Palin’s purpose
As some news reports have suggested since the interview, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what is the relevance of Palin being on television or putting out a book. New York Times columnist Alessandra Stanley argued in her television column, “TV Watch”, that the event was “less like a celebratory comeback than a redo of the presidential campaign.” As Stanley notes, Oprah’s interview ranged from questions regarding Palin’s campaign interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric last year, which resulted in Palin referring to Couric as “the perky one”, to comments about her daughter Bristol’s ex-fiancé Levi Johnston. Palin referred to Johnston as “Ricky Hollywood” and “aspiring to porn” since he is currently prepping to pose for Playgirl magazine. Other questions from the interview focused on Palin being a political “outsider” with Palin responding that she was portrayed by Couric as some sort of member of a “nomadic tribe” and leading her to criticise current journalistic practices.

CBS News suggested in an article that while it seems that Palin is trying to sell books, she is in fact trying to backbite against her presidential candidate John McCain in how his supporters treated her last November, hit back at Johnston for his personal revelations about her family, criticise mainstream media for perceived left-wing biases and shame Katie Couric for her adversarial approach to the campaign interview. In effect, Palin is using the television medium to get control of her own message. What is immediately apparent from the Oprah interview is that there were no tough policy questions asked. Despite what Oprah claimed in her post-show video clip commentary, the questions put forth were completely softball for a political figure that is trying to put out to the public her ideas on where she thinks “America could go and should go.” This gives the impression that getting the Palin interview first, an obsession of Oprah and her competitors like Barbara Walters (who will get to grill Palin with questions later this week on “20/20″), requires the interviewer to avoid challenging Palin’s image construction and agenda setting. 20/20 is a little bit more news-oriented than Oprah, but it is also typically sensationalist in that it is a somewhat of a news magazine show. Although Palin is criticizing the state of journalism she is also not exactly picking reputable interviewers like Bob Woodward or Jim Lehr to uphold the best that television journalism currently does have to offer.

Matthew A. Baum, a communication theorist from Harvard University, wrote a study in 2005 in which he examined why political figures use entertainment shows and the talk-show circuit to convey their messages. Baum notes, perhaps obviously, that these tactics are used to soften the cynicism voters feel toward political figures on television news programs. As such, when television audiences depart from television news programs, they tend to use television more as an entertainment medium, which is why political figures like Palin end up on talk shows not talking about anything other than politics. Baum suggested in his study that

“Candidates must increasingly reach out to an audience. This in turn requires repackaging their messages into forms appealing to an audience.”

In Palin’s case, this repackaging seems to focus more on the tabloid, trashy side of her persona, such as her daughter’s teen pregnancy, her conflict with the ex-fiancé/teen father, her divorce rumours, and her supposed scuffle with Oprah during the 2008 presidential campaign. Concrete issues, such as Afghanistan, Wall Street reform, national health care, trade imbalances with China, and home foreclosures, are then excluded from the interview. From a more positive perspective, Palin is also trying to frame herself as a working mother of five children (with the Oprah tape revealing constant pans of Palin’s children) as well as an “outsider” with images of her in the rural wilderness of Alaska and away from the more conformist coastal America. It should be noted on this latter point that her book tour, which is also starting this week, is focusing on the heartland of America more so than the major American cities, including New York and Los Angeles. This tour strategy may allow her to play to television and Internet audiences without having to enter major television network stations or address the “liberal” crowds of the cities who are likely to be more hostile to her repackaging project.

Canadian Perspective
From a Canadian perspective, the television interviewing process in American culture is all the more entertaining. Rather than being able to convey her image within government, as the Canadian Parliamentary system allows for an opposition leader, Palin as an opposition figure of some sorts has to resort to television exposure and book selling. Furthermore, if Baum’s conclusions are correct the television programs that should be the ones asking Palin serious policy questions are being sidelined by entertainment and softball-question-tossing talk show programs. This begs the question as to how much of an influence television is depended upon for structuring the political scene and democracy in America and whether this influence is healthy. Even further, questions arise on how Internet television is influencing the democratic process in this regard. The opinion leaders that Paul Lazarfeld and Elihu Katz described in their two-step flow theory seem to only be reinforced by such figures as Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters, who at the same time, water down the policy aspects of questioning just to get their interviews before the other television programs. With this in mind, it will be interesting to see how the public’s perception of Palin will change when she completes the book tour and television attention.

