Category: Uncategorized

Democrats Wrong to Ask that 9/11 TV Movie Be Kept “Off The Air”—But They Should Be Asking Hard Questions About the Lack of Quality News and Entertainment and Media Policies

We don’t agree with the drumbeat coming from Democrats and others that this weekend’s Disney/ABC TV movie be pulled. Censoring such content is unhealthy in a democracy. ABC cannot afford to buckle under from Dem critics. The Dems pressure campaign, while helping to bring about some (much needed) editorial changes, appears self-serving. The Clinton Administration does bear some responsibility for the country’s lack of understanding about the rising tide of anger against the U.S. from abroad. The Clinton folks weren’t saints. Think what they did to the poor with welfare reform; how their egos bungled getting us national health care; or how they hailed the passage of the lobbyist-written (and media concentration giving) 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Democrats, by the way, were openly critical of CBS buckling under GOP pressure when the network cancelled its airing of “The Reagans” in 2003 (parent company Viacom eventually ran it on pay cable channel Showtime).

TV movies have always been confabulated affairs. Granted, Disney/ABC should have hired writers who are politically independent. And they should have stuck to the “script” of the actual 9/11 Commission report. But the real problem is that our media consolidated, ratings and right demographic audience targeted TV system isn’t focused at all on providing the public with a steady and serious examination of the world. TV lives in a fantasyland so it can better generate profits from advertisers. The networks and stations have no real public interest responsibilities, thanks to years of scuttling FCC rules. Congress keeps giving the TV networks everything they want, such as billions of free airwaves. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and at the FCC over the years have given permission for the TV industry to engage in ever-lowering standards. Except for Newt Minow’s sharp retort back in 1961 that television was giving the public a “vast wasteland,” broadcasters and cable companies have been given high-fives from a Congress satisfied with the system (meaning lots of campaign contributions and little analytical coverage of what’s really going on).

Rather than ask Disney to drop this docudrama, it would better if the Democrats called for a serious national debate about the quality of TV in the U.S. I’m not saying censorship. But they should be asking the TV industry to provide the public with more in-depth news and analysis—locally and nationally. No more 22 minute evening news broadcasts or countless headlines repeated on cable TV. We require serious investigative reports and more time overall spent on examining the country’s myriad problems—and what can be done about them. The networks should be urged to produce TV movies and series that are derived from (dare I say it) literature. TV should be asked to embrace young writers and other creators from diverse perspectives and backgrounds to develop programming that changes the dumbing down formula of television. [Are they coming to take me away yet!].

The Dems—and the GOP—should also call for public policies that ensure the public can receive a more diverse stream of content. They means network neutrality for the Internet, along with new rules that prevent the broadcast, cable, and satellite business from being TV gatekeepers. The TV conglomerates must be required to pass thru to viewers and users all news and public affairs programming–especially in this era of interactive digital media (such as video on demand, etc).

Ultimately, we need a more informed U.S. public if we are to better understand the real path to 9/11, so many other critical issues, and what we must do to address them. That should be the drumbeat of the DNC and others.

pay 500 loans dayadjustable rate loans realestateadverse online loans creditalaska consolidation loans debt100 loans refinance21 loans paydayloans online 500 paydayloan amount of Map

agriculture livestock credit loansloan 9 direct consolidationloans 401k rulesloans administrator veterans ofalberta loan cheap car1000 canada payday loanloan ace brokerage businessalabama loan unsecured Map

Microsoft’s Massive Interactive Ad Venture (with a editorial reminder for the Washington Post)

Bill and Melinda Gates receive just praise for their eponymous charitable foundation. But like so many other philanthropists, the money comes via disreputable practices. Little is ever mentioned when discussing the Gates Foundation that its resources were built on a coldly executed monopolistic business strategy. The European Commission is still trying to undo the impact of Microsoft’s monopoly. Like many other robber barons turned philanthropist, perhaps Mr. Gates has made a later-in-one’s life conversion. He is now widely viewed—by the press and others—as a saint, not a sinner.

