Final Comm 229 post...Question: Where will the new foundations of media be formed in the future????

With all the struggles the Boston Globe is having and the influx of social networking where will the new foundations of media be formed?

I think there may be more to the social networking sites than meets the eye. Eventually the applications will be so accessible that people will have a PDA that can plug into their PC and act as their mobile hard drive.

Much like a cell phone and people cancelling their home phone service, instead of having to find a WiFi spot with your laptop people will just log into Their site on the web which will have everything they need to communicate. This device will also be a phone etc...

Although I am not being as descriptive as I would like it is hard to describe a future that has not happened. What I can say is that there is a macro-trend that is so large it sometimes goes un noticed and the trend is going away from a mass market and moving toward a market of one.

This macro-trend has been going on for the past decade but with technology it has accelerated10-fold.

Look to social networking to provide a virtual home for everything in your life from invites to parties to companies like the boston globe delevering your virtual paper to you profile site. Eventually through companies like PeaPod the grocery store will be contacting you letting you to know it is time to go shopping and items you may need and are on sale. The more you fill out profiles with your email address and sign up for store "customer" cards the more information you can expect to see hitting your profile on ____________(insert name) social networking site.

"I'm not here to tell you how it is going to end...I am here to tell you how it's going to begin..."

Neo "The Matrix."

Wolfram Alpha

This link provides an article on what could be a very exciting development in media communications:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/an-invention-that-could-change-the-internet-for-ever-1678109.html

Where does the news begin?????

As of late there has been a lot of press surrounding the potential closing of the Boston Globe. This has prompted me to ask: Who gets the news? What I suspect is that all the smart talented and already underpaid reporters of the Globe will be out of work. The more radio I listen to and the more TV I watch I notice that the sorce material of a lot of stories is generated from the reporters on the street working for the newspaper business. Additionally the internet is a repository for pieces that have been written in various papers from around the world. So maybe a better question is: What's going to happen to those hard hitting investigative reporters when there is no one there to pay them for their work? Maybe a new paradiqm will emerge that will be better over time but there will be a lot of talent that goes by the way side. Although I agree that change is inevitable and that the only constant is change, in this case we may suffer the slings and arrows along with the actual reporters that will be on the street. The Globe needs to stay but like many other institutions needs reform. When they do not report on a public rally in their own backyard but perfer to take a story out of the middle of Kentucky to suffice...that puts the credibility of the paper's independence in question. Backed up with the recent rally where by an associate editor stated that without the Globe the Herald would become more irrelavant than it already is. This type of posturing when the Herald is flush and being sold at a brisk pace not having to fight closure smacks of a lack of self awareness.

Solutions:

Reform the Globe to go back to the center or at least center/left

Stop allowing tenure to dictate power or leadership in the organization. Tenure is necessary in legacy type environments such as educational institutions but not in private business

Pay a higher rate for freelance and restructure those with fulltime positions.

In short I want the Globe to stay and I want it to get its credibility back.

Media War...the next biggest war

Over the last month or so I have noticed a rise in the polarity of the different news media. It seems as though there is a distinct effort from both the conservative media and the liberal media to attack each other.

On tax day there were small tea parties beign held through out the nation. The conservative media came out first and said the liberal media refused to cover these events. The liberal media came out and said these tea parties were manifested by the right wing media and son on...

This media environment is starting to look more like the WWE (WWF) wrestling programs than it does like news outlets.

Here is a Youtube clip of the conversation that was had after a reporter from CNN was caught whipping up partisan controversy. If you can get past the initial Libertarian spin and understand what is going on, this video has some interesting points...especially the "republicans suck too sign" In the background.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1nRYw-OQ_E

Mind Junk TV

I am writing this watching one of those current affair shows showing Lindsy Lohan Crying. This stuff reminds me of the scene with Robert Downey Jr. in the movie "Natural Born Killers," when he played the character Wayne Gale. Downey's character in response to one of the producers saying they have no new footage of a story says something to the effect of: "Do you think those zombies out there can tell the difference in the mind junk we pump at them? Just mix up the shots we have and I'll over lay some new dialogue."

