I'm still highly infected/ affected by the media.

Now that I have taken a semester of advertising and mass communications classes, I would like to say that my ways of media consuming have changed. Although the classes have enlightened me on how the media hooks me into its circle, I am still a media whore! I love the media! In fact, I've never paid more attention to media now that I've taken a semester of advertising and mass communications classes.
I'm the kind of media consumer that allows the media to do just that- consume! The media consumes me, whether I'm at home watching television, at school furiously finding information on the web, or at work listening to sattelite radio.
I consume the media in every way, shape, and form. Without the media, I would not be able to function, and my daily routine would be shattered. This is an example of a typical media filled day for me:
My alarm sounds, and I wake up to the radio blaring a GEICO commercial. I get out of bed and grab my phone as it buzzes to alert me of a new message. The message reads: good morning friend, do you know what the weather will be like? I use my phone to check the weather on yahoo. It's going to rain. Accessing yahoo from my cell phone reminds me that I have to check my e-mail. I use my computer to check my email and to do internet research for homework. Also, I check the prices of i-pods on apple.com. I realize that my computer template is off today and does not read the time. I turn the television on to see the time on the bottom screen of the Today Show. After seeing the time, I hurry to get to school. I run out the door, and trip right after doing so. I look to see what the cause of my trip is, and I see the San Jose Mercury at my feet. Although I usually love the media, I curse it for causing me to trip.
Yes, I am highly infected/ affected by the media, but do I mind? The answer is NO! Even if the media has its mistakes, i.e. Janet's nipple, geico commercials, and Britney Spears, I will continue to consume it. The media and its sources give me great knowledge on current events and I simply find the media pratically impossible to ignore!

Free Wi-Fi for San Francisco

On wednesday, the city of San Francisco selected a joint bid by Earthlink and Google to provide the city with a wireless network. The joint proposal calls for free and paid wireless service available throughout the city. The two companies submitted the proposal to San Francisco in February. A contract between the city of San Francisco and both Earthlink and Google must still be signed. The Board of supervisors has yet to review the contract.
An Earthlink representitive said that "San Francisco residents won't likely see the free Wi-Fi service for another six to eight months while negotiations are being made." The executive director of the Department of Telecommunications and Informaion Services for San Francisco, Chris Vein, said yesterday that he expects negotiations with the two companies to go well and that work on building out the network could begin this year and be completed within a few months.
In a blog, EarthLink Executive Vice President Donald Berryman wrote, "San Francisco is one of the most progressive cities in the world, and our combined offerings with Google, Motorola and Tropos Networks will stretch the possibilities of what a mobile network can do for residents, businesses, municipal government and visitors."
The free Wi-Fi is a great idea because it will provide a broader field for communication. If installed, the Wi-Fi could provide free internet access to those who normally couldn't afford it. San Francisco residents, especially children, will be able to use the free internet as a learning and communication tool.
A downside of the free Wi-Fi some brought to attention is the loss of revenue for the city of San Francisco.
Google will manage the free 300-kilobits-per-second Wi-Fi service, while EarthLink will offer the faster premium service of 1mbps for up to $20 a month.
Personally, I think the free Wi-Fi service would be great for San Francisco. I don't believe too much revenue will be lost. Many citizens of San Francisco, in my opinion, will sign up for the $20 service. It's too good of a deal to pass up. With the free Wi-Fi, San Francisco will possibly prosper. It will be good for the businesses and education in San Francisco. If I was given the opportunity to receive fast internet service for $20, I would definitely jump on the wagon. I'm guessing the citizens of San Francisco will do the same.

NBC refers to war as "civil war," but is it okay?