But Microsoft’s recent acquisition of Massive—the leading provider of online advertising for video games—illustrates his company’s continued lack of a moral vision. Massive sells to a wide array of advertisers and marketers the eyeballs—and really the subconscious minds—of teens and other gamers. Video games become populated with all kinds of commercial messages to help push the marketing goals of “Entertainment, Automotive, Telecom, Packaged Goods, Technology and Retail,” explains Massive. These ads are placed before users in “real-time” and can be readily updated and revised to suit an advertisers marketing strategy. You can be sure users are tracked and profiled.

Here’s what Massive also tells advertisers: “Massive’s patent-pending ad serving technology and unique ad units guarantee that advertisers get precise, measurable exposure in their campaign. The dynamic nature of the Massive Network gives advertisers the opportunity to target gamers with different messages based upon geography and time of day. The advertising creative and campaign can be highly customized and changed quickly to meet evolving market conditions and brand priorities. Ad messages are customized to contextually fit each game environment and then served to locations within the game that are pre-selected by Massive and the game’s creative developers.”

“Types of ad units include (but are not limited to):

* Billboards and Posters
* Vehicles
* Pizza Boxes
* Soda Cans
* Screensavers
* TV Screens”

Microsoft is currently engaged in a desperate effort to catch up to Yahoo! and Google in the interactive advertising game. Massive is seen as a prime way to extend the software giant’s interactive ad clout. But, by facilitating the ability of marketers to encourage young people and others to consume more beer, pizza, and fattening soft drinks, Microsoft is making an unhealthy and inappropriate contribution to our culture. It won’t do the public any good if—say twenty years from now—Bill and Melinda Gates begin suddenly spending foundation money to combat obesity-related illnesses. They would have already helped encouraged millions of game users to identify with such products.

This week’s announcement that Microsoft’s Massive will be distributing Electronic Arts (EA) games for its Xbox, including “first person shooter” Battlefield 2142, is a good illustration why folks working for Gates should hide their heads in shame. Here’s what an EA executive said about the deal: “Consumers are increasingly engaged in deep, virtual worlds and advertisers need adapted ways to reach these audiences.”

Oy Vey!

And now for the Washington Post. The news article [9/1/06] reporting on the EA deal was very polite—and didn’t explore much the concerns over Microsoft’s use of interactive ads for games. Perhaps that’s because folks know that Melinda Gates is on the board of the Washington Post Company. Post Co. reporters and editors always need to disclose their corporate connection to Microsoft and the Gates family.

2g ringtonesstooges 3 ringtonesgitano ringtones amorcountry ringtones $0.99ringtones parris aliceringtones 8525aaa warrington10 ringtones free Map

James Quello and the Broadcast Lobby: A Good Example of the FCC’s Corporate Revolving Door

Former FCC Commissioner and Acting Chairman James Quello has always been a key part of the broadcast lobby’s political support structure. The long-serving (23 years) commissioner made sure his votes aided his profession—broadcasting. Mr. Quello never stops working to help out his media industry brethren—including his latest lobbying missive in this week’s Broadcasting and Cable magazine. Quello urges that broadcasters should be freed from any regulation (what little there’s left, that is, thanks to Quello and others). “Let Broadcasters Be Free,” he proclaims. No rules ensuring diversity of ownership, children’s educational programming, or local accountability are needed. We have the Internet, Quello assure us. Public interest policies can now be jettisoned.

But Mr. Quello neglects to disclose in the piece that he is working at the number one lobbying shop for broadcasters: Wiley, Rein, and Fielding. In his piece, he lists his affiliations as “an independent government relations consultant.” But Quello’s been at the Wiley shop since 2001. The Wiley firm (headed by the former FCC chair and super-lobbyist Dick Wiley) has represented such broadcast heavyweights as Belo, Gannett, National Association of Broadcasters, Time Warner, Clear Channel, and CBS (and many others). Mr. Quello’s op-ed is especially meant for Chairman Kevin Martin and the GOP majority. It’s supposed to convey that a person with such long FCC and industry experience—Mr. Quello—is giving a high sign to Martin’s plan to scuttle media ownership rules.

