Protestor image from ritholtz.com, as found on occupywallstreet.tumblr.com

One month into the Occupy protests and I’ve been fascinated with the media coverage of the movement. From the media stations set up by protesters at Occupy Wall Street to the media blackout-turned-circus surrounding the protests, there is so much -and at times so little- being discussed. Case in point: Internet coverage versus television coverage of the protests.

A few weeks ago Emily Long posted a piece about the Pew/Knight Foundation report findings on how differently people interact with the media. The research tells us, “people younger than 40 are more likely to use the Internet for more news on a wider variety of topics” whereas “people 40 or older are more likely to begin with newspapers, then go to TV stations and then to the Internet.”  The 99% over 40 who are largely affected by the issues addressed through the Occupy Wall Street protests are the ones turning to television, not the Internet, first. Surprisingly, TV networks aren’t offering the most well-rounded coverage of the movement for their viewers.

From Fox News to CNN, it’s as though the same conversation is happening again and again: What is this movement about? The responses range from “nothing” to “hippies” to “the economy” and while some pundits and guests have offered important critique, it is often framed in opposition. There have only been a few people following the protests that have taken them seriously and offered them some sort of depth on television: Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell.

The Internet, especially Twitter, Facebook and various civic action organizations, have helped the movement spread globally and inspired global conversations and criticisms of the protests. There are various Livestreams, independent news organizations, and even The Occupy Wall Street Journal. Still, it’s not surprising that network television stations are engaging a much more superficial discussion; one which seems to show so little of what the movement is really about. This is the coverage that much of our country is watching, and there is so much they’re missing because of it.

As many critical voices point out, this movement against Wall Street is a symbol for larger inequalities that have long existed for people in our society. Poverty is racialized and people of color in the U.S. have experienced class discrimination since the founding of this country. From the issue of gay marriage to the Prison Industrial Complex, all of these social issues directly affect and are affected by the economy, and perhaps this is a movement where all of these issues can be addressed. This conversation is long overdue and while the Internet is the place for it to happen, I wish it was more accessible to those citizens who, as the Pew/Knight Foundation points out, turn to TV instead of the Internet for their nightly news.

–Emily Breitkopf

Emily Breitkopf is a contributing writer to The LAMPpost. You can read more of her work on her blog, Kids and Gender and follow her on Twitter @emilybreitkopf.

Elisa Kreisinger

This month, we interviewed Elisa Kreisinger of Pop Culture Pirate, and truly a pioneer in the world of video remix, women’s rights activism and media literacy. Elisa is a feminist video artist creating more stories about women that don’t revolve around men (or babies). Her most recent work includes Queer Housewives of New York City, Sex and the Remix: QueerCarrie and the forthcoming MadWomen/MadMen remix series.

Elisa is Media Fellow at the Center for Social Media at American University and works with the Women’s Media Center and Eileen Fisher Leadership Institute. She speaks about the importance of women talking back to pop-culture throughout the US and Europe, most recently at SPARK Summit, Eileen Fisher, National Conference for Media Reform, Museum for Film and Television, Berlin and SxSW. You can find Elisa’s work on BravoTV.com, Art 21, the front page of the Boston Globe, in BitchMag, on Salon.com and Jezebel as well as in festivals and galleries throughout the US. She’s currently speaking at colleges and universities about the importance of making video remix.

When did you begin remixing videos? What drove you to do it? I began remixing in 2007 when the community was dominated by lots of archival footage and entertainment remixes. It was the Bush administration so political remixes were also gaining popularity. I was driven to continue remixing when I became involved in feminist online communities. This community consists mostly of women writing smart and snarky responses to pop culture. This community was and still is generating massive amounts of written work. I emphasize written work because the talk-back occurs mostly in blog form. There was, and still is so much participation in this community that posts are retweeted, Facebook Liked, commented on and re-posted all over the web within minutes. It’s a great time for feminist bloggers but I didn’t fit in.

I faced a problem: I didn’t have an interest in the entertainment content produced by traditional video remixers. And the content created by feminist pop-culture bloggers left little room for new participation. My solution was to combine the two: use the remix technique, instead of words, to respond to pop-culture. I wanted to show, not just tell what a new media could look like.