Sources: Alessandra Stanley, “Palin onstage, still moving off message,” The New York Times (16 November 2009): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/arts/television/17watch.html?hp

“Is Palin selling books or settling scores?” CBS News (16 November 2009): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/16/eveningnews/main5675203.shtml?tag=stack

Alan B. Goldberg and Katie N. Thomson, “Sarah Palin: Election took toll on family,” ABC News (16 November 2009): http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Palin/sarah-palin-private-life-family-letterman-levi/story?id=9096236

Matthew A. Baum. “Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 49, No. 2 (April 2005), pp. 213-234

The Australian published an article on October 26, entitled “Advertising recovery boosts ‘old media’”, which notes that more advertisers are choosing traditional media than new media as Australia’s economy slowly picks up. Standard Media Index, an ad revenue consulting firm, recently released data, which shows that Australian newspapers are receiving 19.5 per cent of the total ad spending, radio stations are receiving 7.85 per cent and digital services are receiving 8.29 per cent of the ad spending. These statistics refer to the period from the beginning of 2009 until September 30 when the Australian economy gradually started to improve. The statistics send a strong message that advertising agencies still prefer traditional media as their platforms, with more than 90 per cent of their spending invested in these mediums.

Another important point mentioned in the article is that the overall rate of advertising in Australia has increased in 2009. 2010 promises to be an even better year for media as advertisers become more confident in expanding their operations. Some analysts are even going as far as to forecast good business for media companies for the next seven years. For example, the analyst Fraser McLeish from the Royal Bank of Scotland recommended buying two media companies, Fairfax Media and APN News & Media, and argued that they would be profitable businesses. In general, analysts are optimistic about the short term prospects of traditional media.

The news that advertising revenues are growing in the Australian media market is good news for media companies around the world. There were fears before that new media would become more entrenched in society during the economic recession. The medium gained greater popularity at this time because it offered cheap or free content, which was very appealing to cast-strapped audiences. Traditional media companies feared that as consumers became more comfortable with using the new media, television and other old mediums would not be able to regain their pre-recession status. The article from the Australian points at a different trend. It suggests that advertisers still prefer traditional media and happily return to it once they have the money to buy the necessary airtime. In short, the article s shows that old media is not dying. While it may be losing some of its audiences to new media, old media remains a profitable advertising platform. In this age of cheaper subscriptions and bulk cable packages, the willingness of the advertising agencies to stick with old media may be all it needs to stay alive.

The news is not all good, however. Fraser McLeish states briefly in the article “‘Old media still faces headwinds, but the structural issues are longer-term ones that play out over a period of time.” The article does not give context to this quote nor explains its significance. Yet, McLeish’s statement is very important in light of the recent developments. What McLeish is suggesting is that old media will do fine in the near future, but its long term viability is uncertain due to the deep structural issues within the industry itself. As previously mentioned, the article does not go into any detail about this statement so it is unclear what McLeish means by “structural issues”. It is possible to speculate, however, that these structural issues include the old media’s unfocused partnership with new media, its declining audience and outdated mentality, such as thinking that consumers will always pay for media content. McLeish’s statement casts a shadow over the happy news reported in the article. It rightly suggests that advertising is only a temporary boost to the industry. The greater challenge to the industry will come from reforming the very way media companies operate. This will take some time and may be even harder to accomplish than getting out of one of the biggest economic recessions in recent history.

Source: Sally Jackson and Geoff Elliott, “Advertising recovery boosts ‘old media’”, The Australian (26 October 2009): http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/advertising-recovery-boosts-old-media/story-e6frg90f-1225791147797

A number of scholarly studies done over past decade suggest that pornographic video material accessed through Internet technology has had some influence on social patterns. Timothy Buzzell, for example, has shown that pornography use has traditionally been confined to certain patterns of viewership. He noted that males under 30 years of age with some sophistication in technological expertise and accessibility to proper technological equipment are typically the heaviest porn consumers. He also observed that pornographic films have gone from being exclusively found in special adult theatres in the 1970s, to video tapes that were accessible in a separate room behind curtains at one’s favourite local video store after to the emergence of the VCR in the 1980s, to Internet accessibility with the rise of the home-based computer in the 1990s. Access to pornographic film, has spread over the past 30 years due to changing technology, but has traditionally had certain notions of being exclusively for private use and as serving a particular demographic.