Earlier this week, NBC began to refer to the war in Iraq as a "civil war." Also, The New York Times has also started to call it a "civil war." Reporters calling the war a "civil war" has sparked many arguments and controversy. Many are saying that calling the war a "civil war" is a political judgement, not a news judgement. Others in the media, such as CBS and CNN say that they are hesitant to jump into NBC's "civil war bandwagon." So is it okay to call the war in Iraq a "civil war?"
As of right now, the Bush Administration is shying away from terming it so. While many Americans are doing the opposite. CNN did a poll this week with results ending in two-thirds of Americans agree that the war is in fact a civil war.
The job of the media (news reporting wise) is to report on facts, not on loose opinion, but should calling the war in iraq a civil war be considered a loose opinion?
It is hard to say at this point. The war has many civil war characteristics. Civilian deaths are more than a 100 a day in Iraq. Even with many characteristics of a civil war, many are hestitant to call it so.
Rome Hartman, CBS's executive reporter for the evening news says, "There is awful violence, but I don't know that the warfare between the sides is the thing that defines every moment of life. Of course, it threatens life and it is a horrible part of life, but it doesn't seem to us to be the overriding element of every day and every hour there."
In my opinion, It was not wrong of reporters to claim the war in Iraq as a "civil war." The job of reporters is to call out what they see. If the media waits around for the government to give the okay to call it a "civil war," then the media would be seemingly controlled by the government. News reporters should call out things as they see fit, but I do feel that they will have to be ready to face the backlash of doing so.

Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi is a very talented woman. There is no doubt about it. She has a long lists of accomplishments, including her newest one, which is becoming the first woman to be elcected speaker of the house. Being speaker of the house makes her second in line for presidency, only after vice president, Chaney. I highly doubt that she will come into presidency in the next two years, Bush seems pretty healthy, but the thought that she could possibly take over as president is exciting.
Much is riding on Nancy Pelosi, since she is the first woman to be ever elected. Not only is she representing the government, she is representing women all around the country. Want I want to know is, is she ready to handle being a woman in a male dominating field and is she ready to handle the media?
The media is really emphasizing the fact that Nancy Pelosi is the first woman to be elected speaker of the house, which is justified. Being the first woman to be speaker of the house is pretty important and revolutionary. Being a liberal from California is also putting her in the spotlight. Her opposing views from that of President Bush makes the media want to pay close attention to her. Can she handle the attention?
I like what she has had to say so far, but I wonder if she can say what she wants without stuttering. In the beginning of the election, Pelosi seemed to shy away from the media. She didn't do too many appearances on camera or with reporters. Now that she has been officially elected speaker of the house, she is forced to be all around the media. In my opinion, her manner is always nervous-like. She stutters and she doesn't make direct contact with her audience. There is much more to Pelosi's position as Speaker of the House than speaking, but since the word "speaker" is in the title of her position, shouldn't she be able to speak eloquently? It does seem nerve wracking to be in the eyes of the media. I personally could never do it, but then again, I am not the first woman to be elected Speaker of the House. She should be able to articulate herself better than what I've seen of her so far. Maybe she should take a class on media appearances.

Nancy Pelosi- Is she afraid of the media?

The Media's Overreaction to Faith Hill's Reaction

When it was announced that Carrie Underwood won female vocalist of the year at the Country Music Awards, nominee for the award, Faith Hill, threw up her hands, screamed what, then stormed off in another direction. Everyone in the audience were appalled at her reaction. She immediately began to tell people she was only kidding.
The media highly publicized her reaction. The clip of Faith Hill's reaction was played over and over again that night and several nights following. Her reaction could be seen on many news programs, newspapers, and online forums.
In my opinion, I don't think Faith Hill was kidding. It seemed as if she was just trying to save face. She told the reporters that she was joking about something else, and her reaction to that particular other joke was what the cameras caught. I would be embarrassed too if I was caught acting like a a poor sport. I would have told the reporters the same thing, "I was only joking!"
Although Hill's reaction to Underwood winning was uncalled for, I don't think it was totally out of context and outrageous. Faith Hill should have won Country female vocalist of the year. Underwood hasn't done much to receive the award. She hasn't stepped up the game with her music. An album wasn't even made by Underwood this year. Hill, on the other hand, came out with a top selling album this year, and her vocals are always amazing.

