Television’s Vital Signs

On Nov. 23 I did a post titled “A Rocky Road for Broadcast TV.” It recapped on television’s slow decline, caused by drops in both viewers and advertisers. L.A. Times reporter Meg James begs to differ.

In her article “Advertising resurgence hits the spot for TV networks,” James claims “after pummeling traditional media companies for nearly two years, the advertising recession is showing signs of a recovery.” According to the article, advertisers are rushing to buy up prime time slots and paying more expensive fees than they did five months ago.

David Levy, president of sales for Turner Entertainment said “In challenging times, people go back to what they know, and what they know best is television.” Wow. Naive, anyone?

What James and Levy fail to acknowledge is that this is the holiday season, and of course television networks are going to welcome advertisers hungry to boost their sales this December. Since we are in a recession, major companies selling products such as computers, telephones, clothing, etc. are naturally going to use television to communicate to the masses. Television is what we know, but not what we’ll know forever. It’s totally naive to doubt the Internet won’t have any implications on the television business. I mean, look at the newspaper business. Newspapers have been apart of our nation’s history since the beginning of the American Revolution but that didn’t stop anybody from going to the Internet to find their news.

People think that consumerism and advertising is the solution to all our problems. We like to examine the results, but never the root cause.

kayBEE

Tweetsgiving: Showing Gratitude

Well, silly me for thinking the only way I could celebrate Thanksgiving was writing a post about President Obama pardoning a turkey. I stand corrected. I did a little research on Thanksgiving after making that post and I found some cool stuff.

Many people dimiss users of social media as geeks who sit around a computer with nothing better to do. Well, most of the time that is me. But what most don’t realize is that social media has the power to bring great change to the world. My point? Tweetsgiving.

“TweetsGiving is a global celebration that seeks to change the world through the power of gratitude.” I came across Tweetsgiving.com while surfing the Internet. A group of students from the University of Toronto started their own blog to help connect students across their campus. One of the students posted a blog about the alleged evils of social media and used Tweetsgiving as an example to show that it’s more than typing a few words on a computer or cell phone.

Tweetsgiving is a 48-hour event hosted by the nonprofit organization Epic Change that reaches out across the world to those in need. The organization encourages users of social media to use their tools as channels to give thanks and help to those who are less fortunate. The event, which lasts from Nov. 24 – Nov. 26, asks people to post, whether it be on Facebook, Twitter or on their own blogs, what exactly they’re thankful for. From there you can decided whether or not you’d like to donate money to help build schools for children in third-world countries. Last Tweetsgiving Epic Change helped raise $10,000 to build a modern classroom in Arusha, Tanzania. This year they hope to raise enough money to build a technology lab in the school.

It just goes to show the doubters that social media isn’t just something that let’s ordinary people post about what kind of sandwich they had for lunch that day. It can initiate change and help bring awareness to people who really do need help.

You can still enjoy your tofurkey, but while your at it, make a little donation if you have the money and the time. To make a donation to Tweetsgiving, click here.

kayBEE

The Pardoning of Courage The Turkey

I don’t usually do this, but what the hell. In the spirit of Thanksgiving, I decide to dedicate one of my posts to Thanksgiving and every family in the world. I know that not everyone celebrates Thanksgiving, but I think that especially now we all need to consider what we are thankful for as citizens of the world. Today, as I sit out on my deck in 40-degree weather eating egg salad out of Dixie cup, I just want to say that I am thankful for living on this planet, I am thankful for the hope of change that this world looks forward to and especially to my family, who has given me every opportunity that I need to be a successful part of this world.

Today President Obama officially pardoned “Courage” the turkey. theKERRY500 would like to wish everyone a safe and wonderful Thanksgiving. Let’s all be thankful for being citizens of the world.

Enjoy your turkey, and for those of you that don’t eat meat, enjoy your tofurkey.

kayBEE

25 Reasons Why We’re Sick of Social Media

It’s actually pretty funny. The most important thing I’ve learned while beginning my journey with social media is to keep an open mind and have a good sense of humor. This comes from the social networking site Ragan.com and lists 25 reasons why we’re all sick of social media. It’s a joke, but it’s so true, too.

My personal favorite: 11. Since we’ve been doing so much typing, our fingers have mutated to the size of a Kielbasa.

Here’s the site, for your enjoyment: 25 Reasons We’re Sick of Social Media.

kayBEE

 

The Yes Men in Ithaca

Well, they’re not exactly in Ithaca. But their new movie, The Yes Men Fix The World, begins its showing at Cornell Cinema in Ithaca, N.Y. starting on Nov. 30. The movie will be shown until Dec. 6.