Have you ever gotten in trouble for copyright infringement, or had your fair use rights challenged by mainstream media producers whose work you remix? Remixes are highly eligible to be considered fair use of copyright content. In short, fair use is a portion of copyright law that protects creators’ use of copyright material for comment, critique and other purposes. To learn more about the rights we have as video creators, check out the Center for Social Media’s Best Practices guide.

YouTube and other video sharing sites don’t always acknowledge creator’s rights and often remove your video at the right’s holder’s request.

I had my QueerHousewives of New York City remixes removed from YouTube after I illustrated how online communities talk back to heavily-branded pop-culture during a SxSW panel. The Vice President of NBC/Universal joined the conversation and the next day, the one-year old videos with comments and thousands of hits, were removed for copyright violation.

This is why it’s so important that we save videos, create back up accounts, capture screenshots of tweets, comments, blog posts, label them, back them up because it might be the only archival evidence we have of our communities’ existence and our successes in online spaces.

Elisa at work

This video remix series contained 3 remixes that transform the original narrative of Sex and the City into a queer-positive story: due to their constant dissatisfaction with the opposite sex, the women of Sex and the City question their desire, will and strength to continue following the expectations of conventional heterosexuality.

I wanted to create a remix that re-told a story from a feminist perspective and I needed a pop-culture icon women could identify, even if they didn’t watch the original show. Sex and the City was that show and became a good platform for experimenting with remixed storytelling.

What kind of change do you hope to see as a result of your work?
By creating the types of feminist stories we want to see in addition to talking, reading and blogging about them, we take a departure from the approach where we drill down on negative images of women in the media. An approach that often left me with the notion that media is bad and I’m a victim of it. An approach that often left me really depressed.

My hope is that we can collectively turn the anger and resentment we have toward the media into something practical: a product that media literacy addressed in theory only.

We’ve run into a lot of people who are reluctant to pull back the curtains on their favorite TV shows, movies, celebrities, products…do you ever experience the same thing? How do you address it? I always start my visiting artist talks or youth workshops with “I’m a feminist, but I enjoy Real Housewives of many cities.” Most everyone feels as though they must compromise their politics to be entertained so it’s common ground for us all to be both a fan and a critic of something.

For me, first and foremost I am a feminist, but I am also a consumer of popular culture. As such, I inhabit the only place I can: a site of ambivalence, contradiction, and compromise. There’s no such thing as a ‘bad feminist’ or ‘bad critical thinker’.
Talking about how there are paradoxes and contradictions within ourselves is always a good thing, no matter what the take home lesson may be.

In addition to creating video remixes, you work with young people through workshops and events. How do they respond to the idea of remix as a tool for storytelling and expression? I’ve been on a speaking tour of east coast colleges and here, students respond well because the remix process inherently changes the focus of learning from something that’s individual into an act of community engagement.

In my work with high school students through my remix workshops, I’ve found that the beauty of remix is that it sparks a discussion about representation, pop culture and technology. Because it uses recognizable footage, remix becomes the spoon full of sugar that makes the media literacy and critical thinking theory go down.

As an outsider to these classrooms, I’m able to wrap the existing curriculum and discussion into into something fun they can easily digest.

I recently became a Media Fellow at the Center for Social Media at American University and I hope to continue to bring remix and fair use to classrooms throughout the country.

Of course your remixes are like your children and you love them all for different reasons. But if someone was new to your work and remix culture, which of your videos would you recommend s/he watch first? I would recommend watching “Peacemaker” because it takes a critical look at reality TV from a fan’s perspective. In this remix, Adrienne Maloof of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills attempts to make peace and end the bitter rivalries between the female ensemble cast, no doubt induced by endless bottles of wine and Bravo TV producers. Maloof’s efforts counter the reality-tv enforced stereotype that female friendships are catty, petty and filled with jealousy.

Follow Elisa on Twitter: @elisakreisinger

Print ad for "Whitney" on NBC

It’s fall; finally a new season of television to aid in human procrastination. With a new season comes critique and there’s been a lot of discussion about a few of the new network television shows starring women: Pan Am, The Playboy Club, Two Broke Girls, Whitney, and New Girl. While I’ve read praise for The New Girl (and Pan Am is becoming a guilty pleasure of mine) there have been some excellent critical pieces on the rise of Retro-Sexism through women characters on network TV.

