“Fat: What No One is Telling You” appears on PBS stations April 11th. We note that funding comes in part from GlaxoSmithKline. The drug giant just happens to have a recently approved for over-the-counter drug on the market–under the brand name Alli â„¢ –that is for “use by overweight adults along with a reduced calorie, low-fat diet.” A PBS health-related campaign was launched Feb. 14. PBS program executives need to `cut the fat’ out of their sloppy review of what’s appropriate for underwriting. Programs on PBS should be free of connections to sponsors who have a vested interest in an issue. PBS should “take one step” [that’s the name of a related health public education campaign they’re running] and clean up its underwriting practices.
Category: media criticism
Before we help “Bail Out†PBS, Public Interest Must Be Guaranteed: No Long-term Funding without Serious Commitment and Change
Groups such as Moveon.org and others have rightly responded to the proposed Bush Administration budget slash to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (around a 25% reduction to CPB’s funding for public television and radio). There is now a campaign to help restore funding and also politically pave the way for some form of permanent support—such as a “Trust Fund.â€
While reversing the cuts is necessary, it is too early to support any permanent funding plan. More money won’t cure PBS’s problems. It will just enable the network to display higher-priced collectibles on Antiques Roadshow. The system needs to be restructured so the public interest is better guaranteed via a truly non-commercial approach. We also must think beyond today’s PBS and NPR to ensure there will be funding to support a much more expansive and diverse non-commercial digital environment. But to begin with PBS. Its annual budget should be required to have mandatory requirements for programming. For example, PBS—and its stations—should be mandated to reserve around 30% of annual revenues to pay for news and public affairs programming. Investigative news programming produced locally and nationally would be part of this commitment. A significant amount of funding would need to go for cultural programming. All children’s programming must be fully non-commercial: no underwriters, brand-tie-ins and even toy deals (that would be needed for news as well). Like news, the PBS “kidvid†block would receive a guarantee percentage of the Trust Fund revenues. PBS would be required to underwrite programming which reflect the needs of a diverse and under-served audience. It would have to ensure independent producers, especially women and producers of color, create at least half of all its annual programming. A review process would be created via an independent committee that would report annually to the public how well PBS was fulfilling its Trust Fund obligations. PBS and its stations would also be required to develop governance reforms which would help put the “public†back into public broadcasting. There could be similar approaches to NPR (This blogger has worked on PBS issues for many years, so my expertise is with the TV side versus public radio).
Finally, an independent body would be set up which would provide grants directly to producers and others who produce non-commercial content across various platforms. Such funding would grow in time as the need for stations recedes due to the digital transformation. (A Trust Fund would have to alter its funding strategies to reflect current and impending changes in media use). CPB would be replaced, of course. I don’t believe Congress will “free†public broadcasting soon. But as we begin the conversation about its future, much more serious deliberation is needed. We shouldn’t help save “Big Bird†if all the public is going to get is more of the same of what we have today. That’s why advocates need to clearly offer a serious restructuring that will better guarantee the country has a set of diverse non-commercial digital services it deserves.
american accreditation commission healthcareaccreditation continuing medical education councilrepair credit aceuniversity accredited listphoenix university accepts from credits ofacredited engineer school online foraccredited bachelor life degrees experienceaccreditation forum discussion Map
movies free dildo sexcdgirls moviesample free sex moviesfree movies pisslesbian movies longmovies lesbian lovemovies sapphic sweet lickingmale gay movies porn Map
Example today of NY Times Failure to Disclose IAB Connection
Just a few days after we blogged a piece on the conflicts of interests raised when media outlets uncritically report on interactive marketing–while failing to acknowledge their own official corporate role promoting the field–we have a good example. Today, in a New York Times story about online video marketing, the reporter quotes the head of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). The story failed to acknowledge that the New York Times Co. is on the IAB board as well as its executive committee. Here is a link to the IAB board. See here for the IAB mission. I believe that media outlets serving on the IAB board have to not only acknowledge their membership when they report on the industry, but also commission a steady series of stories that will look at interactive marketing and their own corporate role with a critical perspective. The Times Co., btw, is also a member of the Advertising Research Foundation.