So Mr. Quello should amend his new article, identifying that he is working at a lobbying/legal shop for the same broadcasters he seeks—as a supposed neutral expert– to help in his piece. It also underscores why the revolving door between industry and the FCC needs to be nailed shut. As long as Commissioners and officials know there’s a golden handshake waiting for them from the very folks they are supposed to oversee at the FCC, we won’t get the kind of public policies the nation deserves.

By the way, here’s Mr. Quello’s webpage at Wiley.

FTC, You Better Turn-on (then Quickly Shut-off) Your TiVo

As the FTC readies a review of online commerce, including privacy, it should examine TiVo’s new plan to turn over “second-by-second” viewer data to major advertisers. The TiVo-Omnicom deal, as reported yesterday by Ad Age and others, will also include “behavioral data” derived from our personal video recorder (PVR) viewing. That data will form the basis of an “engagement” study that TiVo and Omnicom will do together. (Engagement is a relatively new ad industry initiative that is attempting to design, deliver and measure more effective ways of branding.) Omnicom, of course, is an advertising and marketing octopus, operating such agencies as BBDO Worldwide, DDB Worldwide, and TWBA/Worldwide. The TiVo deal is with the Omnicom Media Group, which includes OMD (which is interested in new media), PHD Network, Icon International and others.

Almost from the start, TiVo has positioned itself as an ad-friendly technology (to help allay fears from the media and ad industry it brought in many investors from those fields, such as Time Warner, CBS and NBC). Last month, TiVo announced “the creation of a new line of business, TiVo Audience Research and Measurement (ARM), offering advertisers, marketers, networks and advertising agencies second-by-second data and analysis on DVR viewing. With this unique data, advertisers will have key insights into the viewership and effectiveness of their TV advertising by network, genre, day-part, time-slot, day of week and pod position. The initial research product, Commercial Viewership Report, provides a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the creative and media planning strategies that are most effective to reach a fast forwarding consumer.”

This should sound alarm bells. No matter what they (or others) claim are sufficient privacy policies, analytical data about unique habits are being turned over to marketers. The FTC and state attorneys-general should demand that TiVo stop any such “second by second” collection and behavioral analysis until they have submitted detailed information so its plans can be evaluated. TiVo’s subscribers must be given full-disclosure and the ability to opt-in to any new data analysis arrangement. All of this, of course, is part of the ever-growing system of personalized data collection and targeting that is shaping all media delivery platforms. Our privacy and more is at risk. But, we have to admit. Does the FTC really care about growing threats to privacy via our broadband world?

This is an issue will be writing about (and actively working on) in the months ahead. And an issue that is the focus of our new book—out in January (apologies for the marketing here!).

Will "Expanded" Microsoft/Verizon Alliance Spell Problems for Net Neutrality?

We await to see if Microsoft continues to play a leadership role in the battle for Internet Freedom now that it has expanded its broadband business dealings with Verizon (including a “co-branded portal”). With the upcoming Senate vote, now’s a crucial time for action. If Microsoft doesn’t play an serious leadership role backing network neutrality legislation, it will reflect poorly on the legacy of Bill Gates. Will this deal with Verizon mean a Microsoft pull-back from the issue?

aircraft down 0 loansaffordable loan constructionloans state student alaska90-day loancollection loan student agency454 home loan equity$5000 loan unsecured500 loan credit need score purchase Map

Ken Tomlinson, Karl Rove and the BBG-CPB Scandals

It isn’t surprising that the White House still backs the second term nomination of Kenneth Tomlinson as head of the Broadcast Board of Governors. Tomlinson is a pal of high-level GOP officials, including Karl Rove. The new report [registration may be required] by State Department investigators detailing improprieties by Tomlinson underscores why we still need to know about any communications he had with the White House (as he ran CPB). Several months ago, my group—along with Common Cause and Free Press—filed a Freedom of Information request with the BBG [see below]. BBG denied our request. But the public deserves to know whether anyone in the White House urged Mr. Tomlinson to appoint Patricia Harrison, a high-level GOP official, to the CPB presidency? Was Tomlinson given encouragement to pressure PBS on its news and public affairs programming?

