The RNC's ban further breaks down the intention of news media.

Yes, I know it's been a while since I posted on the blog. I'm guilty of being sucked into the work routine and becoming negligent of other responsibilities. However, I read something today that got me steamed enough to post. I'll try to keep it short and sweet.

I also want to note that I am posting on the Tau Beta blog as myself on my own Blogger account and my opinions do not reflect the opinions of other Tau Beta members; hence why I have not been posting as Tau Beta in many cases. 

On MSN, I saw an article about the Republican National Convention (RNC) banning CNN and NBC from covering their event in 2016, when there will be new presidential candidates again. Really.

Whatever happened to the Republican party's intent to "rebrand" itself? I suppose they are still opting to alienate everyone (aka, getting back to their old ways) in the hope to accentuate their extremism. I understand that the allegation that the "liberal media" is to blame for the many liberal-leaning population. What I do not understand is why they would pull this stunt. After all, Fox News as well as CNN and the like all reported on 2012's RNC, antics included. The conservative media can point fingers, but can't be good sports about receiving it back.

Eastwood talking to "President Obama."

If you've forgotten about the RNC last year, envision Clint Eastwood talking to a chair. This video is among the antics that went on that night.Was it the supposed "liberal media's" choice to hire Eastwood for entertainment? No. You couldn't have even edited that level of awkwardness. Whether on supposed "liberal" or "conservative" sources, the same events occurred in real time.

The Democrats are right in their response; by banning CNN and NBC from reporting on the next RNC, they are alienating more voters instead of drawing more near. Democrats also cite that Republicans are pushing away the valuable votes of women and minorities even further by banning news source coverage in general. Again, shortly after losing the presidential election, Republicans said they they need to find a way to draw on minority and women voters. Clearly, that has changed.

What's even more interesting is the balance these new sources have and how the GOP is trying to stagger the intention of new media. While the RNC refuses to have CNN and NBC air their next "event," they are doing so because the media are behaving as they should -- being neutral.

Reince Priebus.

RNC chairman Reince Priebus says that airing programs dealing with Hillary Clinton shows an unfair bias. Because these networks want to air Hillary Clinton programs, the GOP are opting to ban them from also airing conservative events (aka, being neutral by covering topics on both sides of American politics), as if they are "too good" to be on the same network as a female liberal presidential candidate.

Maybe the real problem isn't the '"liberal new media," but the conservative ones. It is hard to take them seriously when they ban news sources from coverage, as the public has a right to know what occurs on both sides of the political spectrum.

Granted, news media is owned by only six corporations...that cannot be denied and complicates matters. Still, the intention of news in general  (whether achieved or not) is to be open to the public, and by preventing the public from seeing a program, it is infringing on First Amendment rights. While the GOP can choose who hears their voice (their freedom of speech), it prevents others from hearing it (in theory if they only stick to one news source, which you shouldn't do) and therefore prevents others from being able to express their point of view based on the perceptions they get from the program.
 

From a corporate standpoint (if you lean towards this perspective more than philosophy), the GOP will not have as many "customers" exposed to the ads the RNC will bring in 2016, therefore, less attraction to advertisers. Not too smart for the party that (openly) endorses capitalism. Also, how can one organization prevent a corporation from reaching "customers" (i.e. viewers)?
All-in-all, while it irritates me in general based on my own political views, the intention of news media is infringed upon in this instance and therefore justifies my annoyance logically and financially (for the corporate folks). Has the GOP sunken themselves for 2016? We'll just have to see. This blog post is one record of their antics prior to the next election that can be used later as proof for something.

France has the right idea. RIP Trayvon

Is America too good for a law prohibiting racial hatred? Should the First Amendment be amended? Can social media transcend government action, such as court verdicts?

Reportedly, Twitter was demanded to hand over data linked to racist tweets last October by the French government. To my understanding, someone had posted anti-Semitic context on the site and the French government's law "prohibiting the incitement of racial hatred" was broken. When Twitter initially refused to hand over the data, five organizations got involved and forced the micro-blogging site to pass along the goods.

In this case, media could not transcend the nation-state despite debates on the power of media internationally and its transcendence of borders, also noted by rhetoric surrounding the Arab Spring. Since the Trayvon Martin case has made international news, it is important to explore government and the limits of hatred (offline as well as on). Is social media more powerful than the government?

With the Trayvon Martin verdict of George Zimmerman being found as not guilty (I won't link a news source, because most people are aware of the case), I wonder what it would be like if America had such a law like France that did not tolerate hatred. It seems that this French law extends to the <international> Internet as well, considering their demands for data and the power behind the law in having the corporation provide the data. It kind of tickles me pink that a government would actively pursue such wrongdoers.

However, if this kind of law were enacted in America today, people would be breaking it constantly, from the KKK to the Westboro Baptist Church, to everyday people online and offline. There is rhetoric in America about whether racism is dead, and with the Trayvon case, it shows it clearly is not. This may be due to the First Amendment inherently protecting the speech that we hate as a means to have a public forum of ideas, as it was originally intended.