See: “Forgive Me Viewer, for I Have Confessed in a Banner Ad.” New York Times. Feb. 10, 2007.
loan agriculturalauto 4.9 loanloan 401k defaultsrate 2.6 loanloans aigamortization auto table loanacorn home loansloans advance bad credit Map
As Sulzberger Reflects on Times Future, it is Critical to Work to Save Newspapers
We have always argued that newspaper journalism is a distinct news environment worthy of preserving. That’s so evident when you compare print reporting with what we largely receive via radio and television media. Newspapers are where in-depth news and analysis, investigative reporting, diverse commentary can occur (as bad as they often do it, it’s still better than what we get from the TV networks). It’s evident that journalism is in crisis; newspapers especially. That’s why we have urged new legislation that would help remove publically-traded newspaper companies from the pressures of having to make shareholder value its first priority. More on this later. But we want to be among the bloggers who reflect on what Arthur Sulzberger just said to a writer from Haaretz:
“I really don’t know whether we’ll be printing the Times in five years, and you know what? I don’t care either,” he says.
Sulzberger is focusing on how to best manage the transition from print to Internet.
“The Internet is a wonderful place to be, and we’re leading there,” he points out.
The Times, in fact, has doubled its online readership to 1.5 million a day to go along with its 1.1 million subscribers for the print edition.
Sulzberger says the New York Times is on a journey that will conclude the day the company decides to stop printing the paper. That will mark the end of the transition. It’s a long journey, and there will be bumps on the road, says the man at the driving wheel, but he doesn’t see a black void ahead.”
Certainly, the Times isn’t going to stop publishing. But Sulzberger remarks must signal the need to see a more serious–and very public– debate about the future of news in this country. The FCC isn’t going to do it–caught as it is in the mindless notion that media consolidation and a closed Internet is good for the country’s press. J-schools are timid too often. That’s why more from academia, advocacy, journalism, philanthropy, and the Congress should speak up. Now!
The Corrupt Telecom Law Helping Boost Fox Business Channel
Just a quick reminder to those interested in learning more about the new big business booster Fox Business Channel. The channel’s guarantee of all too rare carriage by the cable monopoly is made possible because of a corrupt law passed by (the still Democratic-controlled under the influence of the NAB) Congress back in 1992. “Retransmission consent”–a policy that has given tens of billions of dollars worth of cable, satellite, and now telephone (Verizon, etc.) channels to big broadcasters such as Fox, Disney/ABC; Scripps, Sinclair, CBS and others–is a huge scandal. The law has enabled the already too powerful to become ever more so. It is even being used now to extend the power of the largest television broadcasters onto the key broadband platforms controlled by cable and phone companies. That’s why companies such as Disney/ABC are silent now about the killing-off of network neutrality: they got their access via retranmission consent deals.
Murdoch’s Fox has used “retrans” consent to help get prime position cable carriage for its new pro-business channel from such key gatekeepers as Comcast and Time Warner (he also used the leverage of renewing the carriage for Fox News. Of course, Murdoch’s control over DirecTV has also helped boost Fox’s distribution). We don’t have time now to go into this (plug: I cover this issue in my book). But the point here is that media advocates should press for the repeal of retrans consent. It should be replaced by a universal access to all programming content rule where all platforms–PC, mobile, and cable/satellite/IPTV–must be fully open to all content. No “triple plays” for a powerful handful; no Mafia-like retrans deals where media giants carve up the digital TV and broadband `pie.’ It’s time to dismantle the gatekeepers.
Conflict of Interest: Why NY Times, Wash Post, USAToday, CNN, NBC & More Should Acknowledge Role Promoting Threats to Privacy and other Interactive Marketing Problems
Interactive advertising and marketing are helping shape the transformation of the media, here in the U.S. and everywhere else. A infrastructure is being put in place, without the public’s consent, designed to better sell to us 24/7. It’s using some of the most powerful communications technologies ever created to do so. Among the key issues society should be debating right now include the need for privacy safeguards to protect our personal information online, and what kind of limits should be put in place to check the excesses of interactive marketing (think personalized ads flooding your PC, mobile and TV screens, propelled by a data profile of you created via artificial intelligence technologies, and designed to get you to feel or think in a way positive to the brand).