Too funny but seemingly true.

Question to the media: What happend to the War in IRAQ?

I am amazed that the general American public has such a short attention span. There is an old saying that: a person is smart...people are stupid. That just may be the case when it comes to consumption of the media.

During the previous administration every day, hour, minute there were negative reports on our involvement in IRAQ. Where are these daily reports now? There was reporting on the tally of soldiers lives that were being lost. There were reports on one failed operation after another.

So I asked the question: What has changed? We still have soldiers in the same numbers doing what they were doing before in IRAQ.

I say shame on the media for capitalizing on the deaths of our soldiers that fight and die all in an effort to advance an ideaology. Without those soldiers they would not have the freedom they enjoy.

I say shame on the media for not keeping the same level of coverage and spin and apply that to the efforts of the current administration.

Finally, I say shame on the consumers that don't demand more objectivity regardless of the current administration and their ideals.

Final question is this: How quickly do you think a true, objective independent news media organization would get frozen out of all communication if one were to actually exist...

Answer: Less than a nano-second.

I leave you with this: Don't just consider the information you are getting now from your chosen news outlet but rather compare the tone and tenner of that information with prior reports and ask critical questions as to what has changed if anything.

Thoughts on state government

I am not sure if it is just apathy or if there is a real reason why we as tax payers and voters do not get more involved.

In my case, finishing my degree, 2 kids and a full-time job paying a mortgage...finding the time to "get involved" would be a luxury. So really the question is: If I am busy taking care of my responsibilities and the other people like me are doing like-wise what's to stop the unfettered abuses being carried out by state and town officials here in MA?

There is just one smoke screeen after another with the raising toll controversy to the gas tax to putting chips in the inspection stickers of cars to track milage and tax etc... All the while the Governor has the audacity to call the voters position "trivial" and that he is more focused to important issues...Important to who?

All in all there are too many personal interests being served in the government and not enough public issues being served.

There was once an idea that the government would allow for equality among all where by they protect the minority from thetyranny of the majority and in the working sector unions would protect abuses of employers.

The pendulum has swung so far that the minority is the tyrant demanding their individual positions be recognized and allowed. Additionally the unions are the tyrants over business in an age where fair labor laws have evolved to protect all employees union or not.

So where's Deval going to allocate the bail-out money, as if we need to ask...I can already see the line of voting block leaders lining up at the door of the State House with their hand out.

Economic "Kansas City Shuffle"

160 million Come on! If Mark Texieria for the NY Yankees gets that kind of money for playing a childs game 2/3 of the year and works less than 40 hrs a week why are we not enraged about that?

Before anyone jumps on the obvious, that it is our tax dollars, remember that the company should have been allowed to fail. Since that didn't happen if you were one of the employees that spent 80 to 100 hrs a week away from your family and friends trying hard to keep your responsibilities on track, working with your fellow employees to achieve a common goal. Achieving that goal despite the failings of the company. You did all this hard work and sacraficed when you finally achieve what you worked for you get the bonus that was contractually obligated to you. The current administration is decimating that spirit of hard work and sacrafice is is being incredibly dangerous with their policies.

To keep it simple: 160,000,000 (aig bonus) divided by 3,700,000,000,000 (3.7 trillion proposed budget) equals 4/100000 of 1% or 0.000004 of the total budget proposed.

I get why the current administration wants everyone to focus on AIG but I don't understand why they are not doing more to justify the 3.7 trillion budget proposal.

This is a classic "Kansas City Shuffle" Gain your attention over here (aig) while we are "conning" you over there where you're not looking.

Here is a link to how Obama is trying to get support for his budget (Pay special attention to the comment "Map out and identify support" respond to me about your thoughts to this ): http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/pledgeproject

Here is a link to a local bank that doesn't have any bad debt or mortagages in foreclosure: http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/03/16/story3.html?b=1237176000^1793570&page=1

Obama is Econonomic Kryptonite; 2010 can't come fast enough

Based on polling data, personal conversations & even the main stream media's position it seems as though Barack Obama has officially, as they say, "jumped the shark"

Because the president has lost the ability to engage the republicans and even the fiscally conservative democrats in his own party he is hardening his position with respect to his budget. It seems as though he is proceeding down a more punitive path because those in congress that disagree with his plan would like it altered and he has postured himself as the "you're either with us or against us." president. Where have we heard that before (Bush 2004 post re-election)

The one thing Obama can't control is the effect his beliefs are having on the economy so he is forced to try to compel foreign banks to violate their privacy laws to help fund his planned socialistic state.

