Comments

Information fuels choice fuels capitalism.

So unsubsidized media have the perfect right to put on paid spokesfolk as long as they describe their finanical arrangements and affiliations perfectly.

No disclosure = no choice = no capitalism. The alternative to full, immediate disclosure is old Soviet model for media.

Posted by jeff angus at May 27, 2005 1:49 AM

Jeff, protecting the consumer/public does not = communism. These things are not black and white. There's a huge grey area within which a civilized free-market society has to find an acceptable solution.

As I'm sure you're aware, the BBC doesn't carry any paid advertising, is funded by taxpayer’s money (by means of a TV licence fee) and is regulated by a committee (the Board of Governors). In my opinion, it also happens to be the best TV broadcasting and news company in the world.

I take your point that Steve was referring to unsubsidised media, but some of the same principals apply. A country's media should not be permitted to deceive or mislead. It is our duty to make sure that the less informed (and more vulnerable) amongst us are not exploited by the media or, indirectly, by business or politicians.

In Sweden, advertising to children is restricted. Several research studies have indicated that young children do not understand the purpose of advertising and cannot distinguish between advertising and the program they are watching.

Sweden hasn't been unsuccessful in convincing the EU of the need for a blanket ban on advertising to children; the Commission feels that it would contravene the right to free movement of goods and capital (a sad case of general principles getting in the way of good sense - a little like the US and it's constitutional right to bear arms) But, despite the lack of general acceptance, several other EU countries have seen the sense in Sweden's argument and introduced similar restrictions.

This is exactly the kind of grey area I was referring to. It's my belief that we, as parents and future parents, have a duty to protect our children.

Posted by Matt at May 27, 2005 4:15 AM

I'm not sure the answer is more regulation though I could see how tempting an opportunity it must be for our army of bureaucrats to expand their sphere of interference. I mean, where do we draw the line here? For example, the clothes newscasters wear are often provided by designers or chains of stores. Do we have them cast the news naked? What is and is not sponsorship? It seems to me that the potential for writing rules and regulations is a bureaucrat's paradise and everyone else's nightmare.

Media is losing credibility and in my view the FCC are not the people to step in and restore it. The profession of journalism is going to have to raise its standards because that's what the market will demand, especially as more sites like this one become more popular and people are able to have open discussions based on real opinions rather than on sensational news headlines.

If they want to feature a bar of soap in the background or have a newscaster wear a hat proudly proclaiming the invigorating properties of a new sports drink, who cares? It will just hasten people's deflating opinion of the media and force the market to shift faster without the FCC having to fill out a single form or assign a single investigator to sift through mountains of files and watch hours upon hours of old news, looking for tell-tale signs of 'sponsorship'. Think of the money the taxpayer will save!

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 27, 2005 4:38 AM

"As it stands, product placement is already allowed on British TV (both BBC and commercial channels) to add a sense of realism. But under the current "free supply" rules programme makers cannot profit from it, and the brand has limited say over how it is featured on screen.

In US television, as in movies, the brands can go a step further, paying programme makers handsomely for some airtime, which they have control over...."

Well placed
By Jonathan Duffy
BBC News Magazine

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4391955.stm

matt, if you type "bbc product-placment" into your google search bar, this link here is the first result you get.

Posted by jens at May 27, 2005 4:57 AM

This has got me thiking ....advertising on the News Readers clothes??? ... mmm ..

Why not extend it to the medical profession - what would it say about my doctor if he was wearing his 'sponsored by Nike' baseball in for my consultation?; my bank manager wearing her 'sponsored by Adidas' tee shirt for my mortgage consultation; my solicitor resplendent in her 'sponsored by Gucci' blouseas we discussed my divorce?

I guess the bottom line is not the image it's the credibility of the person ... but sometimes we do not get beyond the first impression.

I am with Noel - it is about the integrity of the media rather than what they look like!

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 27, 2005 5:23 AM

I HAVE TO LAUGH AT ANYTHING "MEDIA" THESE DAYS. USA Today - earlier this week buried an article at the bottom of page 3, D section, "Journalists, Public on Different Pages":

675 journalists, 1500 adults interviewed, Annenberg Public Policy Center: "At a time when journalism mistakes have become almost routine ... large gap in perception ... 74% of journalists said errors are quickly reported, 30% of public does."

Journalists - think they get facts straight: 86%
Public - think they get facts straight: 45%

Journalists - "media are often inaccurate": 11%
Public - "media are often inaccurate": 48%

Journalists - conservative/very: 9%
Public - conservative/very: 38%

Greetings to our EU friends Noel, Trevor, Jens, et. al. this morning - Constitution time over there perhaps?

The main deal to me is VIVA LE BLOG/Internet WORLD - since we don't trust MEDIA - their role - thank heavens - as "media" has diminished like Jacque Chirac's hairline and IQ over the years. Can we even tell the difference between an ad and "reporting" these days?

Vive le Blog World - c'est la vie.

Posted by Sean at May 27, 2005 7:04 AM

I think the answer, when it comes to what children watch (and many other things too), is exactly what Matt proscribes - it's up to the parents to decide what is or is not appropriate for their children to see. No regulatory agency can do for parents what parents themselves should be doing.