This is not surprising. Our society’s current politics are highlighted by a self-contradicting Social Conservatism which is both driven by and validated by the Palin/Bachmann ‘girl power’ trope. As we see in the presidential debates, Social Conservative politics are consistently anti-women but their politics are validated by its supporters through the fact that Palin and Bachmann support these policies…and they’re women. Network television is moving in the same direction, with leading women characters enacting sexism nightly. While, as Slate’s Jessica Grose points out, cable television provides stronger female characters I can’t help but ask the obvious question: Why all the white women?

It’s a question that the history of American television (and society in general) can easily answer. Considering the recent report that 77% of all television is directed by white males, this lack of representation is not at all surprising. Melissa Silverstein on Indiewire points out that these stats are “abominably bad for women and people of color.” They’re especially bad for women of color. In all of the new network television shows with leading women there is not one woman of color playing a leading character. Not only are these shows misrepresenting white women, they’re simply not representing women of color. While I find criticism of the Retro-Sexism in these shows to be timely and relevant, there are some pieces of the dialogue missing. It’s the same old discussion that sees sexism separate from racism so that women of color become invisible in the conversation.

Racism and sexism aren’t only issues for those oppressed by it. Representation on a medium as widespread as television is vital for every viewer because, as of now, television makes it look like the country is 90% white and that’s deeply disturbing considering the reality. And most of the white people on TV are really lame in the first place. As for interesting white women on television, all I can say is thank god for Tina Fey. The only good thing about January is going to be 30 Rock.

–Emily Breitkopf

Emily Breitkopf is a contributing writer to The LAMPpost. You can read more of her work on her blog, Kids and Gender and follow her on Twitter @emilybreitkopf.

ARCHIE: Hey, let me ask you something. How long you notice this kid Roger that was in with Mike?
STEVE: Oh, a couple of years, ever since he started coming to the shop.
ARCHIE: A couple of years. Now you’re a man of the world. Now you must know that this kid is kind of a la-di-da, right?
STEVE: Is that what Mike thinks of Roger?
ARCHIE: Forget about what Mike thinks. I can’t even tell you what he thinks. Here, put them glasses over here, I want to go with you once more. Go ahead. (Steve takes the beers, moves them to another table.) Come on, let me get even with you one more time. Go on, get it up there. (Steve and Archie grab hands in an arm-wrestling hold on the table.)
STEVE: What does Mike think, Arch?
ARCHIE: Aw, Mike, geez. Well for one thing, he thinks that friend of his, Roger, is straight. And for another thing–well Steve, you’re gonna wanna bust him wide open when I tell you this, I don’t know where he gets these brainstorms, but he thinks that you’re–geez, I can’t even say it to you, Steve.
STEVE: He’s right, Arch.
ARCHIE: Huh?
STEVE: He’s right. (Steve slams Archie’s arm down on the table.)
ARCHIE: Oh, you mean he’s right about his friend Roger there.
STEVE: About everything.

This may seem tame to us now, but back then it was a brave move, especially for a new show on a major network, CBS. Since then, gay characters have continued to appear on television shows, playing central roles on shows like Ellen, Will & Grace and Glee. We still have a ways to go before homosexuality is accepted as a normalcy on television, or that gay characters are represented in a proportion approximating the gay population. Still, it’s worth celebrating the first step on that journey, forty years ago today.

How did you get started in children’s television?

I always loved children’s television. When I was little my brother and I watched the entire PBS line-up: Sesame Street, Mister Rogers, Electric Company and ZOOM.

And I always really liked kids. I babysat a lot and worked at day care centers and camps growing up. I had no idea that these two really strong interests as a kid would later become what I do as an adult – but they did! And the play research actually suggests this is true for most people: How you play as a child is often who you become as an adult!

When I got to Skidmore, where I went to college, I was ‘found’ by a psychology professor, Mary Ann Foley, who changed my life. She is my mentor and became my guide for all things psychology and research and interviewing kids.

At the same time, I saw the movie Big, which crazily enough, also changed my life. After I watched that movie I realized that I wanted to be Tom Hanks’ character (Josh). I wanted to be the person in a boardroom full of adults thinking like the kid/‘end-user.’ And when the room full of adults passed around what they thought was going to be the next ‘hottest’ toy on the toy store shelves, I wanted to see it from a kid’s perspective and say, unequivocally, “What’s so fun about that?” or “I don’t get it!” if the product did not consider the kids’ point of view. This led me to the base all of my subsequent work in formative research on the philosophy that the only way to understand what children are capable of doing, what appeals to them, and what they know, is to ask them!