In 2010 (mid-term elections) the people who so emotionally voted for this massive shift to an all democrat state will not make it to the polls and the people who do vote will probably do exactly what America did...vote for change even if the opposing candidate to the democratic party has no experience or at least as much a Barack Obama had when he was a senator...and that is to say not much.

As college students if you think your prospects are bad now...just wait you be earning the same or less than the employee next to you at your state/federal subsidized job who did not go to college. Good luck out there.

Here is an editorial from investors business daily:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320977608242634

How do you satirize a minority president?

Although Barak Obama is bi-racial I suggest here that being bi-racial is more of a minority than many other minorities. With that said, through time and memorial, presidents have been satirized by having their physical attributes comically emphasized or having their words transitioned into double meanings. This has always allowed the American people to take a less serious view and a more relaxed view of the office of President. I believe, along with several other measures of reasonable tolorance, the practice of political satire against the President has come to an end.

Miracle on the Hudson...Now What

Interesting how much time and attention the media spends on keeping negative stories alive.  If the Miracle on the Hudson was more like a disaster the media would be all over it.  I am not saying that there was not a lot of coverage but the story has not had the same legs as other negative stories.  My assertion is that the reason why it has not had the "legs" is because the media is not propping it up.  Instead they are delving into the pasts and family lives of the crash victims from the flight into buffalo.  They are centering their stories around pilot error and talking with surviving spouses and children.  Why are they not doing pieces of the survivors of the the Hudson Miracle?

Disturbing!

Do you feel like a coward?

I think that there is a portion of the population obsessed with race to the degree that they seek out racisim everywhere. I never truly believed the race debate would be politicised within this administration. Furthermore I do not believe now is the time to label Americans "cowards" no matter what the reason. Talk about shock and awe, I am shocked and awed at the fact that these high level individuals have such a disdain for what America is.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/mitchell/2009/02/attorney_general_eric_holders.html

The Financial Times is reporting a fair view of the impending situation

America is ready to toughen up and pull up our collective boot straps but it seems as though the current administration thinks we need to be patted on the head and told everything is okay. Here is a piece from the Financial Times and it looks at both what we are doing and what we would and have told other countries to do in similar situations.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ebea1b8-f794-11dd-81f7-000077b07658.html

Food for thought on the differences

Here is an interesting though I had in relation to the two distinct sides of the stimulus package as presented by the media.

The main stream networks are targeting the investment of the stimulus package. Investments such as infra- structure, government programs etc...

The opposing media perspective is that in order to pay for the stimulus you and I, essentially the bank of the tax payer, will have to fund this long term with interest. Moreover part of the package is an increase of up to 3% on business payroll taxes. Even at one percent that would devastate the capital economy.

If you're a 1099 worker and you pay quarterly taxes, you pay a portion of it to state & federal payroll taxes which is then allocated across the spectrum from workers comp to unemployment etc. Funny though if you lose your wages most 1099 claims for unemployment are denied even though you paid your taxes to have them. (personal experience)

Now on an average scale if you have a large company with 30,000 employees making an average of $30,000 each a year that is a payroll of 900,000,000 .00. What do you think my board of directors is going to do if you raise my payroll taxes 1%? (9 mil) RIF (reduction in force) the transferable jobs over seas...2% (18 mil)RIF the jobs and real estate, manufacturing etc overseas.. 3%? (27 mil)Look for a buyer who will combine efficiencies and maybe retain 5 to 10,000 employees. Now apply that to small business and big business like GE, Siemens, Alcoa etc...

Bottom line from last night is this. Mr. President, How are you going to measure whether this is working? "I will measure by saving or creating 4 million jobs" Which is it and how do you measure whether or not you have saved a job?