I'm always a little wary when someone tells me they know better than other people, are more ‘enlightened’, and are really concerned about protecting the 'vulnerable' and the 'victims' of society who are unfortunate enough not to have had a proper education but have had to learn about life through real experience.

I have found that this is the siren song of the bureaucratic bully, the bedrock on which rests their legitimacy for telling people what to think and how to live. I often hear people wonder where the Nazi’s came from - how did millions of ordinary Germans (a minority of their population) become monsters overnight? My answer is that they were always there and are always around us, not just in Germany, but all over the world. Look around you! That parking attendant ticketing someone’s car who has just nipped in to fill a prescription; the unhelpful person at the customer service counter who can help you but chooses not to; the security guard in your lobby who won’t let you pass because your i.d. card expired yesterday, even though he knows from the computer that you’re still employed and your supervisor is wondering upstairs why the hell you’re so late; the nosy neighbor who peeks out their window and spys, desperate to call the police and report on you. Give people like these real authority and legitimacy with an organization to back them up and they will take pleasure in making everybody’s life miserable just because they can.

The thought of people being free to make up their own minds on anything without first seeking approval and permission is to a bureaucratic bully, repellent. They simply MUST regulate, inspect and control every aspect of our lives, leaving no form unfilled. What they despise most of all is freedom, one's personal freedom to take one's life into one's own hands, freedom of the press, freedom of advertisers; any kind of freedom you care to imagine.

What I would love to see is a little competition. A network television station marketing itself along the following lines:

1. All ads vetted for humor and intelligence

2. All TV shows vetted for humor and intelligence (no moronic soap operas, no mind-numbingly stupid Big Brother, no Attack of the Monster Trucks).

3. All news reports unbiased, based on fact with a surprising lack of personal interpretation - unless otherwise marketed, for example, “Breakfast with Tom Peters!”

I think they’d give the other stations a run for their money. I know I’d be tuning in.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 27, 2005 8:04 AM

Sean, thanks for posting those statistics. They seem about right to me!

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 27, 2005 8:19 AM

"bureaucratic bully"? "Nazi's"? I'm talking about finding acceptable answers to modern-day problems.

Believeing that any one socio-economic model (capitalism, communism, or otherwise) has all of the answers all of the time is a form of fundementalism and, like most other forms of fundementalism, should be tolerated (as long as it doesn't infringe upon other people's human rights) but not necessarily condoned.

It's wrong and intellectually lazy to assume that the free market is capable of providing and sustaining an unbiased media. It's also wrong to allow governments to control the airwaves, etc. I'm talking about something in-between the two extremes that takes into consideration the wants, needs and rights of all parties. What has that got to do with Nazis?

Posted by Matt at May 27, 2005 9:14 AM

Well, what do you propose, Matt? What would your solution be?

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 27, 2005 10:02 AM

I don't know what the answer is, Noel. But I certainly feel strongly about what it isn't.

There is no panacea. But there are areas we can and should address. As I've already mentioned, the morality of advertising to children is something that should, in my opinion, be publicly examined.

The FCC raising awareness of the issue of media commercialization is a good thing. More power to the likes of Jonathon Adelstein for having the balls to criticise the omnipotent business sector and the all-pervasive media. If nothing else, at least you and I get to openly debate the subject with complete strangers.

Posted by matt at May 27, 2005 11:36 AM

Discussions such as these are very important but we will never come to a single conclusion. We all have different views on how things like commercialism in the media should be handled. And thank heavens for that! Our diversity is among some of our greatest strengths as human beings.

When examining the media and commercialism, ask yourselves, "When was the last time I bought a Coke because I saw it in a movie?" Do you purchase all your clothing from a particular store because it suppies your newcaster? Did you purchase the liquor mentioned in the play you saw because it was included in the dialoge? I think not. All that these things accomplish is to keep the names of the products and their usage in front of us to help with branding. We still form our own opinions. For example, no matter how many daily occurances of viewing the Coke brand name Coke pays for to put in my daily life, I still prefer Pepsi and will purchase it exclusivly unless it is not available.

As for children and protecting them from the horrors of commercialism, once again think back to your own childhood and how commercials affected you, your parents, and your buying habits. None of us are old enough to not have been affected by mass media campaigns as we were growing up. Were you duped and decieved? Did it affect your buying habits? Did it set you and your parents at odds and if it did, how was it resolved? Is what happened to you as you grew up so bad that we need now to regulate the commercials for children to save them from the same fate? I grew up watching the Three Stodges and, believe it or not, I do not consider it ok to hit or slap someone. I watched a lot of cowboys and indians, cops and robbers, wars and battle re-enactments and I don't consider guns and violence as the best solution to anything. Yes, there were times I was disappointed with a toy that did not seem to work as shown on TV. However, I am also disappointed that many adult products today do not perform as well as they seem to on TV.

I think we need to watch what is happening, keep asking these questions, regulate when absolutly necessary but not at the expense of the freedom of choice of others, and value the diversity and freedoms that we enjoy highly.