If we can assume, from an ethical standpoint, that it has been a social taboo to ever make pornography a widely publicly shared experience, changing technology may in fact be challenging these notions. The Washington Post featured an excellent story on this topic, entitled “Public, a whole new lewdness” , which chronicles episodes where people have used private media devices to watch pornographic material in public settings. Writer Monica Hesse suggests that the popularity of laptops and mobile devices as well as the widespread access to the Internet is brining pornography out of the shadows and into the public sphere. She provides several examples, including that of a mother and her four children that were stuck on a cross-country flight with a man watching cartoon porn on a laptop, a man seen using his iPhone to watch porn at a Washington Wizards’ basketball game, another man watching porn on an SUV television, a man watching porn in the library, and finally a woman seeing a man watch porn on a subway. Hesse suggests that

“Perhaps this is the real problem: the increasingly blurred boundary between public and private. If we are so accustomed to burying our noses in tiny screens, carrying our entertainment in and out of the house, perhaps people are simply getting confused as to where they are.”

Those bothered by second-hand porn say it is not that they oppose adult entertainment. Their main issue was that they could not escape it while they were in the public space.

The adult industry has become a billion dollar business over the past decades as it matched its adaptability to television and Internet with consumer behaviour. This development is receiving a lot of attention among feminist scholars as well as specialists in various fields like psychology, sociology and communication studies. The challenge to ethical behaviour that porn presents seems to be rapidly increasing as current technology facilitates greater accessibility to the R-rated content. That content, which has been socially defined as being only for the private sphere, is now brought it, unfiltered, into the public realm. In other words, new technology is causing a public and private collision where boundaries between the two spheres are becoming increasingly blurred. This will either result in tighter regulations over personal television device use in public settings or change how the public interacts with pornographic film, and hence the meaning of sexuality overall. It can be expected that many scholars will step forward in the coming years to examine the implications of porn as it becomes ever more present through new technology.

Sources: Timothy Buzzell, “Demographic characteristics of persons using pornography in three technological contexts,” Sexuality & Culture, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2005)

Monica Hesse, “Publicly, a whole new lewdness,” The Washington Post (12 November 2009): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111127404.html

In late December 1952, the New York Times reported that television has come to East Berlin “with promises to open a new front of battle in the cold war.” Following communist and anti-communist radio stations that emerged after the Second World War and the division of Germany, television towers appeared within reach of receivers owned by East Berliners to help them receive both sides of the propaganda battle. What is telling is that when Berliners today say they are uncertain about their role 20 years after the fall of the Wall and references are made to the “psychological borders” that still separate Western and Eastern Germans, this partly speaks to the after effects of exposure to the tone of television content in East Germany and the medium’s use to frame political ideas.
In another article from the New York Times, published approximately a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, anxieties were evident in East Germany about the relevance of their television infrastructure, as “stations that viewers and listeners had grown up with over 40 years” all of a sudden became obsolete. Television stations at the time, such as German Television Broadcasting, despite hoping to be retained as a public network, were seen by the West Germans as “being too closely associated with the Communist Government to merit such salvation.” Scholarly studies have shown that East German television was important in creating a distinct identity. Cultural studies theorist Uwe Breitenborn wrote in a 2004 journal article “‘Memphis Tennessee’ in Borstendorf: Boundaries set and transcended in East German television entertainment” that the German Democratic Republic was able to hone its television programming to simultaneously meet the needs of the public as an “escapist” medium, reinforce many of the state doctrines in order to attempt to influence ideas of state communism, and combat the ideological forces that were coming into the state from other television stations. This was partially done through “non-fictional entertainment”, including variety and game shows that, in turn, were able to support the state in creating a distinct national identity. This entire infrastructure was eradicated after the fall of the Wall. Likewise, the Radio in American Sector, a television and radio station sponsored by the Americans after the Second World War to broadcast Western-based content, became irrelevant.