In America, we have freedom of speech, which to a certain extent extends to the Internet. However, freedom of speech can collide with some people's actions, as the case with shooting a black teen. No, shooting Trayvon had nothing to do with freedom of speech, but again, consider if America had a law prohibiting actions that incite hatred in all respects. As an offline and extremely relevant example, Zimmerman would have been found guilty, if so.

Is it also true that your freedoms truly stop when it begins to infringe on others' freedoms? That is the philosophical question here, and the First Amendment is broken each day in thinking about hurtful speech. Its intentions contradict itself.

President Obama asked Americans today to reflect on the Trayvon Marting case and push for stopping gun violence. He must know that social media is fired up about the verdict, since many, even in my own social network, are extending their right to express their thoughts on the outcome. Thankfully, we have social media to express our feelings and even alter events. Maybe something may come out of the verdict because we all have a voice on social media...but as with Twitter and France, it can also be negative and a breeding ground for hate.

Still, one commonality remains: Both the U.S. and France must be mindful of social media, because of such voices. Voices which condemn others have a space on social media, but the handling of hatred varies by country. The U.S. has freedom of speech which protects hate language, while France fiercely goes after those with such vitriolic words. So who is right? I'm not sure. All I know is there needs to be more rhetoric AND action around hate, and hopefully social media can become a platform for good in this respect.

Putting the social in social media ad placement.

It's a great day when you go on BBC News and see that Facebook will be more responsible with ads --even moreso when you see the line "Earlier this month, Facebook was forced to act against misogynist content on its site after protests from women's groups led some advertisers to suspend campaigns."

Social media is working to be a voice despite controversy of whether social media actually is a vehicle for social movement.

Facebook is placing restrictions on where ads can be placed rather than their normal ad randomization. They are removing advertising from many pages since some ads can show up oddly on certain pages. On example the BBC notes is that a recent M&S (who has suspended ads on Facebook until further notice) ad with a woman and her shadow appeared on a "cute and gay boys" page. Overall, Facebook now vows to watch out for ad placement so it does not appear in controversial places.

Facebook is also reportedly under fire for sexism as well, which may or may not have to do with such ads.

I am thankful they they will be more thoughtful with ads. While an ad-free world would be great, I realize that advertising needs to occur for the world to make money. I'm a realist but also can't stand seeing women in abusive or submissive positions in ads. It's unnecessary. If people are going to see the ad one way or another, why should it be demeaning? To me, that's not gonna make money.

And don't get me started on Papa John's. They can give away free pizza but can't afford to pay benefits and a decent wage to their workers? #notbuyingit.

Anyway, bravo for more thoughtful ad placement. Let's hope that the ads can be cleaned up, too.

What Fox News and CBS now have in common

Not since Janet Jackson's nip-slip has there been a major network accidentally airing something explicit. While it's great that "truly live" is still around, that is not the case for Fox News and the Romero-Rodriguez family.

Reportedly, Fox News is being sued by JoDon Romero's family members after accidentally airing his suicide on live TV back in September. The network failed to delay the footage and therefore shows a man killing himself on TV. We often hear about murders in the news, but to see it? Devastating. It could have been avoided.

JoDon Romero and his last minutes.

What interests me, though, is why Fox News was following this story. With the recent uproar of taking another look at Patriot-Act "rights," you would think the network would have "better" things to do than focus on a police chase...after all, they are usually outspoken about everything the president does, hence making them the least reputable source for news, since news is supposed to be as neutral as possible (Disclaimer: I know that the gatekeeping task that is inherent in news media automatically exposes it to some bias whether or not this bias is apparent).

But I digress. With the general conservative view on immigration and minorities (the car chase was in Arizona, too), I am not surprised that Fox News was following this police chase. However, I am surprised at Fox's arrogance to think that their candidness would not lead to something terrible one day. If this was a white man, would they have followed this story over other national news? I think not.

I hope the family will be able to get over this grief. While there is the stereotype that some people may sue for attention and the money (you could argue in this case that there was a suspicious several month delay in the decision to sue), in this case, it is justified. The family did not have control over what the network was airing, and upon viewing it, whether on TV or YouTube, it would make anyone cringe.

May 2011 statistic. Reportedly, Fox's ratings are still declining.

Sure, the event happened last year, but the repercussions of seeing one's father committing suicide on the news will haunt the family forever and the news now is that they are suing the network. I'm not surprised that is happened to Fox News, not only for my hatred for the network, but also because their leanings and framing were bound to get them in trouble at some point. Again, if this were a white man in a 1 hour police chase, would they have covered it over more Obama-bashing? Probably not...but after all, they must perpetuate the stereotype of minorities as criminals or else their fan demographic would get bored and drive away advertising.

I'm not denying that Romero was violent, since he reportedly had a violent record, but I am sure there are other violent offenders in this world who are white and not being displayed as vividly as on Fox News.

It's just a case of censorship debates and conservatism mixed with Mean World Syndrome. And of all things involved in this scandal, I don't hear any opposition to gun ownership. It's a shame.

