Racist Kids Will Be Racist Kids..

Racist  Kids will be Racist Kids…

(please note that linked articles include strong racist terms and profanity)

I hate when someone starts a column or a speech with rhetorical questions.  But I am going to.

If a teen publishes something stupid on the internet, should the teen suffer consequences?  And does the school have a responsibility in bringing that student to justice?  Does the term "bringing that student to justice" suggest that broadcasting something stupid is a crime?  

When I look back on my teen years, there are stupid things I said that I wish I hadn't.  In my case, most don't remember the dopey things I said.  When teens  vent their worst thoughts they're on the internet.  On twitter and Facebook.  Available to the world in perpetuity.  Tracie Egan Morrissey found some of these tweets and reprinted them.  

Tracie's November 9  article on Jezebel.com, ran a column of tweets of teens venting their anger at Obama being reelected.  The tweets include the racial terms that I can not repost here.  And profanity I wouldn't repost here.  Then she called those student's high schools to find out what, if any, action the school might take toward those students.  

Is the role of a blogger to rat on a tweeter exercising First Amendment rights?  Maybe what 

Tracie has highlighted is the checks and balances of the internet.  If we search we can find the range of viewpoints that exist in our world.  We need to know that such racism exists.  

A follow up article from Jezebel.com  featured the racist and profane responses of adults who were mad at the website for calling the kids out.  Teens hate being called "kids."  But teens are, by definition,  young and going to make mistakes that adults will catch.  But now those mistakes might be captured and retweeted.  The follow up article featuring the bigotry of adults only shows us that the kids learn from the adults.  

The racist teens and inquiring Jezebel bloggers are part of the checks and balances. Should a blogger have called the schools?  I'm a parent.  I want my daughter's school to be challenged.  Is printing racist terms a crime that should be called to justice?  What do you think about hate speech?

Yes, I left you with a rhetorical question.  

A delayed appreciation

I should have mentioned this earlier.  I hope it's never too late for a kind word.

A Facebook friend, a long-time successful television news producer, wants to write a book on what is wrong with journalism today.  He wondered two things:  1.  would anybody read it? and 2.  how many volumes would it take?

With cynicism high and hope for quality journalism low, comes word from the New York Times.  At a newspaper that values their journalistic heritage, the paper published an article though they were quite sure it would cost advertising revenue.

The New York Times' David Barboza  broke a story awhile ago about the "vast wealth of the Chinese prime minister's family." The Times published the article for two reasons--it was true and it was newsworthy.  As a result, the Times website was blocked in China causing its advertisers to have no access to the audience it was promised.   

Recently, the New York Times company reported its net income for the third quarter had declined more than 85 percent compared to the same period last year.   Its stock dropped more than 22 percent.  Losing ad revenue in China, or anyplace else, right now is maybe not a good business decision.  The Times concluded that a Chinese politician helping his family financially at the government's expense is a good story.  So they ran it.

There is a lot wrong with journalism today.  The problems are technological, sociological, economic and perhaps due to an ever shortening attention span on the part of its audience.  What the New York Times reminded us is that the problems are not part of a natural evolution.  They are a choice.  The New York Times chose to do quality, responsible journalism, no matter what the costs.  Because the story was true and newsworthy.  They made a choice.

some 9/11 thoughts--on media and one other thing

In political news:  In front of the capital today, John Boehner gave a dignified and appropriate tribute to the heroes and victims of 9/11.  As he worked to control his emotions and his voice cracked, I do hope that all will take the day off from snark about him showing his emotion.  Nothing wrong with a man showing his humanity as a country deals with the inhumanity of eleven years ago.

CNN showed the speeches and showed the services in front of the capital.  However, the crawl at the bottom of the screen during those speeches told audiences that Jerry Lawler collapsed during a WWE taping and Rove's Crossroads organization is releasing more ads.  Fox News had the class to run a crawl of the names of those that died on 9/11.  Fox showed a lack of class by simultaneously running a discussion of one view of the country's economic condition and that it was all the Democrat's fault.  

No network, broadcast or cable, could spare any time to show the survivors of 9/11 reading the names of those that died that day.  No network could take time away from advertising to show respect to the fallen.  No network could relinquish an opportunity for a commercial to show the survivors  reading the names of the people that died, the people they knew.

MSNBC did what they have done each year on the anniversary which is showing NBC's news coverage in real time as it occurred that day.  Without a crawl and without interruption.  One network still had some idea of perspective.  

