Racism and the News Media: Vanity Fair’s “New Hollywood” issue February 7, 2010
Posted by admin in Blogroll, Film, Internet, News, Politics, Public relations, entertainment.Tags: Hollywood, Magazines, Racism, Shine, Vanity Fair, Yahoo, Yahoo News
add a comment
Joanna Douglas of Yahoo’s Shine, the fashion and beauty section of Yahoo News, started a major controversy recently after accusing Vanity Fair of racism for choosing actresses in its annual “New Hollywood” issue who are “extremely thin and very, very white.” The issue aims at predicting who will be the new “it” celebrities for the future. This year’s cover features Abbie Cornish, Kristen Stewart, Carey Mulligan, Amanda Seyfried, Rebecca Hall, Mia Wasikowska, Emma Stone, Evan Rachel Wood, and Anna Kendrick. Although Douglas found the actresses deserving of the acknowledgment, she suggested that the magazine featured a “white-girl-only cover.” Criticizing the decision, Douglas asked, “Were there no promising young actors of color who could have been featured in either issue?”
As similar critics have suggested at Jezebel.com, a website dedicated to “celebrity, sex, and fashion for women,” reaction to Shine’s article has been far more disturbing than the magazine story. Jezebel’s writers have analyzed over 18,000 comments on Shine’s story, and discovered that a lot of people supported Vanity Fair because as one person offensively argued, “Mandatory race in EVERYTHING…is just retarded.” After including the “best” of other comments in response to Shine’s article, Jezebel’s writers concluded “It’s disturbing enough that Vanity Fair, Hollywood, and mainstream celebrity culture in general are still overwhelmingly white – but truly terrifying that so many are willing to come out in support of keeping it that way.”
To see the pictures from the Vanity Fair story yourself, and a behind-the-scenes look at the photo shoot, watch the following videos:
Discussion Questions:
1. Do you agree that Vanity Fair was wrong to focus on only “skinny white actresses” in its recent “New Hollywood” issue? Was the issue racist?
2. Even if you do not think Vanity Fair excluded more diverse actresses intentionally, how might their decision perpetuate racism in Hollywood, the news media, and society in general?
3. Regarding this recent controversy, what could Vanity Fair do to appease its critics?
The Internet and Teen Violence: A case study of “girl fights” February 6, 2010
Posted by admin in Internet, New Media, News.Tags: CBS, fighting, teenangels, YouTube
add a comment
Local news media from all over the United States have picked up on a trend of young teens posting videos of after-school brawls on YouTube. A recent fight in Lowell, Massachusetts, for instance, was covered by Boston’s NewsCenter 5. Some Lowell students have been amused by the videos, as one sophomore told NewsCenter 5’s Kelley Tuthill, “There’s a lot of fights on YouTube. People like to watch it.” According to local educators in Lowell, it seems that about 80 percent of school fights are now girl against girl, and many of those are being recorded to be shared on the internet.
A widely read report by CBS 2 HD this week suggests that the trend of teen fights might actually be caused by the internet. One member of the cyber safety group “Teenangels” argued that many kids “want attention from it. They want to be on the Internet. They want to be famous and they’re willing to go to any cost to do that.”
To learn more about this disturbing trend, watch the following video:
Discussion Questions:
1. Does there really seem to be a trend in girl-girl fights posted on the internet? The CBS 2 HD report suggests that the fact that You Tube has 267,000 results for “girl fight” indicates that there is a major problem. Why might this claim be slightly exaggerated?
2. Is this evidence that the internet is causing teen violence? Why, or why not?
3. Should YouTube and other online video sites censor this kind of content? Why, or why not?
Revisiting the merits of “Yellow Journalism” February 2, 2010
Posted by admin in News, Newspaper, Politics, entertainment.Tags: Jack Shafer, Joseph Campbell, Joseph Pulitzer, Slate, William Randolph Hearst, yellow journalism
add a comment
Most people probably do not celebrate this anniversary, but January 31, 2010, marked the 113th year since the term “yellow journalism” first appeared in print. As the historian of journalism W. Joseph Campbell noted, the term was used in the late nineteenth century to stigmatize the kind of new journalism practiced by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer.
Contrary to popular opinion, though, yellow journalism was not necessarily a bad thing. As Slate’s Jack Shafer contends, yellow journalism offered new techniques for reporters and editors, like the use of clever headlines to attract attention to otherwise mundane stories. In addition, yellow journalism led to an expansion of acceptable news subjects to crime, scandal, gossip, divorce, sex, disasters, and sports.