Memoir of my fast food desires.

As much as I like the Food Network show, Unwrapped, it saddens me because it glorifies mass production, which I just realized. In the past I've watched it and for some reason enjoyed it and yet felt uneasy, but couldn't put my finger on why. Now I realize that is the reason why.

The episode I'm watching now is "Happy Birthday," talking about Dominos, Swiss Colony cakes, and M&Ms as examples of mass-produced birthday treats.While there are some benefits to mass-production, I kind of miss my mom baking me a birthday cake for my birthday. Even though Wegman's mass-produces great cakes, and I mean GREAT, it is impersonal.

Cake "baked" in a sheet at Swiss Colony.

 

The cake is then "cut" by a high-powered water blast. Yum.

But coming back to the Unwrapped episode --Dominos and many pizza chains in 2013 glorify the personalization of every pizza in their advertising. While this episode of Unwrapped was created in 2010, I find it hard to believe that they have truly changed their ways. In a nutshell, the advertising is meant to mislead the consumer to believe they are getting back to their roots --a three-shop local franchise in Ypsilanti, MI area-- with meticulously preparing every pizza for their consumer. This cannot be the case today. I'm sure they still ship frozen dough balls across the country (courtesy of Unwrapped unwrapping their process) instead of preparing the dough in-store.

This all shows how advertising is used to sugar-coat reality, and in this case, mass production. Shows like Unwrapped, which has been running since 2001, glorify mass production. Even though cooking shows that make up a majority of Food Network's focus on small batches and home cooking, Unwrapped wouldn't still be popular if there wasn't an audience for people wanting to watch that grotesque, empirical process of making popular foods.

Maybe I should ask for a homemade cake for my birthday this year. Though admittedly, that raspberry-filled chocolate cake from Wegman's is also tempting. Why do I feel this is better than homemade? Media may play a role in my perceptions. Years of exposure to Unwrapped and ads that focus on speed of pizza delivery as a kid (though they are now changing their tune to compete with the "Buy Local" bandwagon) may influence me to see someone else making food fast to be supreme over a beef dinner at my grandparents' house. If you have to pay for it, it must be better.

As a kid, I didn't eat out as often as I used to think. Due to certain circumstances, my mom would make a home-cooked dinner every weekday night at my grandparents' house and that would be my fare after school. It was truly a family-around-the-dinner-table setting and even though the veggies were often canned, the potatoes were mashed fresh and the meat was grilled or baked that day.

Though admittedly (and embarrassingly), I used to always look forward to Saturday when my mom, aunt, and I would get to go out to eat for lunch at the Olive Garden. I looked forward to it and even would dress up to go out to eat at this chain restaurant. It's strange to think back on how excited I used to get for someone else making food we had to pay for, plus Toni, the waitress we would usually have.

As bad as it sounds, now I crave "gourmet" fast food over home-cooked food even though a majority of my life consisted of home-cooking. As I sit here, I'm debating about leaving the house to go buy a hoagie somewhere (even though I had Subway yesterday). Could this be because of advertising? I wouldn't doubt it. Perhaps it started as a kid when I would get excited to go out to eat and be thankful for every Burger King cheeseburger I got when my mom didn't feel like cooking.

Advertising, man.

Powered by Stomach Acid! And Corporations...

This is crazy! I try not to take pills unless I have to, but if I am prone to forgetting passwords in a technological environment, does that qualify as a need?

Motorola (FYI -->owned by Google) launched memory-saving gadgets at the D11 technology conference for ways to get people to remember passwords, or perhaps, have devices identify you so you'll never have to remember passwords again! Once swallowed, the pill would "transmit a signal to devices outside the body" so that you would not need to type a password.

Another piece of technology Motorola launched is the "electronic tattoo" that can be stuck to your skin, another way for gadgets to identify you. Nokia is also reportedly developing similar "tattoo" technology for phones that will vibrate on the skin, in case you cannot feel your phone vibrate in your purse or pocket.

Seems like the barcode tattoo is becoming outdated. Pretty soon, typing may be obsolete too!

It amazing me the lengths people will go to to be more efficient. In 100 years, will we be that much closer to being robots with technology now being implanted or attached to us? Reminds me of Brave New World in a way. I personally would like to stay human.

I don't mind clicking links online to request a password reset. I'm not a smartphone owner and am not sure of how to reset passwords on those devices, but I'm sure it isn't as empirical as putting science on your skin. I don't mind even calling someone to talk to them about resetting passwords or asking for technology help in general. By giving people such pills and stick-on tattoos, we are distancing ourselves from our fellow humans. Soon, we may only need to walk by a door to gain access to a high-security area because the door scans us, which is different than going through security today and requesting temporary access permission.

Considering how Google already affects our lives (Imagine doing research through books at the library, or looking at large paper maps again. Or even using a normal phone that only allows you to talk to someone.), what power would Google have over us once we have their property imbedded inside (or outside) of us? If we fail to pay our phone bill, will Google send signals (radiowaves? x-rays?) to our bodies to disable our password until our bill is paid?

