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

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

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.

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.

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?

• 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.

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.

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

However, once a few minutes of the presentation had gone by, it became very clear to me that the DA’s presentation was going to take a very different stance on the reality of our youth’s Internet habits.

In response to the article, in the Daily News, our Education Director, Katherine Fry, and I wrote a letter to the editor. We post the letter here for those of you to chime in:

Response to
Brooklyn DAs Warnings About Web Predators

On Tuesday, February 5^th, the Daily News reported on a Brooklyn District Attorney-sponsored talk last week at the Dodge YMCA on the subject of protecting kids from online predators.  The tone of the article, and the talk itself, was one of fear.  No doubt parents are concerned about what their children are engaged in on the Internet, about who they are talking to, and about how much information they are giving out.  It makes sense that parents want to keep their children safe.  But it doesn’t make sense to scare them unnecessarily.

The D.A. talk referred to statistics about children’s online exposure to unwanted sexual material, solicitation and harassment as reported in a recent University of New Hampshire study, but without proper context.  Left out was an explanation of what, exactly, was considered a sexual solicitation within the confines of the study, and the fact that many solicitations come from peers, and often from acquaintances.  With very little online investigation, you will find that the study’s authors themselves have posted information putting the numbers in a context that is less scary than the tone created in the D.A.’s talk.  The researchers also strongly urge that, for example, when talking to parents and educators about web safety, it’s important never to say that “one in seven young people had received unwanted sexual solicitations” without putting the larger social context around the numbers.  When you leave that out, you’re only scaring people, not helping them to make good choices.  But that is exactly what happened in the talk and in the article. And when a session such as this one, as the article pointed out, is aimed at adults who may not use the Internet regularly—or at all—it is necessary, and responsible, to not only talk about real risks, but also real benefits for children, teens and adults.

The Internet as a social-networking tool is here to stay and everyone needs more education about issues such as identity, privacy, and learning, among many others, surrounding this far-reaching communication system.  The web is changing how we communicate and even how we understand each other and the world.  The best way for parents to cope with this new world in which their children are growing up is to learn and grow in it with them.  Certainly you want to see your children’s Myspace and other web pages.  But don’t assume that because they have them they are immediately at risk from adult predators bent on harming them.  Keep the lines of communication open with your young web surfers; try to accept that this is an important way for them to communicate,  create, and have fun; and have them show you, regularly, what they do and where they go on the web.  Keeping yourself open to something you don’t know much about yet—and are understandably fearful of–will go a long way in your own education. There are many digital media education resources available to parents and educators that go beyond fear-mongering. Some are right here in Brooklyn.

Signed,

Katherine Fry, PhD

Education Director

DC Vito

Executive Director

The LAMP (Learning About Multimedia Project)

http://thelampnyc.org