News Literacy Programs: are they unnecessary, or a necessity?

 

from Google

 

 

News consumers are constantly talking about what is going on in the news but how often do they know or remember from where they obtained that information?  While loyal readers of certain publications may be able to cite their knowledge about a story to the date, there are individuals who discuss news based on what they have read or heard without much regard to the sources from which they obtained that news.  With the fraying of lines between news, opinion, entertainment, and other random information, it is harder to discern cold hard facts from speculation.  In order to ensure that people can continue to rely on credible and newsworthy pieces, it could be effective to implement such teaching in schools for students as early as they can understand news.  

This idea has already been pushed into effect by The News Literacy Project, which aims to educate high school and middle school students “sort fact from fiction in the digital age.”  They have experienced journalists interact with the students in order to make them more aware of news.  Some of the organizations from which the site features journalists are USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, Bloomberg News, and Politico.

Granted, infusing the minds of younger individuals with the complications and realities that news poses may be a bit invasive, but if schools could cater to the needs of children so that they would be more aware of what is going on in the world, these individuals could be better equipped with the intellectual tools needed to understand news for when they grow older.  This is not to say that young students aren’t already aware of global, national, or even local situations.  As a young student, I remember reading weekly magazines about news events that occurred in different countries as well as in the United States.  However, it was not until much later that I was able to separate news, like The New York Times, from opinion and commentary seen from talk shows on network stations.  Thus, educating students about different forms of media so that they may question not only the information which they hear, but from where that information is coming could prepare them for the future.

The switch to digital, what about white spaces?

With the date for the switch to all digital programming in the United States approaching closer and closer each day, the issue of white spaces has grown into a concern for many.  White space is the frequencies that are not currently being used by television or radio when they broadcast to viewers or listeners.  The issue that companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Dell argue is that with such available frequencies, there should be the opportunity for individuals to use certain devices that can pick up and use white spaces for their own needs so long as they do not interfere with television signals.  However, the counter argument that stands is that such devices in fact do interfere with the frequencies that television and radio companies need.  Some have even argued that it would be wise to allocate such frequencies in the case of emergencies so that police officers, fire fighters and public officials could communicate through the frequencies.

rabbit ears from Google

The Wall Street Journal said this week that The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has decided to allow stations to apply for additional frequencies.  This is probably  because the stations will hypothetically lose viewers once the digital switch is officially put into place (it was supposed to happen nationwide in February of this year).  The Wall Street Journal also said that the opportunity for stations to acquire these frequencies would be beneficial because a test in Wilmington, N.C. last year showed that certain individuals would permanently lose certain stations because the digital and analog range is different. 

from Google

 

 

 

This decision by the FCC is another example of the complications that the country is facing in attempting to become all digital.

Monetizing News

Imagine if newspapers or even news organizations ceased to exist.  Imagine that an entity such as the New York Times stopped producing news forever.  Now of course with a company as reputable as the New York Times, such a possibility most likely will not come true any time in the near future, however, the desire to obtain news increases, news organizations’ revenues are decreasing at a great rate.  Is there a way that news can be monetized such that people will still seek the news they get now for free for a price in the future?

Image from Google

My idea for monetizing the Internet without compromising people’s wallets would include a tiered pricing plan backed by a guarantee that the news a person receives is credible.  Imagine a Society of Journalists, which existed to “certify”or professionalize journalists as they once were.  Right now, practically anyone can be a journalist as long as they know how to write well and obtain their own footage with the proper resources like digital recording cameras.  While it is great that news can be told in a variety of ways that was not possible before by a countless number of people, this has also lead to the mesh of news with entertainment, opinion, and so forth, such that it is hard to find many reliable and credible news outlets.

Anyone who would want to be a part of the Society would have to pay dues to help fund the system until the recession blows over, until advertisers could make more profits.  Current reputable news organizations like the New York Times or The Washington Post would already have the qualifications to be a part of the Society, and they and other news organizations could pick a member to be part of a Board for the Society to help induct other growing or start-up news organizations that have gained enough popularity and stability to qualify to be a part of the Society.

This idea wouldn’t stop individuals from writing about news themselves, however the Society along with limited viewing possibilities of stories and the implementation of mandatory subscription payments by all news organizations would help prevent misinformed individuals from publishing questionable material pertaining to the news.  Also, the Society would separate regular news from credible news that could be relied upon since the journalists who wrote it would be certified.  Isn’t it comforting to have a doctor who went to medical school perform surgery on you as opposed to one who didn’t?  The same should hold true for news. People would pay knowing that they were getting a quality service instead of any service, and so that they wouldn’t have to sift through the Internet.