How much would you be willing to pay for such a pill or patch? Who has rights to the technology once the pill technology is implanted inside of our own body? What happens if the tattoo gets wet? These are questions of a new era that we may not be ready to consider yet, but we can start now with considering the control media corporations have over us.

So, whose fiction is it?

In what appears to be a lucrative move, Amazon is allowing fan fiction of Pretty Little Liars, Gossip Girls[sic], and The Vampire Diaries to be sold on their website. Kindle Worlds will be the fan fiction platform where authors can upload their stories for sale, and this space will only be piloted in America to start. However, there is no set date as of now for when fanfiction will be made available for purchase.

It's great to give writers a chance at making money doing something they love. In this case, writing stories that can actually give make them a profit for a series they already enjoy is phenomenal.

... But it is important to recognize that authors will only get 20-35% of royalties and Amazon Publishing will own international publication rights to these works. So, is this a good deal?

Perhaps if we consider that the characters belong to another author's handiwork, it does. After all, the fanfic authors are applying those characters to their own themes and one could argue that they are lucky to get any profit at all. Still, the fanfic authors' creative extension of a storyline should also be recognized, hence why they receive a portion of the royalties, but not all. Considering that Amazon is looking to test the popularity of fanfic sales under its own name and is willing to even create a separate space for these tales, fanfiction itself must be an intriguing underground "industry" at this point in time. And here, I always thought it was silly. I must be mistaken!

Overall, the main concern here is who holds intellectual property rights, which with the Internet has gained a more visibility than in the past. If Kindle worlds ever launches, we will see the repercussions and intellectual property debates once again.

Crest brand has 2D, black-and-white impressions

#NOTBUYINGIT

This commercial has been bothering me for a long time, so naturally, I want to talk about it. Who in their right mind would right this into a script for a narrator: "He could be the one: Soul mate, husband, loving father to your children, but first, you've got to get him to say hello." Cue how Crest 3D White Arctic Fresh Toothpaste could attract men to women.

Thankfully, I'm not the only one insulted by the gender-typing in this commercial. I'll let the comments speak for themselves. While some may come off as sexist (one even said that this commercial showcases the "typical women deer shit" of never living in the moment and always waiting for Prince Charming), overall, the commenters see that this is a low blow to women's purpose in life.

Overall, these questions come to my mind, and thankfully, the commenters think so too:

First of all, why should the woman wait for the man to say hello?
Secondly, why should we assume all women want to get married? And to a man?
Thirdly, who is to say that all women want children?

Commercials like this are reasons why advertisers need to get a clue. If ad viewers are reacting like this in social media, they will lose profit (see my blog post from March). RESIST AND MULTIPLY.

However, this isn't the first time Crest has used tasteless tactics in advertising, most notably playing on people's women's fears. This toothpaste commercial plays on women's fear that they will always be single. And this other Crest commercial is no better in playing on fear.

We first see a woman on her wedding day in her virgin white dress...but alas, Crest relates that with time, your teeth turn yellow just like your once white wedding dress and happy marriage memories!!! If that's not bad enough, they also relate quite boldly in screen text that "If you're not whitening, you're yellowing." Cue Crest's 3D White Strips as the remedy to your fear.


Again, advertising needs to stop scaring people into buying products. Seriously. You are worth more than your once-white wedding dress or waiting for a man to say hello.

I can only imagine what Dove's "real women" would think of this! Shame on you, Unilever...

We need more positive messages in media. I know that the Dove ads are being praised for positivity, but they are also owned by the same company that sells Axe, which objectifies women by showing them as only existing for men's entertainment. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look here. Surprise surprise, it was on MTV!!!

Let's get smarter, people. Tell Crest you aren't buying it.

Wouldn't you like to be a Pepper too? Not quite.

So they're at it again with the Dr. Pepper Ten ads. After the controversy from 2011 about its blatant sexism, Dr. Pepper's owner, Dr.Pepper Snapple Group, is still perpetuating this message. Check it out.

I personally think people need more media literacy. While there isn't any blatant sexism in the YouTube comments that I saw without hitting the "Show More" option (although I'm sure there is some), people make comments like the following:

...Yes, I know this is image falls outside the layout of the blog, but I wanted to make sure it was legible. 

What gets me is the comment "Dont[sic] carry hate. It's only a commercial." The "#lightenupplease" is also amusing for the same reasons. I wonder if the blatant sexism in the commercials roughly 2 years ago flew over the commentator's head as well. Or perhaps they are just ignorant of seeing how it could be taken and still passing it off as "just" a commercial.

It's not just a commercial. It has social implications, which media scholars have well documented with research from the late-40s to present. I cannot accept the humor of the new ad after seeing previous commercials for Dr. Pepper Ten, especially when the message is becoming slightly more subliminal less blunt.

But mostly, I wonder what happened to the all-inclusive "I'm a Pepper!" ads that promoted diversity. Even in this ad, we see people (male AND female) of different ages, races, and circumstances coming together in being unique in their own way; they share being a "Pepper" but are all individuals. Yes, it's odd to talk about advertising in an accepting way, a way that is decent for society, but compared to recent "Pepper" representations, it is golden.