But critical commentary about interactive advertising is largely missing from the ever-present coverage of the digital marketplace. Each day, major papers run stories in their business section about the latest triumph of technology or company. But too rarely do they examine the negative consequences, let alone the role of their own publisher or media firm. One glaring omission by such major news outlets as the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, etc. is the relationship they have with the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). The IAB is a trade group whose mission is “helping online, Interactive broadcasting, email, wireless and Interactive television media companies increase their revenues.†Among its goals include: “[T]o prove and promote the effectiveness of Interactive advertising to advertisers, agencies, marketers & press;†and “[T]o be the primary advocate for the Interactive marketing and advertising industry.â€
On the board of the IAB include officials from the New York Times Company (Martin Nisenholtz, its leading digital exec); Washington Post Newsweek Interactive, Cox Newspapers, USA Today, NBC, CNN, and Disney. They work alongside board members representing Google, AOL, Conde Nast (attention New Yorker magazine!), Verizon, Comcast, Yahoo!, Forbes and others.
There is a clear conflict of interest here when newspapers, television, and online news report on interactive marketing and have a representative helping direct the key group promoting the industry. These news outlets should be disclosing their membership in the IAB and any other industry trade group (which have a political or marketplace mission). Editors at the Times, Post and other papers should commission stories which more effectively analyze the digital marketing industry, including raising the critical issues which the public should debate. They must also prominently disclose their conflict of interest with the IAB as they report on the industry they are working to serve.
Congressional Dems: Why Help out MPAA When its Members Oppose Network Neutrality?
Today’s New York Times has a story about leading Hill Democrats prostrating themselves before the star-power lobbyists of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) [“Hollywood Takes it Concerns about Piracy and Taxes to Washington†Reg. required] Among the Democratic leaders receiving visits included Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Sen. Pat Leahy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. As the article reported, the MPAA “put on a daylong show for lawmakers, lobbyists and Capitol Hill aides, armed with some A-list talent…†Among the stars helping the industry fly its political flag were Will Smith and Clint Eastwood. Amazingly, part of the Hollywood pol spin was that it was pro-“working class.â€
But MPAA’s members include companies opposed to network neutrality for U.S. broadband. Other members have allied themselves with the anti-open broadband cause. MPAA member Warner Bros. Entertainment, controlled by cable giant Time Warner, is one of the leading opponents of network neutrality. Sony Pictures is a partner with anti-open Net ringleader Comcast. The Walt Disney Company no longer supports a national open broadband policy (given its own dealings with Comcast and others, it has reversed its once open Net stance). NBC Universal and Murdoch’s Fox, the other two MPAA members, also support the anti-net neutrality status quo (of course, most MPAA companies have used their political clout to secure additional access to digital and broadband distribution, via retransmission consent).
There should be no tax breaks for Hollywood or help with “piracy†until the organization comes out for restoring network neutrality. Star-struck Democratic lawmakers who support network neutrality should tell the MPAA its Hill agenda is in “turnaround†until they agree to a national non-discriminatory policy for U.S. broadband.
How long will the Federal Trade Commission wait before it decides to act to safeguard consumer privacy and protection online? Advocates will likely have to ask Congress to organize an oversight “Tech-ache” to prod the agency into some sort of action. Note this excerpt below as just one example of how the FTC is asleep at the interactive advertising/data collection `digital’ switch.