In terms of pricing, there could be a tiered model, much like what cable providers do for different levels of service, however with news the difference in price would separate the quantity of news an individual would want to obtain; the quality would remain the same throughout (ideally the best there is).  Individuals could subscribe to daily feeds or liner ledes for a small price.  This would serve people who seek quick news on the go and could view it easily on their smart phones.  For a slightly greater price, people could subscribe to the feeds and longer format stories.  This might interest individuals of older generations, who are already used to the New York Times’ stories with jumps and more in-depth reporting.  For people interested in being informed about a particular topic, or those who want to write a story continuing an ongoing issue, they could subscribe to archives.  

While some of these ideas may seem radical compared to the current business model, they attempt to prompt thought into individuals about the news that want to see decades from now, not to mention the fact that in case you didn’t know, everyone is scrambling to find a way to make money in the journalism industry.

Net Neutrality: Pros and Cons

One of the greatest if not the greatest discussion that is pending legislative action is the issue of network neutrality.  The concept of net neutrality sets forth the basic idea that everyone is entitled to free usage of the Internet, assuming of course that each individual is paying for internet connection.  Also, when interpreting the term, one must also take into account that his or her usage is not interrupted by outside forces, such as the Internet Service Providers themselves, who are simply the suppliers of the Internet.  The conflict arises in the ISP argument that they should be able to regulate certain usage to the extent that they will be able to make the Internet more efficient, while those who advocate the system as it currently exists, free from restriction, see no need for change and do not want to pay for what they already receive for free.

Those in favor of net neutrality present the argument that the Internet as it now exists sufficiently supplies the public with the information at a reasonable cost, basically one that requires a person to own a computer and internet service, two aspects that are not uncommon for many an individual in this day and age.  The fight to preserve the system as it currently exists is being put forth by advocates through web in sites such as savetheinternet.com, which provides “fact vs. fiction” statements about the issue, a couple of them being that protection for net neutrality has always been around and that consumers would have to be the ones compensating the costs for the network regardless of whether or not it remained neutral.

The counter opinion, which is held mostly by ISP’s such as Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and AT&T, dictates that the companies should have control over the flow of information or bites through the system since they have the capability to run the system more effectively and can prevent less stalls in accessing web pages or using certain applications such as BitTorrent which requires much bandwidth but does not need to function in regular time since it’s a downloading function.  With online gaming, a tiny set back or stall of a partial second could have a significant effect on the outcome and quality of that game, such as with Halo. ISP companies state that they could also potentially regulate this, through the usage of tiered pricing, which is already used for different levels of internet connection, where pricing depends on the speed at which a consumer wants to receive connection, and the price they are willing to pay for that connection.  ISP control could potentially allow for two costs for the consumer: one for access to the Internet, and one to access specific content on the Internet channeled through the companies that would have to pay the service providers to keep their site afloat.

Below, President Barack Obama briefly addresses the issue back in 2007 during an MTV video interview, before he was elected President from Youtube.

TV, Internet, Phone- The powerful triumvirate?

Does the power of three pose a monopoly threat, or rather  greater quality and ease in paying the bills to one company?  Verizon, Time Warner, and Optimum, are three companies that provide cable for television, Internet and phone service.  They, like other companies, draw in the consumer by offering great deals and savings, however this is usually only for the first year. Purchasing the deal may be contingent on the person signing up for more than a year, during which a company could potentially jack up the rates.

With any of these Internet Protocol service providers, data is transmitted through a cable and passed onto all three mediums through Internet Protocol, or certain groupings of bits.  Thus, it can be easier for the consumer who chooses all three because the reception is simple and there is essentially unlimited bandwidth for the companies (thus far), so their is no need to worry about an overload.  IPTV, which is Internet Protocol that is specifically passed through television by IP providers, remains on a private network.