In the classic (and shorter) "I'm a Pepper" ad, which I highly recommend viewing, we see the same thing: Diversity in unity. The Dr. Pepper Ten ad strays from the previous unifying Dr. Pepper ads by separating men from women, and typically, the main characters are white men in their 30s (except this one). So much for diversity. Even in 1980 with the previous decade's love/hate relationship with feminism, women were still included. Women weren't even ostracized in the old ads.

Dr. Pepper Ten in 2013 is trying to convey the same message without being as bold as 2011's bluntness. You would think by now they would have abandoned this marketing scheme in favor of something better, but no. The marketing message is just sugarcoated diluted but is is still there for sure.

Let's get diversity back. #Notbuyingit

Not a made-for-TV movie anymore...

If you think cyberattacks are only American, think again. Recently, the Spanish arrested a Dutch man believed to be Cyberbunker's owner Sven Kamphuis for attacking the site Spamhaus, which is an anti-spam website. Reportedly, the man flooded the website with data in an attempt to bring the site down.

Internationally, cyber security is something that must be recognized. Forget the sci-fi fantasies of 20 years ago and bringing down the world with the push of a button. This is real.

America should make a note of this. While the military has security in place to monitor cyber attacks, it should also work internationally with others, as with this recent Spanish case. The man responsible for the cyberattack on Spamhaus will be transferred back to The Netherlands soon, getting more than one government involved. While America is monitor such attempts, working with other countries to form a universal international policy could work wonders for a future developing faster than we can imagine.

An article earlier this month also cites Cyberbunker and the Spamhaus attack, which commented that the attack ran "a pace that eventually peaked at 300 billion bits per second, several times the size of the attacks against the websites of U.S. banks in late December and early January." This should directly alert America to the importance of cyber security, since it has already suffered a massive attack, but there are those more brutal.

Also, it is believed that the attack was because of something reminiscent of childhood --Spamhaus blacklisted (or essentially said "no") spammers associated with Cyberbunker. Spamhaus acted like a parent of the Internet in their pursuit of preventing excessive spam to international users, and the child Cyberbunker thought the blacklisting was Spamhaus trying to control the Internet.

No, Spamhaus is trying to moderate scum that no one wants to see anyway. People want to check their email peacefully without being prompted to enroll for free tango lessons.

Writing all of this down, America? It is important whether big or small attacks.

The Internet's Double-Edged Sword: Boston

The one downside of the Internet is the greatest thing about it. Who knew.

With the unfortunate events of the Boston Marathon bombing, the Internet forum of users have given their feedback on who was responsible, leaving others worried for their lives at their wrong assumptions. Sunil Tripathi is innocent, and most importantly, still missing since he disappeared in March. One Reddit user in this article (which I highly recommend reading) even posted a comment apologizing to Sunil's family for assuming their son was one of the perpetrators.

But those on Reddit are not the only guilty. People on Facebook, Twitter, and 4Chan also collaborated to incriminate Sunil, and they were wrong. It could be a race thing, especially considering how news media repeatedly single-out minorities as criminals. But I'll let you analyze that at your leisure. Right now, this is about Freedom of Speech and the virtual forum.

The Internet is amazing, because it is a social space where people can gather and share opinions and move toward social change. The Arab Spring is often credited as occurring because of social media spreading the story of Mohamed Bouazizi who immolating himself in protest in Tunisia. However, the downside of the Internet is clear in this case of Sunil being the wrongly accused. Even though the media attention highlighted the fact that he is missing, and may even contribute to helping find him, there will still be a stigma placed on him and his family. Even though he has been accused wrongfully, he'll still be associated with the Boston bombing and will be stigmatized.

Perhaps this is why it is hard to find reader comments on BBC News. The UK also does not have a Freedom of Speech amendment as we do in America. Think about that.

Error 404: The terrorist you requested was not found.

Overall, the Internet is a great place for being a space transcending government where people can discuss and share. But when this sharing affects someone's life, from assuming someone is a suspect to cyberbullying, it can be a detrimental thing. We need to be aware of the comments and assumptions we make online, especially with people we do not know. If there was a rulebook for the Internet, this situation with Boston and Sunil would be an example of the detriment of online forums. But there is no rulebook. That's just not proper Internet etiquette.

Imagine what this means for politics. The Internet is becoming a new arena for discrimination, as noted about Google AdSense allegedly aligning stereotypical African-American names with running criminal record check ads online. Clearly, the Internet is more than telling your friends that you just ate Taco Bell and watched Twilight. It has deeper implications.

I don't blame those who accused Sunil of being the bomber. Times of crisis make people try to find a solution as soon as possible and blaming Sunil was probably the mass's way of fixing the problem and trying to heal. It's not exactly scapegoating, but identifying someone is better than people believing that there is an unknown terrorist still on the loose. I do, however, think people need to be more careful about what their voices mean as a collective in spaces of virtual free reign. You never know who is watching and waiting to jump on your words. It can be a good thing, as far as social change, but a bad thing, as far as incriminating the innocent.