As I write this, with great dignity, the survivors read out the names of those that died in New York City on 9/11.  And no network could show them.  Not while there are commercials to run.

MTV: Fraud

Usually, a blogger offers hyperlinks to the items being referenced.  I am not hyperlinking the Video Music Awards (VMA's for folks as old as me).  Because MTV is a fraud.  The network has hyped through "Rock the Vote," the idea of an engaged youth.  A voting youth.  An informed youth.  It's apparently a fraud.
Tonight,  one week after watching Mitt Romney gave his address to the Republican Convention, President Obama had his moment in front of his party and a nation.  The NFL moved a football game to a different night to accommodate this important speech.  MTV made sure that young people that maybe, just might, listen to the President, instead would watch MTV.  The network counterprogrammed the President with the VMA's.
The CEO of Viacom, who owns MTV, Philippe Dauman, worked with the Gates Foundation to start "Get Schooled" an organization seeking to raise the awareness of the crisis in our public schools.  But that was three years ago.  Dauman has obviously abandoned his desire to make sure our young people have their priorities straight.  His network counterprogrammed.  
Daumann is not a Republican.  Or a Democrat.  He has given generously to both parties.  Perhaps his network had partisan intents.  Perhaps his network was just out to make a buck tonight.  At the expense of an informed youth.  MTV is a fraud.

Of Newsrooms and Icons

Even though the Olympics are done, there is still TV worth watching...

Aaron Sorkin's HBO program Newsroom is doing what Sorkin's West Wing did:  create a thoroughly fictitious world where standards and ethics still matter.  While he's at it, he paints complex, fascinating characters whose emotional needs are always secondary to their needs to serve the public interest.  Whether the latter point is a virtue can be debated since most all the characters from both West Wing and Newsroom are single or divorced. 

Another point that can be debated is whether creating such an ideal world gives us something to strive for or something to bemoan as unattainable. 

I also appreciate that although Newsroom take all of its story lines from the headlines, its promos never mention "ripped from the headlines."

The show had its season finale already.  That is an annoying aspect of HBO series.  Very few episodes until they take their siesta.  Wait for it to come back.  (well, you have no choice but to wait…)  (it is worth wait)

And if you absolutely, have to read…

Two from Tom Shales.

Live from New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live.  Sure, it's ten years old already. SNL is like the economy--people are constantly predicting its demise and then it resurrects again for no apparent reason and despite 

the advice of experts.  Tom Shales (and James Andrew Miller) tell the story by letting all those that lived it tell the story.  Through unedited interviews with basically everybody (except Eddie Murphy), all those moments that you remember or heard about are explained and demythified.  The stories of John Belushi's excesses, Chevy Chase's excesses, producer Lorne Michael's excessive ego and all the others that made up the show are told--by the people that lived them.  With no foreshadowing and minimal opionating from the authors.  It is an amazing look into broadcast history from those that made broadcast history.

Extra good news:  Live from New York is available in the cheap racks at most book stores.

Also, ESPN  Those Guys Have All the Fun  Inside the World of ESPN.   Shales and Miller explain the early days of ESPN when it was a goof with little hope of becoming, well,  ESPN.  The people that created and nurtured the network from a theory to a legend tell their own story.  The authors offer minimal editorializing and do not foreshadow.  Full disclosure: I went to college with Linda Cohn, legendary ESPN SportsCenter anchor.  I don't include this disclosure for journalistic reasons. I am bragging that I did the news on our campus radio station with Linda.  One of the nicest people I knew. 

ESPN and SNL supplied iconic programming that has collectively given us so many moments that are part of our media history.   How they started, how they both almost failed and who made them what they are today--amazing stories told first hand by those that lived them.  

And finally:

ABC New's Nightline beats Leno and Letterman in its time slot after local news.  So, this January, ABC is going to take away its time slot and move it behind Jimmy Fallon.  Because two variety shows after local news is clearly not enough.  I believe if ABC supervised Jamaican sports, it would have Usain Bolt competing in equestrian events.

Days of Commercial Free DVR Viewing May Be Numbered

ImMEDIAte Needs:  Days of commercial free DVR viewing may be numbered….

So you DVR your favorite shows to avoid commercials.  Your days of freedom from commercials may be numbered.

And that might be good news for your favorite shows.

Comcast has just applied for a patent for an invention that would allow advertisers to post ads on your DVR programming when you try to avoid advertising by fast forwarding.  The technology would even allow advertisers to target you specifically based on your viewing habits.  (So, if you watch more public television are you sending a message that you will do anything to avoid commercials?)