For more on yellow journalism from the past and present, see the following video:
Discussion Questions:
1. What does “yellow journalism” mean to most people?
2. Why do you think that people running traditional newspapers in the late 19th century wanted to stigmatize those involved with this new form of journalism?
3. Where do we see the practice of yellow journalism today? Is the news form really as bad as it sounds?
New York’s Newsday a grim case study for online news pay walls February 2, 2010
Posted by admin in Advertising, Internet, New Media, News, Newspaper.Tags: Cablevision, Newsday, Tom Rutledge, Wall Street Journal
add a comment
After being purchased by Cablevision, New York newspaper Newsday announced in February 2009 that it would begin charging for its online content. Cablevision’s CEO Tom Rutledge stated at the time, “Our goal was, and is, to use our electronic network assets and subscriber relationships to transform the way news is distributed. We plan to end distribution of free Web content and to make our news gathering capabilities service our customers.” Newsday’s experiment was closely watched by other newspapers at the time because many were considering charging for online content to make up for the recent revenue losses.
Recent reports, however, suggest that Newsday’s decision has been a colossal failure. After three months from the time that Newsday began charging people $5 a week to read its online content, only 35 subscribers have taken the bait. This comes after Cablevision spent $4 million to redesign the site. With only about $9,000 coming in for subscriptions by the end of January, the newspaper has also seen its web traffic plummet from 2.2 million unique hits in October to just 1.5 million in December.
For more on this story, including the response of Newsday’s consumers, and the company’s original rationale for the move, see the following videos:
Discussion Questions:
1. Is the result of Newsday’s experiment surprising? Why are consumers so reluctant to pay for online news content?
2. How have some news providers, like The Wall Street Journal, been able to avoid this kind of catastrophe when charging readers for online news?
3. What do you think will happen to Newsday? Will the newspaper drop its pay wall?
Focus on the Family, Abortion, and Tim Tebow: Do issue ads have a place during the Super Bowl? January 25, 2010
Posted by admin in Advertising, News, Politics, Television.Tags: Abortion, CBS, Colts, Focus on the Family, James Dobson, New York Times, NFL, religion, Saints, Stuart Elliot, Super Bowl, Tim Tebow, UCC, United Church of Cris
add a comment
The word on the street is that CBS will be airing an issue advertisement from evangelical organization Focus on the Family during Super Bowl XLIV. According to Stuart Elliot of The New York Times, issue ads have been rare during the Super Bowl “partly because almost all the time is bought by marketers of consumer products and partly because the networks have strict policies regarding the discussion of contentious issues in national commercials.” However, controversy is arising not just because there is an issue ad running for what seems like the first time. The ad is about abortion, and it is being sponsored by an organization founded by James Dobson, who Stuart called “a polarizing figure in recent years in discussions of social and political issues.”
Although the nature of the ad is being kept somewhat of a secret until it airs, rumors suggest that it is a 30-second ad arguing against a woman’s right to have an abortion. University of Florida football star Tim Tebow stars in the ad, which will feature his mother’s story about how she chose against having an abortion during her complicated pregnancy despite her doctors’ advice. As some media commentators have noted, the move comes after recent news that Focus on the Family is facing major financial troubles made worse by an announcement that its founder, James Dobson, will be leaving the organization to start a new radio show.
The news of the ad is especially creating controversy, though, since CBS refused to air another issue ad in 2004 from the United Church of Christ. The rejected UCC ad featured a male couple trying to enter a church to worship only to be turned away by a tough looking bouncer. The message, that “Jesus Didn’t Turn People Away. Neither Do We,” was too much for CBS back then. Why has it changed its mind about issue ads now? This is a question that they will inevitably need to answer.
To see the rejected ad from the United Church of Christ, watch the following video:
Discussion Questions:
1. What are the dangers of major networks airing issue ads?
2. Do you think the ads mentioned above are similar in that they advocate a position on a controversial social issue? If so, how should CBS address the criticism that it is picking and choosing between positions when it should be guaranteeing free speech? If not, how are the two different?