This is the Internet culture.

Well, at least Grand Theft Auto isn't eligible...

Apparently, the European Union wants to investigate a planned tax break for game developers in the UK. This is not good news, since the UK already is wary on remaining in the EU for economic reasons. Now this?

While I don't believe in extreme tax breaks for the rich, this is important for the creativity of media. Without providing tax breaks of some form to gaming companies, there may be stagnation in development. Granted, it is easy for me to say this as an American who has never been to the UK, but gaming is international and will have international repurcussions.

What seals the deal for me is that the UK is being selective in games that receive tax breaks, as "Games with a primary focus of gambling or advertising would not qualify, and titles involving pornography or other 'extreme material' would also be excluded" per the BBC article.

In other words, games such as the Harry Potter Lego games are eligible for tax breaks. This game does not promote sex or violence, but creativity. Why halt a good thing? If this were Rockstar Games getting a tax break for Grand Theft Auto, I would not want my tax dollars going there. However, eligible games that are meant to inspire creativity in players is worth it for me. I say this and I'm not even a gamer.

Tiga, a UK video game trade organization, is reportedly disappointed in the tax break for quality games (games of action without gore) being called into question by the EU.

While some have concerns that enabling these tax breaks can actually reduce jobs, as with relocating the business and employees to tax-subsidized areas, it is worth a try in order to get incentives behind quality games that are better for youth than promoting killing prostitutes and stealing money. If there is a true concern over having to relocate in order to receive tax incentives, with enough backing, there can be accommodations in the future once it has been established. These difficulties will not last forever provided that we establish them and show it is a positive thing. This way, there may be incentives throughout all of the UK if the public sees it as a positive through establishing it in the first place.

In-game purchasing: Adults aren't "buying" it

First, there was advertising to children on TV, which boomed circa 1985. Then there was product placement in kids' TV. Now, game companies are aiming to get kids to spend money on virtual items on games for their smartphones and computers

Recently, Apple refunded over $2,600 USD to 5-year-old Danny Kitchen's parents (England) who let him play games on their iPad and ran up the bill playing Zombies versus Ninjas. In fact, it only took him 10 minutes to download an over $100 USD add-on 19 times.

Well, at least the kid looks happy...

The fact that Apple reimbursed the parents leads me to believe that Apple knows what they are doing in pressuring consumers, as paying the parents this large sum of money after the child's absent-minded downloads admits fault. It is self-incriminating.

Further, this article explains that in January 2013, there was a 300% increase in consumer complaints about add-ons fees for web games and games on iPads.

In my Social Media class, we discussed kids' addictions to games. While there are adolescents and adults not only in the U.S., but also in Japan, China, and in Europe spending large amounts of money on games, having a 5-year-old run up a large bill is ridiculous. While Danny may not be addicted as much as simply enjoying games, these games fees can easily get out of hand. To consider an adult spending this much money is equally concerning, because that money can be used for a mortgage payment, car insurance, or even a vacation --more important things than the instant gratification of collection virtual jewels.

 We know that WoW is a computer game that is highly focused on items and developing one's character. Imagine the amounts of money WoW addicts spend. Now image what adults trying to pass the time spend on silly smartphone games. Again, addiction is one thing, but money is another. The facade of spending 99cents here and there adds up over time and while adults may not be addicted, it is basically gambling. You cannot guarantee the add-ons will help you win the game, but money is still poured in. Overall, we need to be aware of the effects of buying add-ons and apps.

Moreso, we need to educate our children on media literacy.

Why {Pregnancy} and Poverty?

This documentary is beautifully terrifying. I never would have imaged that in the last 20 years, maternal mortality rates have worsened in the U.S.

Welcome to the World -Why Poverty? is a documentary that made its debut less than a month ago that follows three women -one from the US, one from Cambodia, and one from Sierra Leone- in pregnancy, giving birth, and taking care of their children. It is terrifying that no one talks about why these women are in poverty and must struggle to survive. The most terrifying thing is knowing that there are pregnant, homeless women in this world. In fact, the number of women who died in the documentary is far too many.

I don't want to tell everything about the documentary, but I will say this: Documentaries are important for giving voices to those who are outside the margins of society...all societies. I highly recommend watching this and seeing even how in the U.S. there are women struggling with pregnancy and homelessness. The clinic in Sierra Leone has the best intentions, but like the U.S., greed prevents resources from being shared. Since money is taboo in public discourse in the West, there is a need for documentaries to reach people and share stories of those struggling without it.

This documentary is much more than about pregnancy. I hope you will watch it and join the push for discourse in our world to make change.

Google and privacy? That's not relevant to America at all...

More Google news...seems that Google has been in the news a lot lately...

After giving Google a four-month deadline to change its privacy settings, six European data watchdogs, which are settled in heavyweights Germany and the UK as well as France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain, are seeking to conduct more investigations into Google's privacy settings. In October 2012, Google was charged with not meeting the standards of the European Commission.