What can be seen in these examples is how the leading television medium has become a foundational element in society. In a column that appeared in the Daily Mail on November 9, Melanie Phillips evokes Antonio Gramsci when evaluating the post-Berlin Wall era, suggesting “that society could be overthrown if the values underpinning it could be turned into their antithesis: if its core principles were replaced by those of who were to be considered outsiders or who actively transgressed the moral codes of that society.” Of the five examples, Phillips identifies the “media” as being one of the “core principles.” Although this is largely a cynical column that is used to show how Soviet Communism in Eastern Europe has only led to the facilitation of the rights movement, cultural Marxism, and the consolidation of Europe as a super-state, Phillips’ comments about media being a pillar of society are valuable and can be compared to the use of television in American society, including its current fragmentation and competitive rhetoric that seeks to dominate in shaping the political discourse.

As the sentimental anniversaries were being celebrated in Europe, the 24/7 television medium continued its news cycle in America. U.S. Senator Joe Liebermann was seen in a controversial interview on Fox News on November 8. In the interview, Liebermann essentially suggested that Muslim-American Major Malik Hasan who committed the murders on the Texas military base earlier this month was a “homegrown terrorist”. Liebermann made these accusations even though the motives of the crimes have not yet been established and a hearing has not been set. Liebermann has since been criticized for stirring up anti-terrorism and anti-fundamental Islamicism through his comments. This is of course complemented by arguably softball comments that do not challenge these assertions. Framing the issue with unsubstantiated and weakly challenged assertions on television before the full facts are available is clearly a form of propaganda – a characteristic that is not unfamiliar to the vastly partisan conservative network, such is Fox News. Beating up on Fox, of course, is not entirely fair since it alone is not playing to television audiences. Back in Berlin, the speeches of politicians themselves were clearly designed to reach TV and Internet viewers as much as those gathered around the Brandenburg Gate. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, used the tearing down of the Wall event as an analogy to the American foreign policy goals elsewhere in the world. This was seen in her comments, such as promoting “freedom beyond its current frontiers”, allowing all humans to be given the opportunity to live up to their ”dreams and god given potential”, and even framing President Barack Obama as being “someone who represents falls of different kinds of walls”.

So while it may be argued that in the foreseeable future the television medium will continue to be fractioned, individual-driven and in a state of flux, given that guaranteed profits are not as assured as have been in the past (especially since the emergence of Internet TV), the interest in dominating the medium in order to influence political discourse remains ever more consistent. Like in the former German Democratic Republic, state interests and ideological factions within the state are very much trying to use the modern media technology to direct the future of their respective countries. What may keep this game in flux, however, is the rapid pace of technology itself and the content producers trying to keep up with it.

Sources: “Berlin TV to widen ‘cold war’ battle,” The New York Times (21 December 1952): ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 – 2006), pg. 20

Judy Dempsey, “Barriers may crumble, but psychological borders remain,” The New York Times (6 November 2009): http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/03/world/evolution-in-europe-germanys-rival-broadcasters-now-in-same-boat.html?scp=1&sq=evolution%20in%20europe:%20Germany’s%20Rival%20broadcasters%20now%20in%20same%20boat&st=cse

Craig R. Whitney, “Evolution in Europe; Germanys’ rival broadcasters now in same boat,” The New York Times (3 August 1990): http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/03/world/evolution-in-europe-germanys-rival-broadcasters-now-in-same-boat.html?scp=1&sq=evolution%20in%20europe:%20Germany’s%20Rival%20broadcasters%20now%20in%20same%20boat&st=cse

Uwe Breitenborn, “’Memphis Tennessee’ in Borstendorf: Boundaries set and transcended in East German television entertainment,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Vol. 24, No. 3 (August 2004), p391

Melanie Phillips, “We were fools to think the fall of the Berlin Wall had killed off the far Left. They’re back – and attacking us from within,” The Daily Mail (9 November 2009):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1226211/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-We-fools-think-fall-Berlin-Wall-killed-far-Left-Theyre–attacking-within.html#ixzz0WQtLJ3Id

Jim White, “LIEberman to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria with homeland security hearing on Fort Hood shooting,” The Seminal (8 November 2009): http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/13820