The Yes Men, led by Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonnano, are, well, a different kind of political activist. Many of us say we stand behind a particular idea but rarely act upon what we believe. Bichlbaum and Bonnano take the corporate world head on by posing as CEO’s, World Trade Organization administrators and DOW Jones spokesmen. They pull pranks on some of the most powerful people in the world.

The pranks range from taking responsibility for the Bhopal disaster to the creation of a new “eco-friendly” oil by Exxon Moblie. The Yes Men speak out against globalization and consumerism, blaming large corporations and trade organizations for the exploitation of resources, which thus results in the exploitation of third world countries. They hold these men accountable for trade laws that ultimately lead to poverty and unfair practices of labor in countries that have no voice when it comes to these matters.

What their doing is really interesting and admirable. The Yes Men put a complete twist on activism. Their stunts bring attention to problems that not many people pay attention to and they don’t care whose reputation they ruin in the process. Their old movie, The Yes Men, is on Hulu and I highly recommend it. You’ll learn something while having a good laugh.

KAYbee.

A Rocky Road for Broadcast TV

Cable news. It’s all the rage. Oprah’s doing it, and you should, too.

American television was born on a strong tradition of broadcast networks. Until Fox came into the picture in 1987, three major broadcast channels dominated US airwaves–CBS, ABC and NBC. They set the pace for American life and served not just as networks for news, but as channels of entertainment and popular culture, as well. In an Unsteady Future for Broadcast, New York Times reporters Tim Arango and Bill Carter tell us that this is no longer the case for American television.

Like newspapers, television is seeing a slow and imminent death due to the increased popularity of the Internet. We no longer consume our media by turning the page or flipping through channels–instead we find information through quick clicks of a button. Newspapers and journalism in general have found some relief through downsizing and moving much of their business online. Television has yet to find a definite solution to save its face. It is clear, however, that is hasn’t found refuge in large broadcast channels. Instead, media personalities and shows have fled to cable networks.

According to the NYT article, compared to the 30 percent of households that tuned into NBC in 1952, only 5.2 of households today watch the channel. That is an unbelievable drop and it really landmarks where all broadcast stations are at today. People no longer gather around the television at night to watch the nightly news or dramas. Instead they are turning to a different market where their content can play to specific niche audiences. Unlike large networks, cable channels target different kinds of tastes–like the Food Network, Lifetime, SpikeTV, USA–all of tthem have something in common. They all have variety in their content and each narrow down to something specific. A channel for food-lovers, a channel for women, a channel for men.

“The mass audience — the bread and butter of broadcast networks — has splintered into niches as viewers flock to alternative entertainment choices on the Internet, to video games and to cable channels dedicated to individual tastes, like Ms. Winfrey’s forthcoming OWN, the Oprah Winfrey Network.”

Unlike broadcast channels, which receive most of their revenue from advertisers, cable news networks heavily rely on subscriptions from cable operators to fund their projects. They don’t have to depend on advertisers to keep their channels afloat. As a result they have the freedom to test out different shows and don’t have to resort to cheap reality programming to replace hardcore dramas. Survivor. Amazing Race. So You Think You Can Dance. Broadcast networks use these as a way to replace dramas and comedies that typically cost about $3 million per hour.

Much of the debate about net neutrality comes from the fact that television can no longer compete with the world wide web. For now, it seems as though cable is television’s only saving grace.

Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting

I have searched. And searched and searched and searched. For at least the past month to find arguments against the current system of U.S. public broadcasting. We had learned about it a little bit in our Independent Media class, but not enough to convince me that it doesn’t work. Well, since then I’ve learned that it does work, but not in the United States. And like most media companies in the United States, it does not work because of corporate pressure.

For weeks I’ve tried to look up articles about the flawed system of public broadcasting, and finally 10 minutes ago I found a solid article with relevant facts and truthful opinions. Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting executive director Jerry Starr proposed an alternative to the current model of public broadcasting in the United States. Compared to most developed countries in the world, the United States lacks a firm public broadcasting channel; “Looked at in world perspective, U.S. public service broadcasting is the new kid on the block and still the small fry in the gang.” The idea of a publicly-owned TV channel was not developed by the U.S.–in other countries it was required to have a channel serving the public before commercial channels were permitted. We are light ye ars behind in our journey towards a solid publicly-owned TV station.

“The universal mission of public broadcasting is to serve viewers and listeners as citizens and voters, rather than consumers.” This is something we definitely do not have in the United States. Large media conglomerates such as Time Warner, Comcast and News Corp play a heavy hand in the content that is aired on our television sets. And most of the time the content serves to advertisers and rarely steps on the toes of those in charge. Our media have become satisfied in playing to those who fund airtime. The equation is very simple. MONEY > TRUTH.

