Who Freaken cares about this stuff?

Walter Lippman’s grave assessment of the mass media audience “… people whose vitality is exhausted, shut-in people, and people whose experience has comprehended no factor in the problem under discussion'', raises an interesting point regarding weather people make any connection to news without understanding how they fit into the story. Looking at our self nature, people understand when they self identify, and since most of our mass media messages are discussed and interpreted for us, a focus must be made to explain “why people” should care, not what news outlets think we should care about. This innocuous small article, regarding something as ephemeral and ghostly a topic as copyrights and patents (boring right?) presents the story as two titans of business, arming themselves with rich lawyers to do battle over very technical and academic patent issues. This framing leaves nothing for the reader to gain from, easily forgetting about what one just read a few minutes later. Why? No connection as to the “why I care”. Part of good journalism is to “activate the citizenry”, connect them to outlets of action, creating link between politics and the people. Nothing in this article teaches the reader that rules regarding copyright and patents are actually in our Constitution. No, not the Constitution of Nokia, but our actual founding documents. Our framers considered the protection of one’s own labor to be quintessential to a stable and great country. This article educates no one as to the powerful forces at hand, stealing one’s work. It is in this context that readers can understand and relate to why matters that may seem mundane are so very, very important. News services so eager to satisfy a faced paced, attention deficit viewer, simply skip past any type of grounded context as a starting point. I believe this to be not only a moral mistake but a business mistake as well. By doing a little extra work and providing researched historical context that allows the reader to self identify and understand “why” he may care, I believe credibility and interest would be built with that brand.

Patent Wars Begin as Apple, Nokia Square Off
ARTICLE DATE: 11.29.10
By Peter Pachal

This week Apple and Nokia are facing each other in a legal conflict over smartphone patents before the International Trade Commission, the first of several disputes over intellectual property that could redefine the smartphone market.

The current conflict began in October 2009 when Nokia sued Apple, alleging that the Cupertino-based company had infringed on 10 of its patents with the iPhone. Apple countersued in December 2009, upping the ante by saying Nokia was in violation of 13 of its patents.

If Nokia wins, Apple could lose the right to sell the iPhone in the U.S. If Apple wins, Nokia's devices could be shut out of the U.S. market altogether. The losing company could end up going to the other for licensing rights to continue marketing its devices.

Whoever takes this round, the Apple-Nokia dispute is just the beginning of a series of legal conflicts for Apple. Up next are disputes with Motorola and HTC; The hearing in the HTC case is scheduled for May, according the the ITC Web site.

Bloomberg reports that Apple has turned to several top technology lawyers to beef up its legal team in advance of the case. Bruce Sewell, Apple's general counsel, came aboard last year after 15 years at Intel. Another recruit is Noreen Krall, formerly of Sun Microsystems. For outside counsel, Apple will get advice from William Lee, who successfully represented Broadcom against Qualcomm, and Robert Krupka, who negotiated Apple's $100 million settlement with Creative Labs in 2005.
Copyright (c) 2010 Ziff Davis Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Lipstick on the Pig and the Olympics

The mass media can both focus attention on an important subject which is a public service while simultaneously sabotaging their duties by asking the wrong questions, causing a great disservice. This is done by lowering the common denominator and wallowing in the shallow waters of "action oriented" news. The Olympics certainly can bring out the best in young athletes and bring out the worst in international politics all the while the media paying very little attention to some of the harder questions revolving around the games. While the world watches exiting and dramatic news coverage of the police in Rio, cracking down on slum areas riddled with drug dealers, one must ask if this effort by their zealous government to "crack down on drug dealers" ever would have taken place if the Olympics where not coming to town. The Olympics, now synonymous with Bob Costas sitting around warm fire places or overlooking a sunny stadium, honoring superhuman feats of strength and agility have an uglier side that the media, almost out of courtesy for the perception of the event never tends to get involved with. 51 people have been killed in Rio, in this "clean out effort", to make the place look respectable on the international stage. All about image but at what human costs? Not once, have I read a story that asks why a modern country in which the world has bestowed a ceremonial honor by hosting the Olympics, has city sized slums run by narco- drug dealers. The framing regarding the Olympics must always sit inside a neat box of medals and heroes, never venturing beyond the Olympic village to consider whether the host country is deserving of this competitive honor. There is an actual news worthy debate begging for discussion, that of whether international attention helps to improve a countries problems or if or if countries simply put lipstick on the pig. Rio, is just another example of an opportunity missed by the media, with China now come and gone, bereft of any real debate on the topic. Was more light placed on China's human rights records or complete control of their media, or did the world walk away with a warm, fuzzy feeling because the closing ceremony was so "pretty". This is an important topic considering Rio, China and our own home town of Atlanta, dedicated millions upon millions on Olympic related structures and venues, perhaps at the expense of more sustentative projects where the money might have been better used. Again, this would be a good topic for a journalist to look at and provide the public with real, researched information on pros and cons of this showy spectacle. Should we as a viewer be cheering the heroes on the field or raising hell over things that host countries just sweep under the rug. We just don't know because the info is not available. Just another missed opportunity to raise the credibility of a disgraced medium.