Once I found these inspirations, I looked for jobs and companies and an educational program that would get me closer to being Josh by applying my skills in psychology, research and interviewing kids.

You’re also a co-creator of Think It Ink It Publishing. Can you tell us a little more about it, and how you came up with the idea?

Think It Ink It Publishing are professionally illustrated wordless picture books in which kids write the story and become authors. The concept is designed to promote creative writing for children from the ages of 4-12 years old. As the importance of writing is being equated with the importance of reading, our professionally illustrated wordless picture books provide an entertaining and motivating platform for children to practice writing and be published.

The idea for Think It Ink It Publishing was created when my business partners, who are agents and illustrators, had an illustrator who created a beautifully illustrated book walk into their offices looking for a writer. At this moment there were two options on the table: 1) find a writer; 2) publish a wordless picture book. With this choice they connected with me for referrals to writers and/or to think about kids’ perspectives and thoughts about wordless picture books.

Two things quickly came to mind. The first, when I was a student at Teachers College I was part of a program that helped parents learn to read to and with their children. I vividly recalled one of the sessions we did was with wordless picture books. Kids love them and can quickly and easily catch on to the creativity and storytelling that goes along with these books. When asked to tell the story, they tap into whatever comes to their minds and sparks their interest as they look at the pictures. They can tell stories all day long, making up new ideas or repeating the same ideas – it’s all literacy!

But for many parents wordless picture books are not a fun experience at all. As adults, we worry about getting it ‘right’ or we have stifled our creativity and imaginations and feel intimidated to ‘make things up.’ Wordless picture books that empower kids to be the authors seemed like a great opportunity to let kids actually be the storytellers and be published, and for parents to see and value their child’s creativity and get an opportunity to empower and listen to their children.

The second idea that quickly came to mind is that a blank page can be intimidating. Kids are often given writing assignments or a blank page to write but without the scaffolding provided by a clear topic or illustration.

And even though we thought it was a great idea, we knew we had to talk with the experts. So we brought mock-up books to a classroom of kids who happily offered their opinions. Even better, once this group of second-graders had our Think It Ink It Publishing creative writing books in their hands, they wouldn’t let go. They wanted to keep on writing!

Research has been very big part of your work, especially at Blue’s Clues and Super Why. Did you always get support for adhering to a strong research-based model, or did you find resistance to this?

Let me first say, I am very lucky. I have always worked with people who care about kids and who care about providing entertaining educational experiences. I met Angela Santomero, one of the creators of Blue’s Clues, at Teachers College where she was getting her Masters in Child Development and working at Nickelodeon. She and her co-creators were invested in the kid point of view. They wanted to know what kids thought of the show from an appeal, attention, comprehension and learning point of view. This is/was unusual. So together, we created a formative research process that would account for the mission of the series, the curriculum of the show, the goal of the writer for each episode and the point of view of the kids in the production of every episode.

Research was not about the researchers – it had to be egoless and ultimately about the viewer. This philosophy almost always met with little resistance because of its intention. In addition, whenever possible we tried to give the production team direct interaction with the kids. Writers were always welcome and often encouraged to come to research sessions with kids. And animatic tests were always videotaped so that we could show kids’ reactions to groups of designers and animators. This always helped get everyone as invested in the kids’ POV as the research team was.

Don’t let me make you feel as if it is easy! There is some resistance – it’s hard to make something from someone else’s perspective and make it entertaining and educational. But it is that push-and-pull that is the creative process and ultimately makes the end product better.

How would you describe your approach to designing programs for youth?

Play to learn!

How did you get interested in The LAMP?

I was lucky enough to attend an event by The Girl Scouts Research Institute about self-image in the 21st century. During questions and answers, D.C. Vito, from The LAMP, asked a very insightful and thought-provoking question. I went home and did my research on The LAMP and immediately started tweeting about the organization and their mission and work! I was immediately inspired. I feel like this is the media literacy organization I have been looking for, for years! Finally, critical thinking about media in a way that is teachable, fun for kids and incredibly empowering. I have always been interested in helping kids (and adults too) dissect and think about their sources of information – their media.