The news of the possible closure of London Lite confirms that the print industry is under great strain in today’s world. More newspapers are turning to the Internet in an attempt to secure their existence. One of the main issues driving these changes is that readers no longer feel that they need to pay for newspaper content. They can find quality content online, for free. Newspapers have tried to respond to this issue by developing new business models that make their online publications commercially viable. The main problem with newspapers then, if it needs to be boiled down to just one point, is the subscription fee that people are not willing to pay for print content. What is puzzling, however, is why a free newspaper, such as London Lite, would also be having financial difficulties. London Lite does not alienate people with subscription rates and has a robust website to make its content easily available to online readers. From this, it is possible to conclude that the main problem that London Lite is facing is a lack of advertisers. This observation is quite significant. It suggests that newspapers may eliminate their subscription fees and make all their content available online, but still face closure. It is the lack of advertisers rather than subscribers that push newspapers into bankruptcy. In this environment, newspapers have little control over their survival. They depend on the overall economic system – how much money corporations are making, how much of this money they are allocating for advertising, what medium they are choosing to advertise on and so forth. These factors are largely outside the newspaper owners’ control. What the looming closure of London Lite shows is that newspapers could be completely free and widely available, but still not manage to make the money they need to keep themselves afloat.

Unless there is some miraculous cure found for London Lite’s financial problems, all of the 36 newspaper employees will soon find themselves out of a job. When the newspaper closes, the employees will have two options if they want to continue working in the print media. First, they can look for jobs in other newspapers. This scenario is not very promising as other newspapers are also having problems and are unlikely to hire new employees. Second, they could switch to reporting that uses new media as its main platform. Newspaper employees would need to develop new skills to use this medium. Ideally, these skills would not only focus on the technological aspects of new media, but also the creative aspects of presenting information. Journalists would need to learn entirely new ways of presenting content in a way that is compatible with the characteristics of the medium. Journalists need to become more community-oriented and reconsider their traditional ways of storytelling.

The closure of newspapers should be seen partially in terms of the changing requirements that are placed on print journalists. As the print industry crumbles, the entire profession of journalism is being changed. This aspect of the print media decline is not as frequently discussed as the economic and political implications of losing newspapers. Yet, the future of journalism as a profession is a crucial factor for the media industries. The type of journalism that will be prominent in the coming years will also determine the quality of the content that is available to consumers, which in turn, will determine whether the current media structures continue to get the consumers’ attention.

Source: Sarah Johnson, “London Lite faces closure as Associated Newspapers begins consultation process,” Marketing Magazine (27 October 2009):
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/948510/London-Lite-faces-closure-Associated-Newspapers-begins-consultation-process/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH

“The number of Americans that claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 per cent.”

In 2008, the Northeastern region of the United States, which has historically served as the “foundation of America’s religious culture”, became the “new stronghold of the religiously unidentified.” Other polls and studies have shown that the number of atheists in America has increased since 1990 and the influence of Christianity in how politics is governed is becoming less important. Despite these findings, Meacham warns that it is still too early to describe the country as post-Christian.

Christianity has experienced many changes over the course of American history. A large part of this has to do with the emerging media of the time. Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson points out in a recent column how Charles Coughlin started out in a small Detroit parish as a Roman Catholic priest and with the power of the radio emerged as the “Radio Priest”, garnering audiences of 10 million regular listeners on Sunday afternoons. His sermons tended to go beyond religion and into politics. Jeffrey K. Hadden, in a 1993 journal article entitled “The rise and fall of American televangelism”, suggests that from the period of Coughlin’s railing against the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration to the rise of television broadcasting where televangelism became heavily felt in the late 1960s, Christianity consistently took advantage of new communication mediums and used them to amass larger audiences. This was particularly clear in 1977 when Pat Robertson created the Christian Broadcasting Network and with this beamed religious programming to people around the country. A number of scholarly articles describe how Robertson’s influence as well as the establishment of the Moral Majority in the late 1970s contributed to the overthrowing of Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, thus bringing about a highly evangelized presidency by the Christian Right.