President Obama is a smart man and capable President but I think he is being bulldozed by Congress and unfortunately is hanging his Presidency and legacy on a Hail Mary pass that from what I can surmise he probably wouldn't throw willingly.

Getting ready for the biggest sale ever! almost 1 trillion!

I will be interested to see how the media covers the Obama address related to the proposed stimulus.

I fully expect it to be long on rhetoric and short on details.

I think part of the plan should allow Americans to cut a check to the governmen't each month instead of the confiscatory approach now in place.

What would this achieve one might ask? The answer is simple: When people have to spend anywhere from 18 to 38 percent of their earnings (those who earn enough to pay taxes) for government operations they will start taking a harder look at what they are getting for their money.

Hold on to your hats and glasses people, we're in for a bumpy ride!

Would be interesting to see the details, you know...where the "devil" is

Yesterday it was announced that any of the banks taking government money will need to limit exec. pay to 500K. This is a reasonable proposition but in practice will most likely result in what is know as an operating environment. An operating environment is similar to a non profit but what actually happens in an operating environment is the company gets bigger and bigger but returns nothing to the market. For example if I ran a non profit charity and made 1Mil. in collections and have a charter to distribute 40% to charity then I have 60% (600K) to run my operation (salaries, expenses, fixed costs etc.) As my non profit gets bigger 2Mil. sure the 40% figure goes to 800K but my operation, which may not have gotten any bigger, is now collecting 1.2Mil to allocate as noted above.

What does all this mean???

It means this: Executives will take the 500K and have an unlimited expense budget which they will use to "Operate" the business and every other aspect of their lives. They won't buy big houses they will lease them, they won't buy a jet they will lease it. The company can decide what they will allow the Exec. to expense...Groceries? sure it really doesent matter what they actuall expense what matters is that their accountants sort through what can be written off to uncle sam (us) and what the company has to absorb.

So the Exec. keeps and banks every dime of his 500K and his expenses for FY 09 were 12 million of which the company wrote off 2 million and absorbed the other 10 million.

Funny though the company only made 12.5 million...so what's coming back to us?

We all know the answer to that one.

Media is praying on the weak

I am not sure we all agree on this one but I have several friends, contacts, colleagues and clients that do agree...The media is making the current instability in the economic situation into an unstable emotional response from the public.

People make decisions based on emotion and justify their decisions with logic...that we know is human nature. Until now we would get our logical justifications from multiple sources we considered credible. Primarily the sources we choose are the easiest ones to source and what's easier than having the media come to you to tell you what to think about?

Here I present something I learned: Think of the idea of a "trim tab" a trim tab is the small rudder inside the larger rudder which allows large ships (cruise liners, freighters, QEII etc...) to begin the task of turning the rudder. In life we need to be trim tabbing for the future that is to say making the right small moves that will transgress into larger moves that are positive for our collective future.

If we continue to let the media paralyze us with fear pretty soon even our trim tab will seize and we will be heading right toward the iceberg. The media may be licking their chops for that moment but when no one can buy the products from the advertisers they will be reduced to handing out mimeo-graph news stories or worse yet, type-set news papers which no one will pay for anyway.

Why so much interest in siliencing differing opinions

I find it interesting that although the majority of the media consider themselves moderate and yet promote a liberal agenda are interested in silencing talk radio and/or fox news. I consider this a dangerous situation. Any time the minority (right wing labeled talk radio or fox news) has to suffer the tyranny of the majority: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, Most major Hollywood studios etc...these is a crussing of dissenting ideas and speaking out become punishable. I know both sides of the political establishment feels the same way but only when they are not in power: see link




http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2008/11/11/the-right-to-disagree/

5 questions in 5 minutes

Funny, I actually felt the pressure when the pop-up saying I had a minute to finish came up. I am wondering if anyone else experienced this?

Okay...WOW

Yeah, that was easier than I thought. Although this is my first time to blogging with all the computer mediated communication out there this is not a huge leap. I am on facebook and it is amazing the number and the variety of people that are always connecting with one another. Also there is alot of information sharing etc... I am excited to see where blogging takes me with this course.