And now, it has become even more important because media is so prolific. If we don’t think about who is making this media, why they are making it, what the messages are, how people use techniques to guide consumers into thinking about something in a particular way, we are in trouble! The LAMP is the real deal. It is authentic media literacy that can be used in schools and at home to encourage people to both create better media and become better consumers of media.

We need more people to know about and use The LAMP!

First, let’s look at the methodology: The study sampled 124 hours of prime-time programming during the fall television premier season in 2005, and 128 hours during the same season in 2010, and from these samples came up with the 69.3% increase. But what about 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009? It is possible–if not highly likely–that this increase occurred gradually over five years, perhaps with a spike in the wake of the FCC decision. Cultural mores and language shifts don’t happen overnight, but the PTC paints a different picture when they fail to track programming between 2005 and 2010. Demonstrating a spike from 2009 to 2010 would have made a much more compelling argument that the FCC case has had a major impact on the use of profanity in television.

The second issue is that the study only sampled the premier season, which might be the least stable period in television programming because it is a testing period. Just this year, broadcasters put out 22 new shows. Within a month, three were canceled and, judging by ratings, eight more should be on the chopping block. TV executives expect that most of their new shows will not make it through a full season, and the decisions of what to cut are almost always based on viewership. If parents don’t want their kids to watch a certain prime-time show, they can turn it off or block it with parental controls, and essentially cast a vote for what kind of television they want to see.

Another element to consider is that language is constantly changing. For example, I can think of at least a few words which might have been widely acceptable thirty years ago but which now are considered the height of racism or sexism. It is possible that some of the profane words which were tracked–I’m thinking here about the words “crap,” “hell,” “piss,” “screw” and “suck”–might not be considered as bad today as they used to be. Rightly or wrongly, certain words and phrases become normalized over time, and their impact changes. Decency has always been difficult to define, largely because it is not fixed. The FCC itself has not been able to provide an objective set of criteria for decency, which happens to be exactly the reason why its indecency policy was ruled “unconstitutionally vague.”

Finally, at The LAMP we always want our students to consider the source of a message–who created that advertisement, reported the story or took those pictures? So in looking at the PTC study, it would be insincere not to also consider the PTC itself. As it happens, the organization was hit with some pretty bad press lately when, on October 24, the New York Times published an article exposing financial incompetence, extortion allegations, lack of due diligence and misrepresentation of membership claims. After Matthew Lasar at Ars Technica also wrote about the PTC’s decline, the organization’s eloquent public relations associate responded to Mr. Lasar via Twitter saying, “Dear @MatthewLasar – pretty lousy piece you wrote about the PTC.” The organization then followed up with a letter dismissing all claims and calling the piece a “distraction.” How’s that for a structured defense?

All of this is to say that the PTC study needs to be put into perspective. They tracked the number of times “bad” words showed up during two weeks in both 2005 and 2010, and did not provide any context or look at the content of the programs. In my opinion, content is far more important than a word as a standalone message. Shouldn’t we be looking deeper? A bad word can be damaging, but I think that any television show sending a broader message embracing racism, sexism, homophobia or any other kind of intolerance is of far greater concern and more worthy of our attention.

–Emily Long

October 9, 1985: Rupert Murdoch announces his plan to form Fox Broadcasting Company. Murdoch’s News Corp. had just completed purchase of 20th Century Fox along with television stations in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C., Dallas and Houston. As a result, News Corp had acquired an extensive film library, the rights to several television series and access to 20% of households with televisions in the United States at that time. The “big three” networks–ABC, NBC and CBS–now had true competition. The network went live exactly one year after the announcement, airing on 96 stations and reaching more than 80% of American households with TV. It has been the home of several hit television shows such as The Simpsons, Married…With Children, Arrested Development, 24, The X-Files, American Idol and Beverly Hills, 90210. These shows and others have left an indelible mark on American media and popular culture, and today Fox Broadcasting Company is the leading network among adults between the ages of 18 and 49.