Studies have been done throughout the nineties on the influence that television has had on the institution of Christianity. Richard F. Wolff’s 1999 journal article entitled “A phenomenological study of in-church televised worship” made an interesting comparison of Christian worship within the institutional church setting versus televangelized Christian programming. Some of the major points Wolff found included “group identity” differences in the experience of worship where the church was more of a fellowship, community and separate setting versus the individualized, home setting of Christian television programming. Another significant finding was the difference in “temporal point of reference”, which emphasized that church was attended either at the end or beginning of the week whereas Christian television was available everyday. Wolff also found that televised sermons tend to make participants feel less spiritually secure than when attending church.

Televangelism has seen a major decline in popularity since the late eighties and early nineties. This is largely due to the scandals and legal troubles of such televangelists as Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker.

The Future
This brings us to the subject of future television viewership and how it will impact Christianity. Television has seen its heyday as a box in the living room around which families gather at planned times, as was the case during the 1980s Christian worship programming. As the power of the television in bringing people together diminishes, Internet may be poised to launch the next wave of televangelism. This phenomenon, if it does take place, would counter Meacham’s findings and increase Christian followings in America.

The possibility of spreading Christianity through the Internet was discussed in several newspaper articles from last week. An Associated Press article that appeared in the Boston Herald on November 1, entitled “Internet believers: Pastors open online churches”, noted that churches are making great efforts to expand their influence through the World Wide Web. As part of these efforts, they are “creating Internet offshoots that go far beyond streaming weekly services.” The article illustrates that churches are facing similar criticisms about their Internet use as they have with their use of traditional television, namely the criticism that there is a lack of interactivity with televised worship and that it is merely serves as “religious fast food”. Yet, what is clear when viewing some of the televised worship sites that focus on interactivity is that they are quite different from past televangelist movements where shows typically centered solely on TV personalities, such as Jimmy Swaggart and Pat Robertson. For example, Lifechurch.tv integrates its sermons with video presentations, video message sharing by congregation members, and bible and life experience sharing. All of this points to how Christianity and television are evolving to a whole other level with the emergence of new media. While such sites are largely centered on televised content, the interactive video aspects complement other media possibilities including as the use of Facebook and Twitter interaction and prayer requests through email fields.

Like the invention of the Gutenberg Press, the creation of the printed word and the Protestant Reformation, rather than fading away Christianity may be re-inventing itself through new media.

Sources: Jon Meacham, “The end of Christian America,” Newsweek (4 April 2009): http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583

Jeffrey Simpson, “Obama’s biggest problem is his country’s future, not its ranters,” The Globe and Mail (2 November 2009): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/obamas-biggest-threat-is-his-countrys-future-not-its-ranters/article1348730

Jeffrey K. Hadden, “The rise and fall of American televangelism,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 527 (May 1993)

Richard F. Wolff, “A phenomenological study of in-church and televised worship,”
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 38, No. 2 (June 1999)

Associated Press, “Internet believers: Pastors open online churches,” The Boston Herald (1 November 2009): http://www.bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view/20091101internet_believers_pastors_open_online_churches/”

Media consumers are fighting the artificial geographical boundaries that are placed on some new media content. The article describes a variety of ways that Canadians are bypassing the boundaries and gaining access to American video and music streaming sites. These strategies focus on using virtual private networks (VPN) to hide Canadian internet protocols (IP) from American site managers. The article’s author argues that attempts to gain access to American sites will continue even if some efforts are detected and punished. As Hulu blocks one VPN application, new applications will emerge to fill the void. The cycle of forced access to geoblocked websites will continue for as long as the geographical restrictions exist.

The description of the strategies that Canadians employ to gain access to geoblocked sites speaks of the broader trends in media consumer behaviour. In the article, Michelle Warren, the president of a research and consulting firm, says,

“‘As long as there’s geoblocking and people are told they can’t access content and information, there will be a collective effort to access that data.’”