Posted by Al True at May 27, 2005 12:20 PM

Integrity is what is needed in the media. Fake news is lies. Fascism comes to mind. Corporations and religions govern the government and the Government governs the minds through media. This is a slippery slope. Information is the fuel of democracy. This fuel must be seasoned in truth for if it isn't then we will be sure to suffocate in the smoke of lies.

Posted by Gary Fox at May 27, 2005 4:32 PM

THE MEDIA IS THE ENEMY. The Tom DeLay slight in the show "Law and Order" is the last straw for me.

Posted by Sean at May 28, 2005 6:45 AM

Why MEDIA is better than BLOGS..
1. Reaches people far and wide (even in a small town in Alabama or Mississippi)
2. Narrows down opinions (good or bad)
3. Not confusing (maybe partisan!!)
4. Not meant for just the WELL INFORMED people with unlimited broadband connection and a whole range of ideas on umpteen issues
5. Discussions/debates in blogs seldom lead to a DEFINITE conclusion
6. Use of blogs as a channel of side-communication and not as the main one
7. Costs less to blog than to operate CNN or FOX and hence, credibility factor of bloggers is in ???

Jeff - Good simple point on capitalism. Sounds practical and realistic.

Posted by Hesh at May 29, 2005 3:19 AM

Hesh, I'm not sure what money has to do with credibility.

I think that the point about the media versus blogs is not whether one is better than the other. It is that blogs like this one allow people to come forward and speak their honest opinion clearly, which will positively influence sensationalist journalists to raise their standard. I understand that the media in truth only gives people what they want. They wouldn't be in business otherwise. I'm hoping that the better blogs as they develop will come to provide an alternative and contribute to raising the mainstream media's standards by having to take into consideration what people are really thinking and not just what they would like us to think.

It will probably always be true that not every blog will offer thoughtful, considered opinion, but as you get used to reading other people's comments, it's pretty easy to spot who has convictions and is speaking straight, and who is sounding off. The nice thing about it is that we get to decide for ourselves.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 29, 2005 8:10 AM

An interesting discussion guys.

I like to read newspapers and watch news on TV but I actually now prefer the interaction of Blogs.

viagra price 100mg

I really look forward to my daily visits to my selection of Blogs.

I am selective - gained through very limited experience of this new media.

The best thing about Blogs is that we are in control ourselves. If we want to respond and start a dialogue that may become inter-active with others then we make that choice ourselves.

If we start a discussion that no-one responds to then that is also good - people vote with their fingers in this Blogging world.

I vote for less worry about regulation of Blogs – just let people say what the hell they want – as long as it is legal and not personally insulting.

When I look at the Sunday Times here in England it contains numerous inserts, mags etc., and is probably two inches thick when laid flat - Who the hell has time to read that from one Sunday to the next?

I don't completely mistrust the media but I do like to choose what I read and certainly treat much of the coverage with suspicion as I get older - preferring always to make up my own mind about what I believe.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 29, 2005 3:56 PM

This blog is sponsored by Stanford University, IDEO, GE (we bring good things to life), and Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream.

Posted by Ron at May 31, 2005 8:46 AM

viagra for free

I remember webmonkey. They always ran a caption that said "Advertisment" under any ads. I loved that. So annotation would work in broadcast media. On game shows, you used to be told who made the clothing and who provided it. It actually made annotation into advertising.

If that annotation was provided in layers, then I could choose whether I wanted to know what was available in a given layer. I could find out what the anchor person was wearing, or not. Of course, there would be some limit and I wouldn't be able to find out about foundation garmets for example, or sports clubs.

These annotations are useful regardless of any regulations that would enforce them. So you have the best system where there are economic incentives to provide the information.

Then, you can start to think of these annotations as attention marketing, which leads to other information sources and ultimately the sale.

I can already tell you the source of the news that I consume. I wonder who would sponsor such a survey, or who would hold such a view. Spin is right and left. I'd like to know the spinners. I'd like to find the counterweights and alternative fringe spinners. I'd like to see the press release that resulted in the mention.

Then there are things I don't want to know about. I already live in a self-censored world. I prefer it to the anger. And, if you can tell me about the clothes, you can tell me about the rest of the artifact construction.

This news written by Harold. Edited by Joan. Fact Checked by Herb. After a while I'd know these people and their personal spin, much like we learn about movie reviewers. I could say spare me Harold's stuff. And, then my DVR could strip that content.

I understand the risks of self-censoring. We already have that in some self selected, subscription-based identies that drive the ideological schism. Where would we gain our commonality that allows us to speak across divergent ontologies? Can we actually get those today in a world only somewhat self-censored? Hardly.

Posted by David Locke at June 1, 2005 1:00 AM

David, that's a great idea - being able to get all of the information behind a news story so that if you really want to know where the news came from, you can drill down to the detail or even get just a more informative report, like for example, when watching the news sometimes I wish I could instantly access the entire speech being reported on instead of being limited to a couple of soundbites or just their muted face while the newscaster tells us what they said.

viagra online price

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 1, 2005 1:24 AM