October 18, 1985: Nintendo brings its Nintendo Entertainment System and Super Mario Bros. to the United States. Mario first appeared in Donkey Kong in 1981, but it wasn’t until 1985 that he became the star of his own game. First introduced in Japan on September 13, 1985, Super Mario Bros. was in the original bundle of 18 games offered with the North American launch of the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), which was launched on the same day. Although it was not the first home video gaming console (the Magnavox Odyssey of 1972 holds that honor), the NES was the first true hit in video game consoles. Over 90,000 units were sold in New York by the end of 1985, and at the time Nintendo was the company to beat in terms of video game console sales. Since the first NES, Nintendo has had its share of ups and downs but continues to put out top-selling products; last August, Nintendo’s Wii passed the 30 million sales mark in the US, and over 73 million consoles have been sold worldwide since it was launched in late 2006. As for Mario, he has appeared in over 200 games since 1981. As for Mario, he has appeared in over 200 games since 1981. It’s hard to imagine video games (or for some of us, childhood) without-a him.

October 26, 1985: The very first Blockbuster Video store opens in Dallas, TX, and home entertainment has never been the same since. As the first video rental chain, Blockbuster’s success lay in using technology to streamline the video rental process, making it easy for stores to carry and manage thousands of tapes, titles and memberships at an affordable price. Previously, video rental stores were mostly mom-and-pop stores which carried a limited number of movies, and renting a movie could be both time-consuming and expensive, especially if a tape was not returned by its due date. But with Blockbuster, movie fans had the freedom to choose from a wide variety of genres and titles at one store. 25 years later, the way people watch movies has changed and, unable to keep up, the company has just filed for bankruptcy. The increased availability for on-demand viewing has increased dramatically with TiVo, the Internet and on-demand features in cable packages. Of course, the advent of Netflix has also played a large role: Renting a movie is so efficient now, you don’t even need to leave your couch. Never mind rewind the VHS tape.

Think this guy has the right idea?

Now that all fifty states have held their midterm primaries (minus Louisiana, with an October 2 Republican house candidate runoff), we can expect election-related news and advertising to spike in the weeks leading up to the November general election. By last month, candidates spent $395 million on ads, an increase of $109 million since the same point in the 2006 midterms. Issues like health care reform, immigration reform, gay marriage, financial regulation, education, tax cuts and a weak economy, plus polling reports like 52% of voters saying their political views align more with Sarah Palin’s than with those of President Obama, are sure to make these next few weeks interesting.

One response to this media torrent might be to turtle up, ignore it all and not vote, rather than sort through an overwhelming number of sound bites, photo opportunities, campaign slogans, debates, accusations and, if history is any indicator, more than a couple of scandals. However, although the storm of conflicting media may seem like a convenient excuse to stay home on election day, it is not. The LAMP is a nonpartisan organization, but a big part of media literacy is civic engagement and demanding more accountability from our leaders and media. We believe not only that every eligible voter should cast a ballot, but also that voters should make informed decisions rather than parrot the ideals of whoever happens to be making the most noise. And, you have to do more than visit a candidate’s website; it is not gospel. Fortunately, it is possible to thrive in a confusing world of political media, all with the confidence that you alone–and not mainstream media–have made your choice in voting. Our LAMPlit resource guide “Check Out the News!” by Education Director Katherine Fry is a great place to start, but here are a few more things to keep in mind as you engage specifically with political campaign messages in the weeks leading up to November 2.

1. Find out who paid for the message. Whether it’s a TV commercial, robo call or yard sign, some person or group had to plunk down the coins for a campaign message to reach you, and they almost certainly influenced that message. In most cases, you’ll see or hear something like, “This message is paid for by Friends of (insert candidate name here)” but you should take at least a bit of time to find out who those friends are. Especially since last January’s ruling by the Supreme Court which overturned campaign spending limits by corporations, it is important to find out whose interests are being represented, and how that may impact policy decisions. If someone gets a lot of money from a particular industry, he or she might not want to alienate that donor group, and so would probably vote against taxes and regulations on that industry. One great resource for learning more about who is funding a particular campaign, visit OpenSecrets.org. You might be surprised at how little time it can take to find out who gave how much money to whom, learn about PAC and advocacy group activity and much more.

2. Decide what issues are the most important to you. This strategy is not so much related to media literacy as it is helpful for sifting through the noise to get to what really impacts your voting decision. Try picking 3-5 things that you care about, and prioritize looking deeper into the media messages about those issues as you decide what’s right for you in casting your vote. Every candidate has a website; take a look and see what they have to say about the issues. This is not to say that it isn’t important to learn as much as you can about a candidate, but back in 2006, over $1.8 million was spent on television ads alone. That’s a good deal of airtime, but you don’t have to scrutinize every second of it in your quest to be an informed voter.