Warren’s statement suggests that people will continue to seek access to media content regardless of the restrictions that are placed on it. Media consumers tend to think along the lines of “I want it now and I don’t want to pay for it” and seem to have a feeling of entitlement toward restricted media content. These feelings are evident in regards to geoblocked content, but are not limited at that. The feelings of entitlement can also extend to peer-shared content, unreleased network content (the appropriation of the unreleased Wolverine trailer is one such example), and paid content. The restrictions placed on media content do little to discourage people from seeking free access to this content. In some cases, people may even be more motivated to watch the content because this would involve breaking industry rules and being deviant. The Canadians’ determination to break the Hulu code is an important indicator of consumer behaviour in general. It shows that media consumers have become increasingly adamant about getting their content – fast and free – and decreasingly hesitant to break rules that get in their way.

The article briefly mentions the CRTC’s current lack of regulation for video streaming on the Internet. Industry insiders are predicting that increasing amounts of media content will be offered via Internet in the future. This makes the medium very important for the Canadian regulator. If the CRTC does decide to regulate new media, geoblocking is likely to be one of the strategies it employs, if only to limit the scope of its work. Geoblocking may work to some extent, but overall it is an ineffective strategy for regulating new media. Essentially, geoblocking is about placing artificial boundaries on the World Wide Web. These geographical boundaries contradict the very nature of the Web and its main founding principles. It is ironic that media owners who place their content on the World Wide Web would try to restrict access to it – not based on pay models, age, or any other substantive criteria – but based on geography, the very criteria that World Wide Web demolished at the time of its creation. The media owners and the CRTC, if it chooses to use geoblocking as a regulation strategy, are ignoring the very qualities of the medium that make it unique and successful. They are still trying to use the medium as they use traditional, geographically-bound mediums. As a result, they are passing up the vast opportunities that the Internet offers and simultaneously getting a kick from the media consumers that insist on using the medium to its full advantage – worldwide, free and unrestricted.

Media owners should not regard the consumers’ ability to bypass geoblocking through VPNs and other applications as a bad sign for their business. The determination to break geoblocking indicates that there is consumer interest in the content offered on video streaming sites. Interest in content can easily be turned to the advantage of its owners. The media industry needs to re-evaluate the costs and benefits of geoblocking content. With media consumers willing and capable of gaining access to geoblocked content, it may be more profitable for media owners to present the interest in the content as an opportunity for advertisers. Many of the products that are advertised in United States are available in Canada and to a lesser extent, the Western European countries. Hulu and other video-streaming sites can inform the advertisers that by buying air-time on their videos they will be able to access consumers in multiple countries at an almost identical price. Advertisers would have the challenge of making their ads more relevant outside US, but they would also reach a greater consumer with their message. Advertisers need to use the Internet to its full advantage. It would be strange to use the medium similarly to how advertisers use traditional media. Such an approach would greatly miss the opportunities that the Internet provides. Advertisers need to step outside of their traditional medium thinking, which involves airing commercials on geoblocked content, and embrace the Internet medium for all its world wide, free and unrestricted potential.

Source: Ted Kritsonis, “Media-hungry Canadians seek access to geoblocked Hulu, Spotify,” The Globe and Mail (20 October 2009): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/media-hungry-canadians-seek-access-to-geoblocked-hulu-spotify/article1322574/

Columnist James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times pointed out in a recent column a poll that was done by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The poll found that

“Americans [are] equally divided on the question of whether it is a ‘good thing’ or a ‘bad thing’ for cable news hosts to have strong opinions.”

Rainey observed that opinionated programming is becoming more common on news channels, as larger numbers of American audiences are recognizing certain news networks as having a more liberal or conservative bent to their reporting. The networks appear to be featuring more opinion leaders that are intensifying political divisions among the masses. Figures, such as Glen Beck, Sean Hanity, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh on the right are squaring off against figures, such as Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on the left. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find consensus in political discourse on television as opinions become more individualized and focused on target audiences. In this case, how Americans become informed on social topics and how they vote for leaders largely depends on the nature of the medium from which they are receiving information.

Another example of television figures having strong influence on political discourse concerns Hollywood and television actors. Washington Post columnist Tom Shales discussed Barry Levinson’s new documentary “PoliWood” in a November 3 column. “PoliWood” analyzes how television has polarized politics since the Nixon/Kennedy presidential debates of 1960 to the 2008 Republican and Democratic conventions. The documentary presents Hollywood and television actors as using their popularity to influence the average voter, particularly as seen in last year’s Democratic convention that led to Barack Obama’s nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate. Shales notes that

“[Levinson] blames the news media at least in part for perpetuating polarization [as] every TV news producer prefers combative conversations to anything thoughtful and reasoned.”