Starr speaks of the media monopolies that dominant US air and radio waves. “Behind this illusion of choice, however, lies a collusion of interest that serves the giant media corporations at the expense of American democracy and cultural diversity.” Though we think we have variety in what we watch and what we read, it’s not entirely true. “Between 1975 and 2000, the number of TV stations increased by 75 percent, but the number of TV station owners actually declined by 33 percent.” What we consume is actually owned by a small number of powerful media elites.

So if funding does not come from the government or advertisers, where will it come from? The answer: household TV licensing fees. Instead of relying on Congress (who, compared to other countries, does nothing for public advertising) for funding, the United States could pass a tax that people would have to pay in order to receive television in their homes. This would allow public broadcast stations to “run their own show,” so to speak, and they would not have to rely on the government or advertising to fuel their funds. The BBC uses this method and it works.

If we can pay for Satellite television, HD programming and add-ons such as “pay-for” movie channels and sports networks, we as a nation can definitely afford to throw a few bucks to public broadcasting.

kayBEE.

America’s Top Twit: Biz Stone & Twitter’s Business Model

In light of my recent post about Biz Stone’s remarks about Rupert Murdoch’s displeasure over his News Corp titles being linked to by Google News, I decided to do some more research on Twitter. I’ve never really gotten the gist of it – I tried to get into it about a half a year ago, but couldn’t. I’ve always understood and appreciated the importance it has played in citizen journalism and political life – protests in Iran and updates on the Mumbai terror situation. Twitter has undoubtedly enhanced social media and revolutionized citizen media. We no longer receive day-old news. Updates are instantaneous and we can find out what is happening around the globe with the click of a button. I found this video on ComedyCentral.com – it’s pretty funny and made me realize aspects of Twitter that I did not know of before.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

What really interested me about Stephen Colbert’s interview with Biz Stone was the co-founder’s plans for a business model. Many think that because Twitter does not generate any revenue, they lack a business model, which is untrue. Stone has sort of a delayed business plan, which he admits is a slow process. People can really learn something from Stone – not to rush into anything and let things unfold as they may.

We have studied different types of business models for online and independent newspapers/magazines in my Independent Media class. Most organizations subscribe to a consumer-supported business model, or an advertiser-supported business model. They either receive money from subscriptions or advertising. For the past two years Twitter has tested out alternative methods to rack in some revenue. Whether it’s partnering with businesses to get products more notoriety or enhancing features on their search bar, Stone is doing what he can to prevent his site from either accepting money from advertisers or charging users for subscriptions. Business Week blogger David L. Smith does a good job of outlining the test models.

Whether these models actually work are in question. But it would be interesting to see if any of them do work. They could fundamentally change the way independent businesses receive funding for their projects.

kayBEE.

Free Tweets For All: Biz Stone vs. Rupert Murdoch

Twitter founder Biz Stone challenged media owner mogul Rupert Murdoch’s accusations that websites like Google are stealing content from his News Corp congolomerate and reposting it on the Internet. Murdoch has plans to set up a paywall next spring in order to block stories from being linked by sites like Google.

Stone suggested that Murdoch take a deeper look into linking his content with Google and “find out how to make a ton of money out of being radically open rather than some money by being ridiculously closed.”

In a time of radical change, Murdoch seems to be holding on to traditional volumes of news and communication. It’s obvious that he is not on board with the current media revolution. Charging users to see his content seems to be counterproductive–he’s closing out his audience and making the Internet, which for now is free from any barriers, an exclusive space limited to those who are willing to pay the fee.

Stone says he’d “love to see what happens” if Murdoch begins to charge users to read the news. He also was interviewed by the BBC and told them that the”future is openness, not closed.”

Wow. That really really sounds familiar. Arianna Huffington anyone? Rich Lowry possibly? Matt Taibbi, Kate Sheppard, Josh Marshall, Glenn Greenwald? You think that men like Murdoch would learn from people who have seen success while doing things differently. This brings us back to the issue of net neutrality. If it doesn’t harm other people and doesn’t have an affect on internet providers or other people’s services, what is the big deal? Is it because there is a big bad scary world out there with a ton of ideas that are different from the norm?

Rupert Murdoch’s Tweet from 11.20: I want to control the world.

kayBEE

p.s.- I used Google News to look up the articles for this post. HAHA!

Huffington Post’s Top Ten Game Changers

Phew!

The game is changing. No doubt. Though we don’t normally put a face to things like Netflix or web videos, there are people behind these large media innovations and Arianna Huffington is showing us just who they are and what they’re actually doing.

Huffington Post’s Top 10 Game Changers. Take a look.

kayBEE