According to the Commission:

"Google should do more to let users see what information was held about them, provide tools to manage this data and take more care to ensure it did not store too much data about users."

Privacy will always be relevant as long as social media remains a communication tool. With debates about Facebook's privacy settings, Google is now becoming a target. If we consider Google Earth's ability to show someone's house in broad daylights to its other daunting ability to mark local pedophiles, we know that there are concerns in America regarding its policies as well.

Why hasn't this been addressed in America? And also, why is there rarely news about such Google cases in America? Can Taylor Swift's catalog of beaus be more important than talking about privacy issues in the world's most popular search engine that began in the States?

Even from past articles I have discussed and shared, they have usually been from a non-American source. Is it shame? The ignorance-is-bliss mentality? The few desensitizing the masses on real issues going on in this country? Hopefully the U.S. will take notice to such discussions that are just as relevant here --after all, I know where my house is on Google.

Ogooglebar

“Google has namely forgot[sic] one thing: language development do[sic] not care about brand protection. No individual can decide about the language."

In this statement by the Language Council of Sweden, there is clearly a divide between corporate culture and the development of language. Ask a linguistics scholar and they will tell you that language is ever-developing (for example, the phrase "an apron" centuries ago was actually said as "a napron"). Even within the last few years, technology has changed the use "like," "unfriend," "tag," and "tweet" due to social media and people internationally becoming more connected via these platforms. However, I have not seen Twitter or Facebook object to its terms' use in the lexicon, perhaps because the use of their terms shows its saturation in society, and therefore, its popularity; it gives them more exposure, so they keep their mouths silent.

Google recently demanded that Sweden remove the term "ungoogleable," or in their vernacular, "ogooglebar," from its official list of Swedish words, citing that the term should reflect Google searches in general and not the lack of being able to find content using the search engine.

This reminds me immediately of Google wanting to be the omniscient source of all information and that the idea of not being able to find something on Google is absurd and impossible. Nice ego, Google. I can only imagine how this will affect others' views of Americans further in our rampant capitalism.

Imagine if all search engines or corporations, for that matter, had this philosophy. Though, maybe it would be best for society to not discuss corporate products (e.g. "I love cherry Coke") since life would be less materialistic. Who knows.

To avoid using Google and giving it more exposure (more than it has already through news sources and in posts like these, and its link with Blogger.com), I opted to take my own photo for this post, which is above.

Cyber Terrorism is a Reality

With the recent news interest of North Korea and terrorism, it is important to look at media's other terrain in this topic. The BBC has recently published an article about North Korea allegedly training citizens to be "cyberwarriors," which alludes to hacking. We know that in the last few weeks, the news also reported on China's hackers taking aim at the U.S., and now with North Korea in the news, cyber terrorism is becoming more prevalent.

The article also mentions that the hackers can remove any footprints that ties them to their attacks, and if they act anonymously, it will be hard for its targets to combat. How could we fight back or prevent attacks when we do not know who and from where the attacks are coming from?

Can we truly understand what a cyber war could be? It would mean that banks with online ties will be taken down, as we would not be able to access our money, which is even more terrifying than losing our social media. They could potentially make corporate servers crash and having business plummet. Computerized logistics could prevent us from having adequate food shipped to around the country, as an extreme example. It also means that spyware can be implanted in our computers by North Korea, or any other country, to watch us as we interacts online to understand what are our most prominent concerns.

Overall, cyberterrorism is a serious issue that the world needs to address, since technology, such as nuclear weapons, has the potential for deadly consequences. While we do not think of a computer as a deadly piece of technology, our reliance on it can lead us to a downfall if they parts of our lives now online are tampered with.

Facebook and Darkrooms and Typewriters, Oh My!

Great video! Not only does Ty Morin's project of photographing all 788 of his Facebook friends bring social media into reality, but he has also influenced a good friend of his to send letters to his friends as well --and no, he is not typing them on the computer, but a using typewriter. Not the same as old-fashioned handwriting, but still sentimental.

While Morin says it will take at least 3 years to photograph everyone on his friend list, he is passionate about making the mass of names and pictures online into real people. He plans of taking pictures of them doing activities they love. What is interesting is that Morin mentions that some people on his friend list say they don't know what they love to do. This dilemma seems to be on the rise as more people create a presence online and devote several hours to their Facebook and Twitter accounts instead of going outside and being with people.

 I am pleased to see that Morin is not discrediting social media, but trying to make it more social. In fact, he is using communication technology, an old box camera, to make these people more real to him. With my personal interest in the old, seeing his friend use a typewriter and Morin himself using not only a nondigital camera, but a dark room and developing supplies, is touching. Perhaps this can be a new way this new generation connects with the older generations? Morin has something good going for him. Take a look at some of his photos Facebook friend photos above.

The Power of Consumers

Think one person can't change anything? If you and 29,999 had this attitude, Veronica Mars may be a blip in media' past.

According to this BBC article, 30,000 fans of Veronica Mars, a show about a young private eye, raised over $2 million in 24 hours to make the show into a movie, as the TV series has been cancelled. Reportedly, $1 million was raised in less than 4.5 hours!

