Category Archives: Media
Fair v Objective
I think our society has taken being “fair” to an extreme. We have confused the freedoms we have to be an excuse to be able to have a stupid opinion and for that wrong opinion to be worth as much as a correct valid opinion supported by facts.
The is most evident in being “fair” in media reports. The media is so concerned with being labeled biased, that they give equal time and weight to stupid opposing arguments. This is best summed up by the popular quote from Paul Krugman:
The media are desperately afraid of being accused of bias. And that’s partly because there’s a whole machine out there, an organized attempt to accuse them of bias whenever they say anything that the Right doesn’t like. So rather than really try to report things objectively, they settle for being even-handed, which is not the same thing. One of my lines in a column—in which a number of people thought I was insulting them personally—was that if Bush said the Earth was flat, the mainstream media would have stories with the headline: ‘Shape of Earth—Views Differ.’ Then they’d quote some Democrats saying that it was round.
This is the key difference in being objective. Being objective means not letting personal biases change your reporting or opinion of something. If something is obviously true, you shouldn’t say it could be false just because that fits your world view or would benefit you in some way.
Stop being fair. Be objective.
Is Glee Encouraging Criminal Behavior?
Interesting article on Jack Balkin’s blog by guest blogger Information Society Project fellow Christina Mulligan that makes an argument that the characters on Glee, in real life would be serious violators of copyright law.
In one recent episode, the AV Club helps cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester film a near-exact copy of Madonna’s Vogue music video (the real-life fine for copying Madonna’s original? up to $150,000). Just a few episodes later, a video of Sue dancing to Olivia Newton-John’s 1981 hit Physical is posted online (damages for recording the entirety of Physical on Sue’s camcorder: up to $300,000). And let’s not forget the glee club’s many mash-ups — songs created by mixing together two other musical pieces. Each mash-up is a “preparation of a derivative work” of the original two songs’ compositions – an action for which there is no compulsory license available, meaning (in plain English) that if the Glee kids were a real group of teenagers, they could not feasibly ask for — or hope to get — the copyright permissions they would need to make their songs, and their actions, legal under copyright law. Punishment for making each mash-up? Up to another $150,000 — times two.
The point of the article doesn’t seem to be to examine whether the copyright holder would actually have a civil claim that would hold up in court- I don’t watch the show, could the students have a fair use claim? – but rather to point out, in her opinion, the flaws in the copyright system. Her main points is:
The Constitution allows Congress to pass copyright laws to “promote the progress of science” — a word often used in the 18th century to mean “knowledge”. The stated purpose of the original 1790 copyright statute was to encourage learning. So you tell me — what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000 fines?
I will quibble over this point a bit. Patents cover inventions, copyright covers “art”. She is probably referring to the “copyright clause” of the constitution which states:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
I guess we can use knowledge as an extension of art. If you allow that extension, then yes I believe protecting the copyright holder does encourage art/knowledge. Those Glee kids wouldn’t have anything to emulate if the artists didn’t create those songs. And those artists probably wouldn’t create those songs if they had to make money by working at Bed, Bath & Beyond instead of going to the studio.
Whose argument do you find more persuasive?
Lost iPhone and found rights?
Lots of talk going on about the increasingly interesting lost iPhone that Gizmodo found.
A quick background, Gizmodo – a tech blog – paid $5000 for a prototype iPhone that someone found in a bar. It was a big deal for nerds who wanted to see the next iPhone (front facing camera, bigger battery, etc).
The problem is that Gizmodo might have committed a crime by buying property it knew wasn’t being sold by the owner. I’m not big on this area of the law, but that isn’t the part I want to focus on anyway.
The other interesting part of this story is that the Police have raided one of the blogger’s houses to find evidence suggesting he knew it was “stolen” property. The twist is that the blogger might try to argue a defense under a safe habor law the “California Shield Law” designed to protect journalists from giving up their sources for stories.