Thanksgiving, Socialism and the Media

If the newsmakers help to define our cultural norms according to how they set their nightly agenda, then they should be culpable and responsible for linking us to our historical past with accuracy and substance. If not, then we as an electorate are tied to American traditions and ideals that are built on rhetoric and political manipulation. Around holidays that help to mold a culture around common ideals, it is more important than ever for the building blocks of our identity to be as painstakingly researched, reviewed and presented with true a true reverence for trying to get the story right. I find John Stocils indictment of the pilgrims almost starving to death from practicing socialist methodologies a bit "out there" but at least someone is trying to actually intellectualize and participate in the discovery of where our identity as Americans come from. I can see many of you rolling your eyes thinking that he is just a mad republican (actually libertarian) completely off his rocker throwing these far right wing rhetorical bombs out of his mouth but for goodness sake, look at some of the source material. Read Locke, Madison, Machiavelli, Rousseau and many of the other political theorists that shaped hundreds of years of human history. They all said the same thing as he did, but the viewer would never know that because the media takes no interest in providing context that is older than 10 minutes. It is a crime, because of what is at stake. Do you want to feel like your patriotism or love or hatred of this country is based on a lie? Viewers need to demand more from their news outlets in the way of historical information that can be linked to today's realities, if not the newsmakers become complicit in creating a society whose identity rest on fantasy.

So far removed from Reality it almost hurts: Congress and the TSA

If you ever wonder why charges of elitism coupled with historic low approval ratings occur within the lofty halls of congress one only needs to look at the symbolism on display when Congress sticks their middle finger out at the American public. As you all know, unless you have been hiding in a cave, the mass media have set the news agenda surrounding the supposed "outrage" around aggressive pat downs and see through body scanners at the airport. According to all major news agencies, congressional offices are getting flooded with calls from angry constituents. So in their infinite wisdom with a genius for tapping into the electorate Congress EXEMPTS themselves and their staffs from either of these new security procedures. Other than a scant mention in the main stream media the general public will remain clueless, as this small detail will not make it into the agenda set so it won't compete with the current narrative of pornography now at our airports courtesy of the federal government. How far removed from reality can Congress be to say what is good for the little people is not good enough for them. Israel has none of these multimillion devices looking into the crevices of the human body but rather rely on face to face questioning and the politically incorrect stance of profiling. In a nation that claims to abhor profiling and the very idea of it why would our elected officials be exempt by the nature of profiling. The idea is, the security have a good idea that the congressman or women and his staff are probably not a threat so they won't get searched. Profiling at its finest but only if it benefits those in charge. They say power corrupts and this is yet another example of a public outrage and those legislating for the rest of us excusing themselves....this stinks...where the hell is the news?

The Death of News? One must consider the source.

Is news really dead? Is this comment merely Self Righteous or an accurate indictment of the reality of today’s news? Ted Koppel, by all accounts is a man from a bygone era, a news fossil who much like a disgruntled grandfather delivers this scathing commentary on the ruin of news and the public trust. Does every generation think the previous generation held moral superiority including in the news gathering business. Koppel sights 60 Minutes as the first news gathering show to turn a profit therefore unleashing the dogs of war and opinion journalism picking popular topics and then flattering the people by serving them these self reinforcing stories. This is true but isn’t it also true that the “golden age” of loss liter news break the public trust by imposing their morality on the public by coddling and protecting secrets from public officials including the president of the United States. Are we better served in an environment where much of what we learn is salacious and infotainment but at the same time an environment in which citizen journalism on every street corner makes it almost impossible for our so called trusted officials to get away with anything? Are white lies from the past somehow morally superior to full knowledge now, despite the fact it gets mixed in with a sea of crap. Take your pick, news organizations protecting their sources as “gentlemen” or raw data flowing from internet activist, bloggers and the like mixed in with the snake oil shows of Beck and Olberman. I think Koppel falls victim to his own generational bias, do you?