Due to this reaction, Warner Bros. will make a movie out of the show, even though it previously declined to fund it. A major media corporation listening to viewers? Fantastic!

Even though it is unfortunate that money talks, seeing the outreach of fans donating for bringing back quality media is touching. We should be encouraged to do the same, since media images comes and go, but stereotypes often remain. Imagine what we can do if we all submitted our voice frequently. If we voiced our opinions, whether on social media or directly to the company, we could contribute to removing negative portrayals and supporting quality TV that we miss.

From what I learned in my media studies courses (which links to business), we should not be afraid to directly contact those we agree and disagree with, since we have freedom of speech and are consumers. This is the reason why so many corporations are now on social media --they are now being held responsible by consumers for quality service in products with social media's ability to reach millions. Without being on social media to respond to these gripes, they would lose out on their profit with declining sales.

If a customer is upset, they can easily make 100,000 other consumers upset, and *poof* you have a scandal on your hands, not to mention declining profits. The photo above shows just how important social media is for contributing  to change. In 2013, imagine how much more these statistics are amplified.

The power of media and the individual is important in today's society, and whether you are voicing your joy over quality media or commenting on Facebook about faulty products, your voice does matter. 

YouTube emphasizes the "Relations" in Gender Relations

Upon a quick YouTube search to find interesting communication videos to share, I found myself seeing a common theme: dating tips hidden under the "gender relations" search term. Specifically, I found mostly videos for advising men how to "seduce" and "attract" women, and other superficial topics as "What to SAY[sic] if she has a boyfriend" and "How to Attract Women for Shy Guys."

While these videos may be useful for some people, it skews the definition of what are considered gender relations, and on a major website dedicated to video, a medium that engages more of our senses than reading alone and therefore creating more prominent messages, having incorrect associations is unacceptable. By holding gender relations as a means for dating advice, people may begin to view gender relations only towards women, making them the "other" in communication and assuming that they are the ones with odd communication habits. Also, people may only think of gender relations in terms of dating and nothing else when gender relations contribute to other social areas like the workplace. Ever heard of the glass ceiling?
 

When I think "Gender relations," I think of Deborah Tannen and her famous Genderlect theory, not how to bag a female. Instead, I am choosing to share with you a video about the basics of this theory created by other quirky college students. 

Internet Site Owners Give to Science Research

"Some of the world's richest internet entrepreneurs, including Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg, have awarded 11 disease researchers $3m (£1.9m) each." (BBC News, 2013, n.p.)

As the BBC published the article "$3m prizes from internet[sic] titans for disease research," there is a question that comes to mind: Do these supposed "Internet titans" have another agenda?

While many people do not realize it, the various media -TV, radio, telecommunications, print, and the Internet- are all owned by a few groups per medium (click here to be enlightened) and mergers happen frequently to give them more strength. The Internet specifically has a few major rulers, which are Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and of course, Google.

While the broadcast media owners have been in control for years among the likes of CBS, Time Warner, and the Walt Disney company, to name a few, the Internet is an increasingly lucrative area for monopolies to occur in ownership. Monopolies, as we've learned in business and economic classes, weaken the power of consumers because the owners can charge any rate they want due to the lack of competition to drive prices down. They may also potentially silence consumers, such as those who use the Internet, if these cyber managers gain more control and a higher focus on money in the future.

While the Internet is argued as the one free, democratic place to give opinions, take a stand, and cultivate change through social media, there is the paradox of having only four corporate 4 managers who own much of the technology and sites used online. Especially regarding the focus of this article, the Internet is putting a larger focus on money, or at least, the BBC is.

Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, is quoted in the article as saying that "Society needs more heroes" regarding the donations heavyweights of the Internet are giving to science research, which implies that being a "hero" is directly tied to monetary worth -after all, not many average world citizens can afford to donate $3 million. This makes us think of the heroes in our own communities who do not have millions, such as firefighters and volunteers, that, in this context, are not deserving of recognition for the lack of funds.

Not only does Zuckerberg's brief statement hide an elusive meaning, but the photo of Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, shows him wearing the new Google glasses, captioned as "Google co-founder Sergey Brin wore "Google glass" to the prize announcement." The fact that he wore the glasses to the announcement of the researchers receiving the monetary prize is concerning, since the limelight should be on the recipients of the award going toward their scientific research. In the BBC article, the only pictures and video is of Zuckerberg and Brin, the Internet moguls, rather than the scientists who have received the prize.

In sum, the image of Brin with the glasses alludes to sheer advertising for Google and the photo's use on an international website shows that money and media go hand-in-hand, as the scientific research is overshadowed (e.g. donation recipients are listed last). It should also make us wonder how media and science will mix in the future, especially how the media will portray science, as with this article putting the focus on the "world's richest internet[sic] entrepreneurs" rather than the scientists who are working to battle diseases that are just as deserving of a shout-out. 

Overall, we need to keep a watch on the influence of Internet moguls, the freedom of the Internet, and how money influences power.