The reason this peaked my interest is that if he is allowed to use that argument, it would create a precedent that bloggers are legitimate journalists! Yes! Something I can add to the resume! (joke – or am I?) That would open up another batch of issues – what would constitute a journalistic blog? Would this count? Would my sister’s tumblr? Your facebook page?
Either way, lots of fun legal precedent could be decided – all because some drunk employee left an iPhone in a bar!
If this interests you, you can check out a more in depth write up over at Mashable.
Copyright for Bloggers
Quick newsletter entry on the basics of using photographs in your blog. Figured it was a good post because I am a blogger and will soon be a copyright attorney (hopefully!)
http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/Copyright-Rules-of-the-Road-for-Bloggers.pdf
Making NBC More Comcastic
Comcast is one of the largest cable television operators in the United States. You probably don’t know this, but this would not be their first foray outside of the utility part of television and into the content side. They own the E! network and G4.
Comcast is being very progressive and forward looking by getting into the content side of the industry. As more and more television and movie entertainment is offered online by the websites like Hulu and Netflix Streaming, cable companies need to be concerned that people won’t turn to them to provide content. This will likely get more pervasive as time goes on. Why pay for cable TV if you could get most of it online?
Cable companies fear becoming what is known as “dumb pipes” – simply the cable carrying internet or video to your home, and not the content providers – giving you the content packages. By getting into the content market, Comcast is readying itself to be on the right side of the industry as the shift happens. NBC even owns part of Hulu, so this is especially fortuitous for Comcast.
The scary side of this transaction is thinking about what could happen if Comcast thinks it is more lucrative for them to maintain their hold on being a cable provider. It is not out of the realm of possibility for them to realize it is more profitable to charge users for cable than try to make revenue via advertising online. What if they blocked their cable customers from accessing Hulu unless they also have a TV subscription package?
I’d be curious if this merger doesn’t involve some monopoly or anti-trust issues. It is at least concerning.
Honest and Unbiased Doesn’t Sell
CNN has been falling in the ratings more and more lately.
The reason for this? People already know the news. They see headlines all day (maybe on CNN!), but likely on the web, a newspaper (they still make these?), or on twitter. Either way, they know the news.
But for opinion shows, which CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC all start showing around 7pm – people don’t look for breaking news. They look for opinions. And they want to hear things they agree with. This makes people feel smart, and reassured. So, audiences are fractured. Conservatives go to Fox, and liberals are flocking to the increasingly progressive MSNBC. Some would even argue MSNBC went liberal not based on some ideological choice, but because of a calculated move to copy Fox’s methodology.
Since the beginning of March, CNN has fallen behind both the longtime ratings leader, Fox News Channel, which, as the voice of disaffected conservatives, again has an imposing lead, and the upstart MSNBC, which has tried to mirror Fox’s success by steering to the left. “The people who watch these channels are news junkies,” said Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC. “They’ve already had access to the headlines all day long on the Internet. In prime time you’ve got to stand out and make a splash.”
The problem with this is that there become no actual facts anymore. Everything is subject to interpretation and conjecture. This just leads to more fracture and stalls progress.
CNN is, at least right now, sticking with the middle road. Will there come a time when this is just not profitable enough to justify? What will come to the 24 hour news networks then?
The Sacrifices of Narrating Your Story
Found a video from the TED conference. The speaker’s plea is for technology companies to create tools that allows us to enjoy social networking without being closed off in our own world while we do it. Like those people who are sitting on their phones texting or tweeting while something incredibly fun and engaging is going on around them.
The reason this jumped out at me is because more often than not I am that person. In high school I always had a camera, and then I upgraded to a camcorder. I wanted to document everything I did because I wanted to be able to relive it again. The problem was, I wasn’t really living it the first time. I wasn’t enjoying it because I was too fixated on trying to capture and hold it. The funny this is, I don’t really watch any of those videos.
Now, when I am out – I twitter what I’m doing. I take a quick pic on my iphone. I think about what I’m going to blog about, or try to remember the person I met so I can facebook them later.
