dramatic shift in news.  News has become that which makes good pictures.  It has become increasingly about entertainment.   As a news historian I’m well aware that news has always contained elements of the sensational, from print to the Internet, and there was NEVER a time when news was objective.  But in the age of electronic media we’re more easily swayed by bright lights and the drama of the moment (which happens to change moment by moment in this age of 24 hour news) than we were when we only had print sources to rely on for news and information.

Today we have little time for information that isn’t sexy at all, but happens to be extremely relevant.  In short, the switch from one dominant mode of communication to another brings with it enormous changes that have political, social and cultural consequences.  The Internet is quickly becoming the new mode of conversation.  I wonder at how the news is being shaped differently now as the Internet supplants television.

Politicians have always paid hookers for sex.  It’s not a good thing for anyone involved, but it’s always happened.  Wars, the economy, and broad-based social problems have always been there for citizens to work on.  Which of these are we encouraged to spend our time considering?  The news media aren’t just presenting us with what’s out there.  They’re making decisions based on a number of factors, including money and medium.  It’s good to be literate in all of the factors involved in shaping our news, and in shaping us.  And it’s good to start early.

Katherine Fry

Education Director

Grassroots.org
Creative Commons License