What is central to this film is that there is no longer any differentiation between who is qualified to speak about a certain political issue and who is not because of the nature of present day television focuses on the entertainment rather than the information aspect of politics. To cater to the television medium, politicians have to present themselves as television stars. This sentiment is effectively captured in the quote from the film’s trailer

“‘We are about this far away from the political version of Miss America.’”

Current political discourse in America is becoming increasingly polarized. Although television networks are more opinionated then ever, television audiences may have an opportunity to correct the situation with the help of new media. New media offers audiences the chance to see different perspectives on political issues as well as criticisms of the major television networks and their ideological biases. For example, the little known Brad Blog has an excellent TV presentation (as seen here and here) that tries to engage people who were involved in the recent right-wing tea party demonstrations and the left-wing counter-demonstrations. Other news journalism sites, such as Democracy Now, attempt to present more balanced, community-oriented news programming without large corporate sponsors. Another site, Media Matters for America, tries to debunk the conservative bias in American media. These sites provide a valuable resource for audiences seeking balanced political coverage and may help audiences avoid the ideological trap of large television networks.

Amateur content creators have a great ability to decide what fair coverage is and to help media viewers make informed decisions. Based on current trends, television networks seem to be less reliable as news sources because their presentation is focused on celebrity personalities and opinions. Viewers will need to use new media to filter out sources that are unfair and biased and seek sources that provide accurate and comprehensive political coverage.

Sources: James Rainey, “At Fox, opinion taints the news,” The Los Angeles Times (30 October 2009): http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-et-onthemedia30-2009oct30,0,5828158.column

Tom Shales, “Hollywood insider Barry Levinson turns his lens on politicking,” The Washington Post (3 November 2009): www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203282.html

The ideological divisions in television and video content were a key motivator for Barack Obama starting a fight with Fox News last month. State actions against Fox News may be a sign of things to come – news organizations at war with the White House over ideological programming on television. Anita Dunn, the White House communications director told the New York Times regarding Fox News that

“‘We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

The same newspaper report noted that this has been a season of record viewership for the Fox Network with an average of 1.2 million viewers tuning in at any time during the year. The highest viewership that Fox Network got before was 1.1 million people. This was during 2003 when the Iraq war begun. Fox is already responding to the White House challenge by intensifying its ideological programming, as witnessed by Glenn Beck’s recent proclamation that “‘freedom of speech is under attack” while Obama is in power.

There appears to be a correlation between sensational content on Fox Network programs and the network’s high viewership numbers. These trends suggest that network news programs will try to become even more sensationalized in the future. As a result, journalists that strive to provide unbiased news for the television viewers would be looked at unfavourably by the network owners. The shift of audiences to new media would only intensify this problem. As the television audience fragments, core television audiences will be scarce and therefore, bitterly attested for by the television networks. Instead of prioritizing unbiased news content that would benefit the viewers, network owners would strive to provide ratings-rich content that has more entertainment than information value.

These trends would be similar to the emergence of the penny press during the 1840 presidential election, which pitted incumbent Democrat Martin Van Buren against Whig candidate William Henry Harrison. According to historian Alan Brinkley, the Whig establishment had very politically biased press, as evident in the articles of the New York Sun – the largest paper in circulation at the time. The press was able to portray the well-off Harrison as the “log cabin candidate” and a candidate that was more in touch with the common man. The election also saw intense political mudslinging with rhymes and songs that were propagated by the press against the already unpopular, but arguably quite capable Van Buren, ultimately helping Harrison win the presidency. Ironically, the very old Harrison died within a month of office.

The question that remains is whether television will continue on its path toward greater dissemination, accessibility and affordability to the point that it becomes a battleground for America among the citizenry. If this occurs, the 2012 presidential campaign could be an unprecedentedly radical race, played out on ideological television networks.

Sources: Brian Stelter, “Fox’s volley with Obama intensifying,” The New York Times (11 October 2009): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html?_r=2

Alan Brinkley, Unfinished nation: A concise history of the American people, McGraw-hill, Fifth edition, 2008, p. 243