The video shows a picture of a couple kissing, and the girl is taking a picture of them kissing on her cell phone. The message she is sending to her boyfriend is “you are just a character in my narrative”. She is certainly more fixated on telling the story than she is on being a part of the story. Sometimes I feel with facebook and other social networking tools, we are more focused on appearing cool in our “story”/our profiles than we are about actually enjoying ourselves and having fun.
I don’t know if my twittering/blogging is more rude to the people I’m with or myself. I have a rule I try to keep where when I am out to dinner with someone, especially if it is just one other person- I don’t answer my phone or text or anything. If you do that you give the impression that they are not as important as whatever is happening on your phone. But, I will use social networking when just out with a group. (Example) So, I still am not fully dedicating myself to the group dynamic. I am hurting my own enjoyment, like with the cameras in high school, by not fully engaging either.
What is the tipping point between keeping up with social networking and communicating to friends and followers, and sacrificing your actual life?
Entertainment Producers Encouraged to Come to Virginia
A new bill going through the Virginia General Assembly is poised to bring more entertainment projects to Virginia by offering state funds to help them pay for their projects.
The bill is Senate Bill 1421 and it states that anytime someone rents a movie in a hotel room, a 10% tax will be applied to the price of that movie rental.
Half of that tax goes to the Virginia general funds, half goes to the Governor’s Motion Picture Opportunity Fund. This fund is stated to “support the film and video industries in Virginia by providing the means for attracting production companies and producers who make their projects in the Commonwealth using Virginia employees, goods and services.” And “The types of projects eligible for consideration will be feature films, children’s programs, documentaries, television series or other television programs designed to fit a thirty-minute or longer format slot.” So the type of projects open to the funding is pretty broad.
Why would the state fund hollywood projects? Because when a huge movie crew comes to shoot a movie, they bring a large crew and cast. These people have to eat, lodge and basically live here for a few months. They will spend money, which helps out the economy far larger than the amount the state would be giving to the producer.
Watch the Inauguration Online
Stuck at work on Tuesday? Don’t want to make the trip to DC, but want so much coverage you feel like you are there? With all the online options available you don’t have an excuse to miss it- unless you are actively avoiding coverage.
Thanks to the NYTimes for this listing of coverage:
Dry, government funded C-SPAN is going to have the most extensive coverage because really, what else are they going to show? It’s using Mogulus to webcast a multichannel grid of inauguration activities from Saturday through Tuesday — everything from events with the families of the President-elect and Vice President-elect to Bush departing the White House to the many inaugural balls.
CBS News will be streaming its broadcast coverage from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, along with the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric at 6:30 p.m, Couric’s one-hour inauguration special at 9 p.m., and her CNET webcast, including responses to viewer questions submitted throughout the day, at 10 p.m. Go to www.cbsnews.com/inauguration.
ABC News will provide online coverage anchored by Sam Donaldson and Rick Klein from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. ET on ABCNEWS.com. It will embed coverage of Obama taking the oath of office directly on its homepage from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET.
MSNBC will live stream inauguration coverage on its home page and politics.msnbc.com, and it will be embeddable onto your own site or blog.
If you are a republican, or want the most cynical coverage you can watch on FOX:
Fox News will show its “The Strategy Room” webcast “throughout the day,” according on FOXNews.com, and it will be hosting a discussion of the day’s events on its Facebook page.
CNN will be streaming the Inauguration on CNN Live, and it will incorporate Facebook status updates from users logged onto Facebook Connect at CNN.com. It will also feature an on-camera anchor live at the Facebook offices to report on trends and anecdotes from users’ inauguration-related activities.
The Associated Press will provide a webcast to its 2,000-plus affiliates starting at 7 a.m. ET with anchored coverage from 10 a.m. on its Online Video Network syndication service, including live camera feeds from the parade and various landmarks in D.C.
USA Today and the rest of Gannett’s newspapers are using Mogulus to live stream on their sites, but we don’t have their specific plans yet. See USAToday.com.
The New York Times will stream Obama’s speech and swearing-in on its home page.
