ITube, YouTube, WeAllTube

A couple of weeks ago I posted a short piece on my Interactive Media blog about the purchase of YouTube by Google. YouTube is one of this year's rags-to-riches stories...or at least for its founders. However, the rise of YouTube has led to speculation about the future of internet video and the demise of traditional television program delivery. Some have questioned the future of Consumer Generated Media, such as YouTube, because of concern about Digital Rights Management and current abuses of copyrighted material. Others have expressed concern over a possible shift from authentically consumer-generated videos to corporate messages, network promos, and even political ads (e.g., this one by Michael J. Fox). One question is whether consumers will continue to "tune in" if and when the content appears to be manipulated by commercial or political interest groups. Would you believe that some colleges and universities are using YouTube to promote themselves? (e.g., this clip). Hah, bet you weren't expecting that were you? :-) But did you listen to the first couple of sentences of the video? That script was written a couple of years ago, and yet it remains amazingly accurate in terms of the changes that we're currently experiencing. You gotta love this business...never a boring moment!

Happy National Freedom of Speech Week

This year, National Freedom of Speech Week takes place Oct. 16-22. (See http://www.freespeechweek.org/). One way to celebrate is to reflect on what freedom of speech means to each of us.

To me, freedom of speech means the ability to find -- whether in books, on TV, in newspapers, on the radio, on the Web -- messages that can make me feel angry, courageous, cowardly, creative, encouraged, happy, inspired, shocked, sad, uneasy. It means being both amazed and bewildered by the brilliance and the stupidity of the human mind. Freedom of speech means creating learning opportunities from messages my 7-year-old daughter sees or reads that don’t make sense to her.

What does freedom of speech mean to you?

What's the future of MySpace.com?

MySpace.com is the hottest social networking site, if not the most visited Internet site, overall, these days. The site has millions of users/visitors who enjoy posting their personal profiles and using the site to visit with old friends and meet new ones.
Users talk of almost being addicted to the site, needing to visit it many times each day to see who has posted to them. Users talk of the power it brings them to express themselves in such a public way.
Is this something our high school and college aged users will eventually grow out of? Will MySpace.com grow old at some point for these users as their life experiences change?
Or will this generation of MySpace.com users continue with this level of social networking throughout their Internet life, creating a new generation of Internet users who use social networking sites to create their own special worlds?
What do you think? Why do you like or not like MySpace.com? Do you think you'll continue to visit the site as extensively after college? Are we going to have millions of senior citizens in 50 years, still networking on MySpace.com?? (you better agree to change your photo as you age...in the interest of honest communication!)
-Jen Mullen

Click Fraud: The Latest Ad Sleaze?

Well, here we go again. The advertising industry is under seige for yet another potential boondoggle--and one that Business Week (Oct 2) claims may present "the single biggest threat to the Internet's advertising gold mine." Yikes! Although this scam concern has floated around the advertising industry for the last couple of years--often focusing on the big guns like Google and Yahoo who are most vulnerable--BW has one of the best discussions of this internet plague written thus far. Read and weep, budget directors.

BW defines click fraud as "clicking on internet advertising solely to generate illegitimate revenue for the web site carrying the ads; those doing the clicking typically also get paid." Professional revenue thieves have been around for centuries, but there are few merry men looking after these Robin Hoods. Advertisers and marketers, who pay per click for their use of these webnets, are losing millions report both BW and Advertising Age.

Okay, the robbery system has it's legal, financial and pragmatic impacts, but there is the sociopolitical issue of advertising's industrywide problem of controlling the bad apples in their barrel too. How do we stop the bleeding? Do we need more laws? More passwords? Fewer entry points to the system? Better fraud detecting software that can't be breached by every 12-year-old hacker in the country? And why do we want to demonize both advertising and the internet delivery system anyway?

I guess because we can.

Citizen journalism comes to Southern Colorado

The Colorado Springs Gazette has joined the Your Hub network of Web sites, allowing local citizens to report and post news stories from the area on the Colorado Springs Your Hub site (ColoradoSprings.com). The Southern Newspaper Publishers Association reports that Your Hub at Colorado Springs will begin publishing three zoned, weekly tabloid newspapers on Oct. 26, featuring the best stories and photos from the Web site as well as some staff-generated content. Eventually, the SNPA reports, six Your Hub papers, covering different parts of the Gazette's circulation area, will be published.