“Imagine the value to a national automaker of isolating a swath of people so ready to splurge on a fuel-friendly hybrid they’ve price shopped and maybe even placed an eBay bid to buy a Prius. Now, imagine if that auto advertiser could follow those folks around the web — from news sites to social-networking pages — serving up ads that remind them of the benefits of owning a hybrid car. It’s a pretty appealing prospect to marketers, and exactly what they will be able to do if Yahoo gets its way… “We’re actually in a fairly unique position to be able to take advantage … of the enormous data and insight we have on the largest online audience in the world,” Ms. Decker said in Yahoo’s year-end earnings call Jan. 23. “We can see what people are putting in their search strings. We can see what kinds of ads they click on. We can see what kinds of sites they were on prior to the site that they are currently on…”
from: The Right Ads at the Right Time — via Yahoo: Web Giant Looks to Offer Behavioral-targeting Tools Outside Its Own Properties
Abbey Klaassen. Advertising Age. Feb. 5, 2007 [subscription required]
Susan Decker, CFO, bio link.
amortization loans auto ofamerican investment loansloane 125 garden rdhome american equity loansdefaults american home loanloan of payments amortizationjewelry american loan andloans ag real estate Map
algarve casinoadult free download casinocasino 3 card rules pokerresort acquarius casinotravel directory casino nm accommodationreview casino addcasino poker 105g chips realcasino acquarius resort Map
Elmo Pushes Pizza! Hey, Sesame Workshop and Co. Stop Counting Kids Dollars
CNN Money reports that Elmo will soon by promoting pizza. A new toy via Mattel will be “an Elmo doll holding a pizza, and the pizza talks and sings along with Elmo. The toy is expected to retail for $19.99.â€
We think the folks at Sesame Workshop need to rethink what “Elmo’s World†should be like. Is it one that further commercializes childhood and pushes junk food, all to help bolster the Workshop’s bottom line? Shouldn’t companies that benefit from federal funding and public television distribution adhere to some higher level of conduct? Licensing of Elmo and other public broadcasting related products for children require a serious set of federal and PBS safeguards. We hope Gary Knell and company listen. Congress surely should, as it considers public broadcasting (PBS) funding.
Billion Dollars Bribery: As presidential candidates prepare to raise and spend $1 B on TV Ads for ‘08, it’s time for digital era reform
Advertising Age reports that U.S. presidential candidates are expected to spend $1 billion buying TV spots for the 2008 race. What this means, of course, is that our political leaders will be selling bits of themselves to well-heeled donors and special interests. How can we have a democracy that addresses our most serious problems when the very forces likely contributing to them are helping foot the TV ad costs? We can’t, even in this age of direct contributions via the Net. The big bucks raised are ultimately bribes from folks representing Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the Chamber of Commerce, and Hollywood.
The emerging new media platforms of broadband, mobile, and digital TV will be the methods of choice for delivering political marketing messages. Personalized style communications sent to digital video recorders, iPods, cell phones, along with “Second Life†style virtual press conferences, will soon replace traditional broadcast TV advertising. We need a law requiring free access on such platforms for all candidates (which would be accompanied by refinements in campaign finance limits). In a media world without communications scarcity ( such as with old media style broadcast TV) there is no reason to continue the “pay us for access to voter eyeball†type of media industry shenanigans.
Failure to address the problem of political communication access to the digital media will only result in the old system shaping how new media addresses our elections. It will be a pay-per-voter system where both the gatekeepers of old (Fox, Disney, Comcast) and new (AT&T, Verizon, Google) charge what the traffic will be forced to pay. A $1B tab for 2008 will be seen as a quaintly modest affair, as new media outlets reap many more future political profits (and power).
Here’s an excerpt from Ad Age: “Amid mouthwatering visions of more than $1 billion in spending on the most wide-open race since the TV era began, stations will have to devise some way to handle the rush when close to two dozen candidates come knocking at the same time… Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of TNSMI/Campaign Media, said advertising could well start in force this summer, with candidates trying to introduce or establish themselves early. Despite the early start, time is still an issue. “This kind of wide-open race is unprecedented, and there is only so much [ad] time,” said Jim Boyer, president and general manager of Des Moines station WHO-TV, a CBS affiliate.â€
Source:
“TV Stations Prepare for $1 Billion Presidential Ad Onslaught
Dozens of Candidates Create Most Wide-Open Race Since TV Era Began.†Ira Teinowitz. Ad Age. January 29, 2007