3. How do you think Americans will feel about the issue advertisement when it airs?
Ethics and Television: “Our Little Genius” and the role of children in entertainment January 18, 2010
Posted by admin in News, Politics, Television, entertainment.Tags: children, Fox, kids, Mark Burnett, Michelle Golland, momlogic.com, Our Little Genius
add a comment
Reality television genius Mark Burnett had a plan for a new show. His plan entailed finding preteen geniuses and having them compete on national television against adults for hundreds of thousands of dollars. “Our Little Genius” was originally scheduled to have its premiere in January 2010, but it has stalled a bit due to vocal criticism from child psychologists. Dr. Michelle Golland from momlogic.com, for example, articulated the following concern:
“In essence, [the parents] either believe in their child’s ability or simply don’t. We are not talking small amounts of money either. The payoff is upwards of $200,000 — an amount that could change an entire family’s future. The pressure to perform for a large payoff will be a huge responsibility for any of these children. In essence, these parents are pimping out their children in hopes of a huge monetary return with little or no safeguards for the welfare of the children. This is not a judged show on talent (an inherently subjective experience). It is a quiz show with parents in control of the destiny while kids are expected to be little computers spitting out information. This is a recipe for a self-esteem nosedive.“
According to the show’s producers, however, there were several plans to reduce this possible stress and embarrassment for the children. For instance, many fake endings are previously taped and aired in case the children have emotional moments and end the show in tears. Nevertheless, increased criticism of the show has caused FOX to reconsider its plans for the show. “Our Little Genius” has been temporarily taken off the spring schedule. Though producer Mark Burnett will try to reproduce another version of the show, a new release date has not yet been set.
Click here to see the promo for “Our Little Genius.”
Discussion Questions:
1. What are the risks of using children in entertainment? Were the risks with “Our Little Genius” worse than average, or fairly typical?
2. What standards should the media industry follow in determining when to use children in entertainment? Are there popular shows on television that would fail your test?
3. Is there any way to remake “Our Little Genius” without posing risks to the mental welfare of the child contestants?
Does the Obama administration owe televised negotiations on health care reform? January 18, 2010
Posted by admin in News, Politics, Television.Tags: Brian Lamb, Congress, CSPAN, democracy, Democrats, health care, Obama
add a comment
At the beginning of January 2010, C-Span CEO Brian Lamb wrote a letter to congressional leaders asking them to televise meetings where they will soon attempt to reach a compromise on Senate and House health overhaul bills. His argument was simple and straightforward: Health care legislation will affect everyone in America, so public access to the meetings is essential.
It appears that Lamb’s request, however, will not be granted. The word on the street is that President Obama – despite having promised televised talks while he campaigned – wants the final negotiations on health care reform rushed and hushed. House Speaker Nanci Pelosi affirmed that this was the plan, declaring at the beginning of January that “The House and Senate plan to put together the final health care reform bill behind closed doors according to an agreement by top Democrats.”
The Obama administration’s new plan is clearly angering many people in the media. For more on reactions to what will be secret negotiations, see the following videos. The first, posted on Breitbart.tv, demonstrates that Obama promised transparency on at least eight occasions. The second is a general reaction to the news from one media pundit’s perspective.
View that first video here.
Discussion Questions:
1. What do you think is the Obama administration’s rationale for now making the talks private? Is this completely malicious?
2. Is televising congressional negotiations essential to a healthy democracy? Why, or why not?
3. What is the risk that the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats run by going back on their word? What impact do you think this decision will have on the results of the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 presidential election?
2009 a rough year for newspapers and magazines; Hollywood saved from recession January 8, 2010
Posted by admin in Advertising, Film, Internet, News, Newspaper, entertainment.Tags: 2009, Advertising Age, Crain's New York, Economy, Hollywood, Magazines, recession
add a comment
The year 2009 was a rough one for newspapers. Though it is being predicted that newspaper advertising overall will show a single-digit-percentage decline in 2010, this comes after an enormous 30% decline in ad revenues in 2009. Major newspapers across the nation closed for business, and magazines did not fare any better. According to Crain’s New York Business, over 367 magazines shut down in 2009, and an extra 64 went online only.
According to Advertising Age, Hollywood on the other hand seemed to escape the wrath of the economic recession in 2009. Movie studios sold more than $9.68 billion in tickets by the first week in December, breaking the previous record set in 2007. Attendance, too, was at an all-time high, up 5% from the previous year. Reports so far suggest an excellent holiday season for Tinseltown, thanks to the rise of 3-D films, a good variety of kid-friendly movies, and a number of popular comedies.
To see the highlights of 2009 for Hollywood, watch the video below:
Discussion Questions:
1. How are the troubles for the newspaper and magazine industry different from the piracy problems that have affected Hollywood?
2. Why do you believe that cinemas have actually benefited from the economic recession, while newspapers and magazines have been significantly harmed?
3. How will newspapers and magazines be able to return to profitability in 2010?