Citizen journalism is a definite departure from the traditional style of journalism, but, as Gazette publisher Freedom Communications reports, citizen journalism "is journalism for the people, by the people, our freedom of speech in pure form."

Your Hub sites and zoned publications are already doing well in the Denver metro area, pulling in much-sought-after revenue for the newspaper industry. Is citizen journalism really the face of journalism's future? Do you think more readers prefer this rather unfiltered type of reporting over the traditional news gathering process? Should traditionalists (like me, I suppose) get out of the way and let journalism take this new direction?

Advertising in textbooks...good idea?

Would you like to save a few hundred dollars each semester by getting your textbooks for free? That may not be so far fetched if some textbook publishers have their way. McGraw-Hill and other publishers are considering including advertising in college textbooks to offset rising costs. Although faculty members are likely to object, the tide may be too strong to hold back once students and parents catch the wave.

Of course textbooks are only the most recent medium to fall under avertisers' spell. Video games, urinals, and even people's foreheads have all been plastered with ads in recent years. For more examples see this flash slideshow from USAToday. We've grown accustomed to ads of every shape and size, for every type of product and service, in every type of environment. And we've grown accustomed to free media content as a result. What do you think, is this a good idea who's time has come? Or is it one more human sacrifice to the god of capitalism?

Survivor playing the race card

Did you watch TV last Thursday evening? If so, you might have noticed that Survivor, a perennial ratings champ, returned for another season on CBS. But with the ratings sliding in recent years, producer Mark Burnett reached into his bag of tricks for something to stir up public attention and controversy. In case you missed the season opener, the buzz around the water cooler, or the title of this post, the new season of Survivor started by pitting one tribe against the others based on the race of the participants. That's right, blacks versus whites, and Hispanics versus Asians. Some see it as a desperate attempt to appeal to the most base instincts of an audience that still loves, (even in this PC culture), to root for the "tribe" that most closely reflects its own skin tones. Others see the "social experiment" as a gimmick that will soon give way to the standard reconfigurations that will result in fully-integrated tribes. What do you think? Is race off-limits when drawing lines in the sand? Is it any different than separating contestants by gender? And, does it send the wrong message to viewers who may already harbor racist attitudes?

Brewing storm over 9/11 docudrama

When is a docudrama not a documentary? Just listen to ABC/Disney as they respond to criticism of their "epic miniseries" The Path to 9/11, airing this Sunday and Monday evenings at 7pm locally. According to ABC, the program is, "a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources." It is also interesting that ABC attempts to deflect criticism by noting that the program was produced by the entertainment division rather than ABC News. Intense criticism by Democrats, including former president Clinton, has been leveled at the program for perceived inaccuracies. Specifically, Democrats object to portrayals that they didn't do enough to go after Bin Laden in the years leading up to 9/11. According to news reports today, ABC is responding by making some last-minute editorial changes.

But this is not simply an argument about facts or the portrayal of events. It is a debate about whether this or any docudrama/miniseries should be held to the standards reserved for news and documentaries or whether it should only have to rise to the expectations of prime-time, network, entertainment programming. Dramatizations of true events often play fast and loose with the facts. This time, however, the facts are much more sensitive and mid-term elections hang in the balance.

Clearly the terms documentary and docudrama are important distinctions...and that, in turn, dictates the expectations that we should have as to the accuracy and objectivity of the program.

Watch the program this Sunday and Monday evenings and let us know what you think.

Who do you trust?

A recent survey of more than 3,000 American adults by Pew Research Center indicates that we do not trust network news. NBC, ABC and CBS ranged from 23-22% when respondents were asked if they believe all or most of what they see. Cable news numbers were slightly better. Fox News had a 25% favorable rating and CNN turned in a 28%. All of these numbers are considerably lower than they were eight years ago. A look at political affiliation of viewers suggests that some news networks are trusted more by the right or left. CNN is trusted most highly by Democrats, while Fox News received higher ratings from Republicans.

While this may not be surprising, it is cause for concern. If Americans are so distrustful of their main source of news (and TV is still by far the most important news source for most Americans), who and what do they trust for information about the world around them? Tell us what you think. What do you trust when you’re trying to understand national and international issues?

Protecting College Student Press

Trish tipped me off to the following story, which is posted on the Student Press Law Center Web site:

CALIFORNIA - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today signed a bill into law that would explicitly prohibit prior restraint and other forms of censorship of the college press.