Faith Hill's angry reaction

Why is Fox Allowing O.J. to Rekindle My Thoughts of Hating Him?

O.J. is ridiculous! He got away with killing his wife, and now he wants to gloat about it. I think Fox news shouldn't give him a chance to brag about murdering his wife. Fox is only shedding bad light upon itself.
I am definitely outraged at Fox for allowing a murderer to have some air time. It gives a bad representation of what Fox is all about. Now, whenever someone mentions Fox, all I can think of is O.J. telling America what we already know, that he killed his wife. Personally, I definitely don't want to watch the interview. I already have an almost certain idea of what is going to happen. O.J. will sit across Judith Regan, while smiling and denying the fact that he killed his wife. It will be a moment of Deja Vu.
Didn't O.J. get enough air time in 1994? O.J. isn't going to out right tell Regan that he killed his wife, so why even put him on air? It will be a horrible interview that will do no justification to the death of an innocent woman and man. The only thing the interview will do is promote O.J.'s book, which is even more ridiculous than the interview itself. Fox is really going to let O.J. talk about a book titled, "If I Did It, Here's How It Happened." I don't need a book to tell me how it happened. I know how it happened. The rest of America knows how it happened. Why can't Fox figure out how it happened? Here's a clue to Fox, "America let him get away with it by denying the facts and giving him too much air time!"
I don't know if Fox truly believes this interview is going to be the supposed "last chapter for the trial of the century" as quoted by Fox Vice President of Alternative Programming. Is Fox kidding me- the last chapter? The last chapter of the trial happened years ago! O.J. lied about killing his wife in the past, and he will continue to lie about killing her. The Fox interview will tell us nothing more than we already know. I vote that it be cancelled. I'm praying that Fox has a moment of clarity and forgets about the whole interview. Come on Fox, I'm rooting for you!

This spoof of O.J. is in response to, "If I Did It, Here's How It Happened

Britney and Kevin- Who Cares?

On Election Day, I was hearing way more about Britney Spears and Kevin Federline getting a divorce than I was about politics. I think it's ridiculous where priority lies. The media was preocupied with giving up to date information about two people who do little to contribute to America's Economy.
As soon as I turned on the television, clips of Spears and Federline flashed on the screen and when I opened a newspaper, I expected to see a bunch of politicians pictured, but instead, Spears and Federline were pictured.
All I wanted to do was read about the stats on Arnold Swarzzenegger and Phil Angelides. I couldn't find anything on either politician for awhile. It took me several clicks of the remote and several flips of pages to finally come across reports on the election.
If Britney Spears and Kevin Federline did more to help out the society, like donating millions to the children of America, then I wouldn't be so annoyed to see them all over the media. They haven't done so, nor have they done anything close to that. In my eyes, the only thing they've done to contribute to the society is to teach the children of America that it is okay to be trashy and talentless.
I wish the media would get priorities straight and focus on what is more important. As a media consumer, I expected the media to tell me who to vote for. I wouldn't be angry with the media for trying to sway my vote. Rather, I was dissappointed that the media didn't try to sway my vote. I say this because I would have rather had the media do that than to give me pointless information about two people who would do nothing to improve the society.

nowwhat.com

State Farm Insurance has an interesting advertising tactic right now. State Farm Insurance uses different types of media to advertise itself, such as Television and magazine ads, which leads the audience to "nowwhat.com."
I was browsing through a magazine when I came across an all black page with a white lettering caption that said,"nowwhat.com." The advertisement drew my attention because of its simplicity. The ad gave no further explanation to what "nowwhat.com" was, so I jotted down the address out of curiosity.
Later on, I went to investigate what "nowwhat.com" was and here is what I found...
"nowwhat.com" is a website for State Farm Insurance. When the web page first comes up, "nowwhat.com" with a gray background is displayed. Seconds later, the gray background dissappears and it is replaced by the state farm insurance logo with a leafy backround. The page does not have any sound. This remains on the screen for a few more seconds, and then it is replaced by a person standing next to their car. The web page uses shock value to sway its audience into buying car insurance. The page also has "nowwhat.com" and the state farm insurance logo stamped across the top. All of a sudden, a portable air conditioner falls loudly onto the car, and captions pop up saying, "You rent the Place. You own the Stuff," "It's your car. Your ride. Your baby." and "State Farm Insurance is Wise Thinking."
State Farm Insurance is Wise Thinking in my opinion because it knew to saturate all types of media to get the word out.