Monetizing the DVR may actually save your favorite shows.  During the recent National Association of Broadcasting convention I spoke to a person from Fox Television.  I mentioned to her that I hope she can save “Fringe.” 

She said that while ratings for “Fringe” were dismal, the number of DVR views was impressive. Well, “Fringe” will come back for thirteen episodes this Fall.  And many of its viewers will apparently watch the show via DVR.  Perhaps if those DVR viewers had to watch some advertising, the viewers might be rewarded by getting more than a half-season commitment. 

Yes, watching commercials is the punishment we endure for enjoying our favorite shows. Yes, we avoid that punishment by using our DVR option.  If we endure a little punishment with our DVR viewing, we might be able to save our favorite shows.

And maybe not running “Fringe” on Friday night might increase live viewership?

Update:  DISH network has announced a system that allows viewers to automatically skip commercials while watching programs on DVR.  Fox, NBC and CBS all filed suit to stop the roll out two weeks ago of Auto Hop, the new service from the satellite provider. 

This Memorial Day weekend, a commentator on the NPR program “On The Media” predicted the end of broadcast television by 2020.  Are we seeing the beginning of that end?

For comments or to see some past columns, please go to:

http://immediateneeds-now.blogspot.com

sources:

http://rbr.com/comcast-patent-could-deliver-ads-to-dvr-viewers-who-skip-spots/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/25/tech/gaming-gadgets/dish-tv-skip-ads/index.html

Babbling bloggers not always journalists....

He/She who babbles is not always a journalist. 

A conservative blogger interrupted President Obama during the president’s announcement of a new policy dealing with illegal immigrants. Though the blogger failed to show the maturity of an actual journalist, the fact that he received press credentials to the White House suggest that some bloggers may be perceived as journalists.

Well, a Montana judge has determined that a blogger is not necessarily a journalist.  No, my feelings are not hurt.  This non-binding ruling concluded that a blogger, specifically Crystal Cox, was not a journalist.   Some definition of what a journalist is (and is not) might help those of us who mine the internet for information to determine what is real info and what is made up for convenience sake.

Federal Judge Marco Hernandez said Cox was not a journalist because she offered no professional qualifications as a journalist or legitimate news outlet.   The judge offered a detailed definition of a journalist by stating what Cox lacked:

--She had no journalism education,

--no credentials or affiliation with a recognized news outlet,

--no proof of adhering to journalistic standards such as editing or checking her facts,

--no evidence she produced an independent product or evidence she ever tried to get both sides of the story.

Ms. Cox said she was a journalist since she had produced over 400 blogs and had developed a system to get her blogs on the top of on-line lists using a unique method of search engine optimization.

Producing a large quantity of content does not make you a journalist.  Trending on Yahoo does not make you a journalist.  And perhaps that is the problem with journalism today.  Some believe that if you publish something, you are a journalist.  And readers and viewers sometimes believe that if we read it somewhere, a journalist produced it.

This is scary.  When random information takes on the stature of a journalistic endeavor, then the public becomes a less informed electorate.  Quantity of publication does not mean the publisher is a journalist.  An individual who reads a large quantity of info on the internet does not mean the individual is informed. 

There are also immediate practical implications of the judge’s ruling.  In denying the blogger status as a journalist, Ms. Cox is denied the benefits of shield laws.  Shield laws allow journalists to refuse to provide sources for their info to the authorities.  The idea of shield laws is that if a journalist is forced to divulge sources to a judge or grand jury, the journalist will have much less access to information from confidential sources and the public will be less informed.  (There are exceptions to the shield laws. Such laws differ by state.) 

Given the definition offered for what a journalist is, how many of those we watch evenings on  Fox or MSNBC would qualify as journalists?  I know that in this context of a blog, I am not acting like a journalist.  I am offering opinions.  (However, I have fact checked.)  No, the Montana judge did not hurt my feelings.  On the contrary, he offers hope that one day we will know the difference between a journalist and a babbler.

For comments or to see some past columns, please go to:
http://immediateneeds-now.blogspot.com

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/09/usa-blogger-ruling-idUSN1E7B70UA20111209

http://lippmannwouldroll.com/2010/07/21/subpoenas-against-media-topped-3000-its-time-to-pass-the-shield-bill-spj-says/

http://www.spj.org/shieldlaw.asp

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/guides/reporters-privilege/shield-laws (shield laws by state)