The bill's sponsor, assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said in a press release the legislation makes California the first state in the nation to specifically prohibit censorship of college student newspapers.

"College journalists deserve the same protections as any other journalist," Yee said. "Having true freedom of the press is essential on college campuses and it is a fundamental part of a young journalists training for the real world. Allowing a school administration to censor is contrary to the democratic process and the ability of a student newspaper to serve as the watchdog and bring sunshine to the actions of school administrators."

The bill passed the state Senate by a 31-2 vote on August 10 and was unanimously approved by the California Assembly in May.

The free-press bill was drafted in response to the Hosty v. Carter decision out of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, a supporter of the bill.

The appeals court decision held that the Supreme Court's 1988 Hazelwood decision limiting high school student free expression rights could extend to college and university campuses in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in February not to hear the Hosty case, letting stand the June 2005 decision out of the 7th Circuit.

Ten days after the 7th Circuit decision, the general counsel for the California State University system sent a memo to university presidents saying the Hosty decision could impact California.

"[T]he case appears to signal that CSU campuses may have more latitude than previously believed to censor the content of subsidized student newspapers, provided that there is an established practice of regularized content review and approval for pedagogical purposes," wrote CSU general counsel Christine Helwick at that time.

Although the 7th Circuit's ruling is only applicable in the three Midwestern states covered by the appeals court, Ewert said the memo raised some concerns amongst student press advocates.

Ewert said he is thrilled with the governor's decision to sign the legislation.

"This law sends a very strong message to administrators that the student press is just as deserving of strong free press protection as professional media," said Ewert.

-by Evan Mayor, SPLC staff writer

The questions for discussion are:

Is this a good thing? Should Colorado and other states enact similar legislation? What should be its provisions? Under such protection, who will be held legally responsible for libel and invasion of privacy, should such suits be filed? What, if any, supervisory role should the adviser and department play?

I certainly do not believe the administration of any college or university should engage in a priori censorship, just as I don't believe advisers should edit/censor student newspapers -- but if a student publication does end up in court (criminal or civil -- yes, Colorado still has its criminal libel statute on the books), who will end up in jail or paying out a libel judgment? If the publisher is considered to be the university/department, then that's who. In the professional world, publishers have absolute censorship rights over what their editors and reporters want to publish.

Are the Emmys getting political?

The Emmy Awards were held Sunday night, and this year it was a draw between the big winners in cable versus broadcast television. Last year, cable programs such as The Soprano's, et al, absolutely spanked the traditional broadcast networks in awards.
Sunday night, in the big categories, it was 13 awards both for cable versus broadcast.
Interesting...the voting changed this year. Rather than the traditional popular vote by Emmy members would determine the winners, the top 20 popular vote getters in each category were then "reviewed" by a panel of industry "judges", who then determined the winner in each category.
Is it possible that the powers of the NBC, CBS, and ABS broadcast networks want a bit more equity in the winners of Emmys?
Then some would say that cable primetime programming is actually better television and deserves more Emmys. Not this year.

A question of ethics

The year was 1981. USC Today Editor Erin Emery and the news editor at the time (whose name completely escapes me) decided on a lark to run for ASG president and vice president, more as a flip-of-the-finger to the ASG old guard (with whom we had been warring for years) than through any genuine political ambitions. Then something unexpected happened. Their campaign got legs. People started taking them seriously. It looked like they might actually win. They began aggressively campaigning and discussing in more specific terms what they might do if elected. They held a press conference in Sally Watkins' "News Beats and Features" class. I was in the audience. I asked three questions: 1) "Do you ascribe to the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics?" 2) "If you do, how can you justify having your names appear on bylines and in the masthead of the Today when this creates such an obvious appearance of conflict of interest?" 3) "Are you ready to resign your editorships in order to pursure your political ambitions without compromising the credibility of the USC Today?" By the end of the day, they dropped out of the election. Don' get me wrong. Erin would have made a spectacular ASG president. As it is, she has become an absolutely top-flight journalist. And I think she would agree that this firsthand education in journalism ethics was an important lesson. I'm told we now have the ASG president serving as an editor of the Today. Has our grasp of journalism ethics -- and its essential role in helping preserve the credibility, and thus the future, of our craft -- eroded to the point that this raises no red flags among the newspaper staff or department faculty? Or is this an exercise in situational ethics: "we don't have that many strong news/editorial students; they should be free to explore all the university has to offer, etc." I say students should be encouraged make the most of their experience here. But ethics is about making choices. And by not forcing a choice, you have deprived this student of a foundational piece of journalism education -- and have sent the wrong message to the rest of your students. Every day as a working journalist provides dozens of chances to make the wrong decision, to get mired in ambiguity and expedience, to bend the rules just this once. We need more ethics education, not less. The newspaper, the department, the industry, needs more credibility, not less. If the Today is, indeed, going to be a first step into the real world of journalism, then these real-world situations must be addressed in a real-world fashion. Richard, if you were still editing a daily paper, what would you say to a member of your editorial team who decided to campaign for mayor?