Ted Koppel: Olbermann, O'Reilly and the death of real news
By Ted Koppel
Sunday, November 14, 2010;
To witness Keith Olbermann - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for making financial contributions to Democratic political candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a long-gone era of television journalism, when the networks considered the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased news to be a public trust.
Back then, a policy against political contributions would have aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today, when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers to his program every night precisely because he is avowedly, unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?
We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable.
The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts.
And so, among the many benefits we have come to believe the founding fathers intended for us, the latest is news we can choose. Beginning, perhaps, from the reasonable perspective that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it. They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be. This is to journalism what Bernie Madoff was to investment: He told his customers what they wanted to hear, and by the time they learned the truth, their money was gone.
It is also part of a pervasive ethos that eschews facts in favor of an idealized reality. The fashion industry has apparently known this for years: Esquire magazine recently found that men's jeans from a variety of name-brand manufacturers are cut large but labeled small. The actual waist sizes are anywhere from three to six inches roomier than their labels insist.
Perhaps it doesn't matter that we are being flattered into believing what any full-length mirror can tell us is untrue. But when our accountants, bankers and lawyers, our doctors and our politicians tell us only what we want to hear, despite hard evidence to the contrary, we are headed for disaster. We need only look at our housing industry, our credit card debt, the cost of two wars subsidized by borrowed money, and the rising deficit to understand the dangers of entitlement run rampant. We celebrate truth as a virtue, but only in the abstract. What we really need in our search for truth is a commodity that used to be at the heart of good journalism: facts - along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.
To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence. Network executives were afraid that a failure to work in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as set forth in the Radio Act of 1927, might cause the Federal Communications Commission to suspend or even revoke their licenses. The three major broadcast networks pointed to their news divisions (which operated at a loss or barely broke even) as evidence that they were fulfilling the FCC's mandate. News was, in a manner of speaking, the loss leader that permitted NBC, CBS and ABC to justify the enormous profits made by their entertainment divisions.
On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable.
Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its "60 Minutes" news magazine in 1968. When, after three years or so, "60 Minutes" turned a profit (something no television news program had previously achieved), a light went on, and the news divisions of all three networks came to be seen as profit centers, with all the expectations that entailed.

Sarah and the Satisficers

Shrewd move or gimmick? Sarah Palin's Alaska drew record numbers for TLC making it the highest rated show in the cable networks history bringing in over 5 million viewers on its opening night. Prior to the show ever launching its inaugural episode the talking heads and pundits came out in force to debate whether this reality style show was good politics or just another money making venture for the woman who reportedly made some 14 million dollars this year. Alaska open records show the former governor and her family never exceeded $150,000 dollars in income even while residing as governor, spending much of this income on legal bills defending over a dozen ethics suits commonly brought by oppossing political parties. Frankly, Mrs. Palin was going broke at the time she left office and leveraged her considerable star power into a dynamic money making machine. The big question on everyone's mind: Is this show befitting of a potential presidential candidate and would it serve her best interest politically. karl Rove chimed in saying this was not "very presidential" and took a lot of heat from Palin supporters who defended the move as an attempt to reach that basket of viewers known as the satisficers. Let's get real here. For those who hate Palin this show will do nothing to dull their swords and for those who love Palin the show will bring a side of her not often scene in convention halls giving stump speeches. The real genius behind this savvy venture is to talk to the middle basket, the independents who may initially watch as a novel curiosity but may find themselves drawn in by a show that doesn't feature senseless shock footage as comment to reality series trying to one up each other to make a splash. By all accounts, USA Today, The New York Post and various commentators all have reviewed the show as surprisingly good, apolitical and entirely wholesome, which is a rarity on evening TV. Obama on the Daily show, Clinton on Arsinio and even Nixon on Laugh In all stand witness to important political figures reaching out to audiences they might not normally get to through more traditional mediums. Even though name recognition is not an issue for Sarah Palin, staying in the public eye in a non controversial medium only serves to keep Palin's name in the forefront of public thought. Palin admittedly is a lightning rod for criticism by her detractors, but just as they dismissed her power to influence elections and were dead wrong, they will eat their words again as she laughs all the way to the bank or perhaps the Whitehouse. No, she does not have a fancy ivy league education but neither do you who are reading this post, but somehow you excuse your own path to tear her down. Let's see if you go from shooting moose to counting your millions down the road. To say she is stupid is intellectually dishonest and Sarah Palin's Alaska will simply prove the point that she is force to reckon with, in politics or in the realm or our airwaves.

Finally The New Media Does Its Job..Just Not in This Country

Finally an example of the power of the news media as an active citizen and agitator, doing its job and in the process saving the lives of Chile's most vulnerable citizen. Trapped for 2 months, these poor of the poor, working in unsafe hazardous conditions, most likely would have had their fate sealed if it were not for the continuous drum beat of the family and Chile's news media, which have clambered onto the story forcing the government to take ownership of the situation. Now the government, smelling an opportunity to be the “media hero”, has made this a political issue in which savvy politicians can run on in the future. It had been widely reported the safety violations and the lax government enforcement of the mining industry has been pervasive in poor communities in Chile for years. This media spotlight serves to highlight not just these trapped miners, but the conditions and extreme poverty that have driven so many young men to risk their lives for pennies a day. Once the miners are out of the hole and the world has welcomed them, I wonder if the media will keep focused on the broader social issues and hold their government accountable for improving the deplorable mining standards.