Verizon has currently set its rate at $74.99 per month for a year for all three services.  However, to find out about later rates, Verizon requires that the buyer put in personal information before they can obtain more detailed pricing information.  For Time Warner, their rates are a bit higher but they offer more perks up front such as HD DVR for three months and unlimted calling in the U.S., Canada, and Puerto Rico.  If one wanted to purchase all three services, he or she would have to sign up for each for a year to keep the fixed rate of $49.95 a month for cable, $34.95 a month for Road Runner Internet, and $39.95 per month for phone service, a total of $124.85 a month for all three, about $1,500 a year.  While this plan may seem enticing, it requires like Verizon that the consumer give personal information before they can obtain long term rates.  As for Optimum’s Triple Play plan, they provide great detail up front about the services they offer.  For example, they allow the consumer to compare their upload and download rates with other “typical” carriers, granted, Optimum is providing this information.  However, when it comes to rates, it also mandates that the buyer to purchase all three for $29.95 per month for a year.

Verizon pic from Google                Optimum pic from Google                   Time Warner pic from Google

While it is easier to pay one bill monthly and receive awesome perks for signing up for a three-for-all, in the long run, sticking with one company for all three might lead to too much power and dependency on that one company by the consumer.  On the other hand, for the company, offering television, Internet, and phone for the buyer could yield greater brand loyalty for the consumer/s, especially if they are parents because they could potentially pass that brand loyalty down to their children, who media companies have the hardest time targeting and strive the most towards pleasing.

Online and On-Demand:The not-so-linear programming of TV

IP Video, video that is streammed on the Internet, is another form of media with which television has had an axe to grind as of late.  Before this and other forms of non-linear (on-demand) programming, viewers were forced to place their behinds on the couch to watch their favorite show at the time it was aired or else they would show up to work the next day with nothing to talk about.  However, through mediums such as DVR, VOD (Video on Demand), and IP Video, people have control over what they want to watch, when they want to watch it.  This newly-given power to the consumer is largely in part of what is destroying the television industry.

When networks such as Fox, began to stream episodes of their shows online, this drew an influx of popularity from all viewers, particularly those of a younger demographic.  People could catch up on missed seasons of Family Guy without having to purchase the DVD’s or take a trip to the nearest video rental store.  However, for anyone who missed the most recent episode, they would have to wait eight days before they could view it, and since most shows occurred weekly, this upset the dynamic of viewing shows in weekly order if they couldn’t be caught at the time they were broadcasted.

Thus, the creation of absolute demand sites like youtube.com exploded, particularly for viewing clips of whole episodes.  This didn’t last long, however, because there was no revenue for the networks and people were basically pirating and uploading, a marker of huge copyright infringement.  Then came sites like hulu.com.

With this sort of a streamming website, viewers could watch whatever, whenever, for essentially “free,” with the exception of having to own a computer, internet, electricity, AND watch advertisements that the site incorporated into its programming, pretty much like the old viewing model of broadcast television but online.  The viewer must watch and cannot skip over one to two minute ads of cars and other programming, and second-long slides of advertisers that promote that the show is being brought to the viewer with “limited commercial interruption.” However, this innovative viewing model has one up on youtube for keeping a business model for advertisers while holding the interest of users who are generally younger and have the most things competing for their time.

Family Guy Picture from Google

If networks could find a way to adapt to the viewer’s preferred lifestyle either by adapting the ways of sites like hulu, at least for primetime programming and/or find a way to cut shows that function on expensive airtime that is being backed even less by advertisers, maybe these companies could find a balance in the happiness of the consumers and themselves, instead of trying to compete with non-linear programming  with bigger computer screens and less pixelation.

Although TV’s will not become antiques any time soon, broadcasting may emerge in a new form if it so wishes.  However, I will be watching the NCAA finals live on my large digital flat-screened television.

Murdoch’s News Corp. is Facing a Murky Outlook

Lately, Rupert Murdoch has been facing much criticism in the media, especially from readers of the New York Post, as well as political leaders like the Rev. Al Sharpton, Gov. David A. Paterson, and Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand.  Last week a political cartoon that was published in The Post depicted police shooting a chimpanzee with a caption that stated, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”  While the cartoon was meant to criticize Obama over the stimulus bill he released, the picture itself was actually alluding to a chimpanzee that was shot earlier in the week because it attacked a woman in Connecticut. Many, however, took the cartoon to have negative racist implications. Murdoch made an apology today in the paper itself saying,

“As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.  Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.”

As if this was not bad enough, Murdoch’s right-hand man, Peter Chernin, announced today that he would be leaving the News Corp. Company this June.  This information comes as the News Corp. stock continues to drop and the company has taken over $8 billion in write downs of assets

 

Photo from: Guardian.com