3. Get the context. The most recent example of why you should do this is the Shirley Sherrod debacle. If you hear a sound bite of a candidate saying “no new taxes” and taxes are important to you, find out more about when and why the candidate said that. For all you know, the complete sentence could have been, “I plan to raise taxes on small businesses, but there will be no new taxes on big tobacco.” Information like that can make a big difference. One way to get context for a sound bite or other statement is to look at a few different news sources, and read how different journalists report the incident. Especially in politics, there is hardly anything too small to be deemed unworthy of a blog post.
–Emily Long

Do you have more suggestions? Share them here!

Televisions have changed a lot, in form and content, since the days of the large, heavy, wooden box. While the evolution toward slimmer, lighter, and more multi-faceted TV has been going on since its inception, the way we watch is constantly reinvented as well.

I do not own a TV. That is to say, I have a set I play DVDs on but it isn’t hooked up to cable or satellite. A couple of years ago my husband and I decided to do away with a traditional television. Things had changed. Many of the programs we enjoyed were becoming available for free online. As for the others, they seemed like sacrifices worth making for the greater good of one less bill to pay. People thought we were totally crazy, but it seems we were merely (if unwittingly) ahead of the curve. Last week Steve Jobs unveiled Apple TV. Concurrently, this month’s Wired magazine navigated the waters of new streaming TV technology. If these technologies, paired with some still in the works, such as Google TV, take hold, we may well be forging into a future in which all TV is on demand. So, as a fortuitous pioneer in tubeless television, I feel it is incumbent upon me to report what my TV-free TV watching has taught me.

The most striking difference about an only on demand relationship with television is that I must seek out everything I watch. I never get caught up and accidentally watch anything. This is a great perk of services like Hulu, Netflix, and the new Apple TV. It is equally an experience that has long been available, though not necessitated by, TiVo and DVR. Selecting each program means I make deliberate TV watching choices.

The downside is that this experience is wholly tailored to my personal interests. This is particularly tricky when it comes to the news. I have taken up listening to talk radio more because without the sounds of morning news programs coming from my television, it is too easy to avoid clicking on depressing news stories and end up knowing little about what is going on in the world. Of course I always had such choices and no one made me watch the news before. Avoidance of uncomfortable or “maybe later” subject matter has merely gotten a bit easier without my TV.

Concerns about informed citizenry aside, there has been a marked change in the battle for my attention to entertainment since I shut off scheduled programming. I never thought I would say it, but I miss channel surfing and I increasingly believe the practice to be worth missing. I may have been more susceptible to time-wasting before, but at least, remote in hand, I was vulnerable to exposure to the new and the different. I never really wander with Internet accessed television and am therefore rarely surprised.

Watching television always involved preference and choice, but it still ran on its own schedule. TV has gradually been switching over to our schedules—it’s pausable, re-playable, with less ads and more viewer control. The new apple TV is just another chapter in that story, but one that raises some interesting questions.

Apple TV marks a big step in the direction of what you want, when you want it television. It differs, however, from other on demand forms of viewing in an important way. Netflix, for example, charges a small monthly rate (around $10). Hulu and shows broadcast on network websites cost, at least for the moment, no more than what you pay for your Internet connection. The new Apple TV, while still offering services like Netflix and YouTube, presents a different take on how we may be paying for television in years to come. The a la carte structure works like iTunes with individual episodes running 99 cents per show (no word on whether the price differs for shows that are ½ hour rather than an hour long). This is largely being hailed as a great deal; however, if Apple TV is indeed the way medium is headed, it warrants a closer cost analysis. In 2009, the average American watched 151 hours of television per month. At that rate, streaming Apple TV would run close to five dollars a day and–brace yourself–$1,793.88 per year.

Perhaps new, more costly forms of TV watching will cut back on the time we spend in front of a set. Perhaps the trend that only brings us what we ask for will lead to more mindful choices and subsequently better programming. I am neither for nor against the way TV is evolving, but it is a good time to ask ourselves what TV is worth.

–Sarah Brown