Tony Snow as the President's Spokesperson?

Former Fox news correspondant, Tony Snow, became President Bush's press secretary recently, to provide a more open dialogue with the press corp as the Bush administration struggles with low public opinion ratings.
How's he doing? It's not his fault that his natural demeanor suggests he's a bit of a smart-aleck. He's always come across that way to me and he's putting on the same presentation during his daily news conferences. His approach also seems to be the antithesis of Scott McClelland's robotic approach, in that he's kind of flippant and very informal during these sessions. Clearly, he's trying to position himself as "one of the press corps who just happens to be on the other side of the podium."
But on June 8th, he went too far when he insulted every public relations professional with his smart-aleck comment. When asked if Zarquari's death was a PR move on the part of the Bush administration, he cynically referred to public relations as "selling soap", thereby reinforcing that the terrorist's death was anything but that. Of course, Zarquari wasn't killed for "public relations", the question was inane, but his smart-aleck response was also uncalled for.
I get tired of "PR bashing" by people who secretly understand the power of persuasive communication and the potency of reputation management, but think if they admit it, it's some kind of weakness.
And by the way..."selling soap" is MARKETING, not Public Relations.
-Jen Mullen

Net Neutrality

Perhaps you've heard the term "network neutrality" being bantered about recently. Rather than attempt to reinvent the wheel, here's a nice summary from XP News:

A network such as the one run by your ISP treats all types of traffic the same way. One type (whether a specific protocol such as VoIP or content from a specific provider such as Microsoft or e-mail from specific addresses) doesn't get priority over any other type. The worry is that ISPs such as your cable company or phone company and services such as AOL can use technology called Quality of Service (QoS) to give some of the data that passes over their networks priority. Corporate networks have been doing this for years. Packets generated by mission-critical applications can be given preference over less important traffic.

This could be a money-maker for service providers because they can strike deals with content providers to ensure that those content providers' data gets delivered more quickly than that of other content providers who don't pay the fees for this priority attention. For example, Verizon could contract with Google to give their search services priority over Yahoo's or MSN's search. This would make Google more attractive than its competitors to those who use Verizon as their ISP, because it would be faster. In addition, the money that Verizon got from Google could be used to keep their prices for Internet service lower than those of an ISP that doesn't engage in such contracts.

What does it mean to you as an ISP customer and user of the Internet? If ISPs are allowed to make discriminatory deals, at the extreme they could actually block the Web sites that compete with their partners. That is, in our example of Verizon making a deal with Google, they could prevent Verizon customers from accessing the Yahoo or MSN search sites. This is not what any ISP is proposing to do at this time, but it's certainly technologically possible.

So, the question is whether federal government ought to regulate the infrastructure owned and operated by the telecom companies in order to prevent them from selectively controlling the flow of content over their "wires." On the surface it appears to be obvious...of course they should. However, as content providers start to deliver high quality video over the internet, bandwidth demands suggest that other content will be backed up in the traffic jam of digital bits. As we become more and more dependent on our internet-connected-computers to deliver both information and entertainment, something has to give. The federal government doesn't have a great track record when it comes to implementing policies designed to ensure equality. Often these regulations have the exact opposite effect. What it is likely to do is reduce the incentive to deploy greater bandwidth. And if the telecom companies don't have a financial incentive to install fiber optic lines to the home (and in so doing, increase bandwidth exponentially), we'll be stuck with computers that are only good for text, images, and music...with TVs and DVD players providing the moving images. What do you think? Can we have HDTV on our computers and at the same time have universally available service?