Click here for some shock value!

Politician Propaganda

When I usually think of Arnold Schwarzenegger, I don't automatically think ,"children sabotoger!"; but after reading Politician Propaganda from his opponents, it was hard not to think that. Today in the mail, I received a phamlet for Phil Angelides for Governer. On the front cover of the phamplet, the first thing I read was "When Arnold Broke His Promise to Re-pay Billions To Our Schools, OUR STUDENTS PAID INSTEAD." The bold and capatalized typography give a sense of urgency and importance. Typography done this way is easier to remember. Below the screaming caption, children with sad faces are pictured. After seeing only the cover of the phamplet, I already had Arnold cheating children out of money engraved into my mind.
I then opened the phamplet only to discover the same blaring lettering across the top of the page. The words this time said, "California Students Dropped to 44th Nationally As A Result of Arnold's Failed Education Policies." Underneath the caption, there is a picture of Phil Angelides standing in front of an American flag while carrying a small smiling child. The caption and the picture lead me to believe that Arnold is an evil man who doesn't care about children, and that Phil Anglides is an Angel who loves children. On the same page, more attacks against Arnold are made, such as ,"ARNOLD BROKE HIS PROMISE." The page only has great things to say about Angelides, such as ,"Phil Angelides Will Make Our Schools Better" and "Phil won't lie like Arnold." The Phamplet is purely propaganda because it is trying to sway the audience to hate Arnold and Vote for Phil, even if the intentions are good. I say the intentions are good because I probably have been swayed by the phamplet. I hate Arnold for taking money away from the children. I'm a sucker for propaganda.

Comcastic!

Comcast is the largest cable operator in America, but they don't stop there. With Comcast, you can also sign up for internet access and home phone service. I don't know how the rest of you out there feel, but I feel like Comcast is a bit overwhelming. I mean, do they really have to be in charge and in control
of every single aspect of my media consumption? Although, sometimes, it does sound tempting to have all the media I need and want with one easy plan called the Comcast Triple Play. With the Comcast Triple Play, I can receive my internet, cable, and phone service for about $99! What a great deal! One bill for an entire media package seems convenient, but is it really worth letting one company handle what type of entertainment and news comes to you? Cable is starting to feel like a giant monopoly.
In San Jose, Comcast is definitely the largest cable provider. Recently, the city went through a cable audit. Many citiznes of San Jose were receiving Comcast Cable illegally through cable networks. Comcast went around San Jose shutting down all illegal cable access, and then got people to actually commit to paying for the access. Comcast seems to be the only cable provider in the area, so people don't have a choice.
Comcast has a large influence on television. What channels are being broadcasted and what shows are being broadcasted are often chosen by Comcast. The networks must run decisions by Comcast, since Comcast is the direct provider for cable watchers. Many networks and associations have had controversy with Comcast because of its television influence. The sports team, Orioles, was sued by Comcast because it launched its own regional sports network. Comcast plans to block the network from its cable system. "Comcast has claimed one geographic region won't support two regional sports networks. The Orioles have countered that Comcast, which controls distribution to much of the region's cable viewership, is acting as a monopolist by not carrying MASN-produced Nationals games on its system." (businessjournal.com)
I also found out that the Comcast Corporation was regularly monitored the web-surfing habits of cable modem customers. -sounds scary! They have since stopped the monitoring because of online privacy issues, but would you honestly want to receive your cable from a company who spies? Comcast choosing what I get to watch and then taking note of what I was on the internet scares me.

Click here to watch Comcast Taking Over!