Here’s the initial letter sent to the BBG.

November 22, 2005

Martha Diaz Ortiz, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer
Broadcasting Board of Governors
330 Independence Avenue SW
Washington DC 20237

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Ms. Diaz:

The undersigned organization representatives request unredacted copies of the following documents under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552:

Any and all reports, records (paper or electronic), including electronic mail, phone logs and appointment calendars of Broadcasting Board of Governors Chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson with any reference to his role or work as chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to include but not be limited to any and all communications on this topic with White House personnel, the Executive Office of the President, current and former CPB staff or contract personnel, and any other individual or organization that communicated with Tomlinson regarding his work associated with CPB in the past 36 months.

We are employees of nonprofit organizations who work to increase understanding of the workings of U.S.-funded public broadcasting organizations. As such, we ask that all fees for this request be waived. Disclosure of the information requested above is in the public interest because it will significantly contribute to public understanding of the operations of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. This information will specifically show the degree to which the BBG is accountable and responsive to the American public it is charged to serve.

We request that you inform us immediately of your receipt of this letter; we also request that you immediately notify us when the documents we have requested are available for retrieval, as they become available. If you must deny access, please notify us immediately of your determination as well as the reasons for making that determination.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Chellie Pingree, Jeffrey Chester, Josh Silver
Common Cause, Center for Digital Democracy, Free Press

Tribune Company Cutbacks, Lay-offs, and Off-shoring. Doesn’t it realize it’s killing Journalism?

So driven to please Wall Street, the Tribune Company is further wrecking what’s left of the editorial vitality in their already journalistically-battered newspapers. Look what’s happened to the Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, and Newsday. These and other Tribune outlets have witnessed a departure of fine reporters and editors, including award winners (such as Pulitzers). Morale at the Tribune papers is understandably low. The message is clear: they don’t want to spend the money it takes to do serious journalism. Now this chain is even dismissing many U.S. employees as it outsources its circulation/customer service to the Philippines. Meanwhile, the Tribune Company is engaged in a lobbying [registration may be required] and PR effort to scuttle federal media ownership safeguards. It wants to end the key newspaper-TV cross-ownership rule, designed to ensure a community gets diverse sources of news and information. Tribune execs are telling policymakers that by being allowed to own more TV stations, it will help journalism. They are lying. They just want more of that easy money coming from the TV business. Company financials extol the profits made via such Tribune Entertainment productions as “Beastmaster” and “Mutant X.” Owning more TV stations, if the FCC axes the rule Tribune has targeted, won’t help journalism. But it will likely help them distribute a new round of Beastmasters.

We hope the FCC and Congress take notice. Weakening media ownership rules has permitted a Tribune to grow in size and power—but without any meaningful public interest quid pro quo. The Tribune should be ashamed of itself, in terms of a lack of commitment to journalism and also for its cutting back on employing people who live in the U.S.

PBS will revise website to provide more Ad disclosure. But more needed

Communications Daily [Aug. 29, 2006. subscription required] reports that PBS plans to “revise its website as early as today (Tues.) to explain “sponsored links.” The Daily quotes PBS VP Lea Sloan saying that “we agree there could be more precision in describing what happens to users when they leave the PBS site and are looking into how best to articulate that.”

In a letter I wrote last week to the PBS ombudsman Michael Getler on behalf of the Center for Digital Democracy, we asked for an investigation into how users of the site are having data collected about them from third parties (including the placement of cookies). The letter said that such undisclosed data-collection via the PBS site was a ‘deceptive” practice. We have not yet heard from Mr. Getler.

But while we are gratified that PBS is listening (after a series of stories in newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times and complaints from advocates), we are not satisfied. PBS should not be engaged in any interactive advertising—on its website, via its digital broadcast airwaves, or by any method (such as wireless). PBS must not be allowed to become an digital ad-addicted junkie. It should offer the public a totally commercial-free environment as it enters the broadband communications era. We hope that Congress will consider legislation restricting PBS, NPR and other federally supported public broadcasting entities from running any ads at all—including interactive outlets.

We believe that PBS’s future more fruitfully lies in building up a site that users will financially support–grateful that it will be one of the few places on the planet where they aren’t the target of personalized interactive marketing.

camel toe moviesporn length full movieface hardcore fucking moviesnude lopez movies jennifermovie silviasex amatuer moviesmovies beastalitymovies bignaturals Map

galleries adult free pornadult porn screensaver freevideo free porn adultadult trailers porn freefurry adult pornporn girl free adultporn hardcore magazines adulthunt site adult porn Map

Disney’s Branded Entertainment Scam: Pushing its Mobile Phone Biz Via a Program-Length Commercial

This is a good example of why a PBS should avoid even the taint of commercialism. Public broadcasting needs to be a safe haven from the kind of show/ad-biz industry mishegas we are increasingly witnessing in the interactive marketing era. Take the announcement via the crazy folks at Burbank. Bob Iger must be channeling Michael Eisner in the bad taste department. But it’s also a great example of why there needs to be beefed up federal safeguards protecting kids from targeted digital marketing. Read on:

“Disney to Debut ‘Storymercial

Disney plans to launch a half-hour TV program based entirely on its branded mobile service, in order to let parents know about the variety of features the service offers, on ABC Family sometime before November.

The show, or “storymercial,” will incorporate viewer-suggested storylines about the phone service, highlighting the features that could help families keep track of their minutes – and keep track of each other, writes Brandweek. Footage from the show will also end up in other media such as online, on DVDs and on television commercials.

The long form – or infomercial – is coming back into vogue thanks to a couple of factors such as the rise of video sites such as YouTube and the availability of inexpensive bandwidth (which makes it possible to reuse and recycle content). And because retailers are facing mounting pressure to “start selling from day one,” long form advertising is necessary to build online and offline buzz for complex products such as the Disney Mobile service, before they hit the shelves, says Dave Merton, vp for Meteor and consultant to manufacturers.

However, long form can be disastrous if it is simply a 30-second spot stretched to last a longer time. Rather, it must be exclusive, brand correct content that makes for great watching, says Doug Garnett, president of Atomic Direct and creator of the successful Drill Doctor long form campaign.”

[Source: www.mediabuyerplanner.com] The story broke, we understand, in Brand Week. It is online.

It’s the 64 [Fill in the Amount] Question: Will Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, Diller’s IAC, eBay, and Amazon Spend What it Takes to Sound the Alarm about Network Neutrality?

Will it be .64 cents or $6.4 million? With Congress soon coming back—and a possible Senate vote on network neutrality legislation just a few weeks away—it’s time for those who care about the democratic nature of U.S. digital communications to put up or…We think the public deserves to know what’s at stake (including, but beyond what Google felt it had to tell investors in its SEC filing). There should be full-page newspaper ads; 30-second spots on TV and radio; a major on-line ad campaign. The Works. Let’s tell the public what the companies know. That without network neutrality, the U.S. will not have a democratic Internet. That both diversity and competition will be harmed. That Congress is about to approve a massive give-away to a few special interests. That only a few years ago the Internet was rightly hailed as the “most participatory form of mass speech yet developed.” But that was the Internet with network neutrality. Without it, the Internet could become just a souped-up interactive cable TV-like service.

So. Messrs Gates, Schmidt, Semel, Bezos, Diller, and Ms. Whitman. What will be your legacy when it comes to network neutrality? Will it be that you courageously sounded the alarm—alerting the country to a real threat to our freedom? Or that you looked the other way, making deals while the Net’s future was decided behind closed doors?