stupid google

I'm not sure how much of this will actually apply to communications, but I think it should and I just want to say it so whatever. A friend of mine from highschool died early Friday morning in a car crash. I'm obviously very upset by this. What I want to talk about, however, is the way the media, particularly the Hamilton Spectator, reported on the crash. Mita and Trevor were driving the wrong way on the 403 at 3:00 AM and slammed into a transport truck. Mita is alright, but Trevor was killed instantly. This is a tragedy, he was 22 years old, a great guy, and he didn't deserve this. His parents have already lost one son and now they've got to repeat the whole ordeal again, they don't deserve this. What really makes me angry though, is that the day after the accident I read about it in the paper. The Spec, without having any concrete facts about what my friends were doing at the time, insinuated that Mita had been drinking. The article then proceded to use my friend's death as a soapbox from which to preach the evils of drinking and driving. Mita was not drinking. It was 3 AM, it was extremely foggy, and she didn't realize what was happening until she saw the headlights of the trucks in front of her. The irresponsibility of the Spectator using conjecture as evidence has now added insult upon injury to the families and friends of Mita and Trevor. Now people all over this city believe another stupid drunk driver has killed someone, and that 'stupid drunk driver' is my friend. She is already going to have to deal with Trevor's death for the rest of her life, she doesn't need this added stigma on her shoulders. I don't know that everyone believes that she was drunk, or how many just assumed, all I know is that when I read the article I believed she was drinking and that hurts so much.

In The Endless Chain Ben Bagdikian discusses the centralization of American media into the hands of a small number of individuals and corporations. This process occurred as part of a planned attempt to control the media, as Bagdikian notes that “it is the open strategy of major media owners to own as many different kinds of media as possible.” (Bagdikian, 173) There are currently only twelve corporations in the United States and four in Canada that control virtually all of the mainstream media. The people who run these conglomerates generally have the same “private political and economic goals,” since they are, of course, very rich and interested in using that money and influence for their own gains. (Bagdikian, 173-174) Through gaining control of a wide variety of media outlets, from cable TV to newspapers to books, they are able to develop a “guaranteed audience” for their message. Bagdikian argues that the “guaranteed audience” is essentially a “captive audience,” which corporations can use to attain both “money and influence.” Using economies of scale, media conglomerates are able to make huge profits from their business, more importantly, however, is their ability to exercise influence on the public and the government. Through their control of a wide range of seemingly independent news sources, corporations are able to exert “dominant influence over the public’s news, information, public ideas, popular culture, and political attitudes,” which then translates into influence on political elites. (Bagdikian, 174)
I recently watched a documentary that serves as a perfect case study for Bagdikian’s theory. In Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism, director/producer Robert Greenwald discusses the extremely partisan nature of media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s news empire, with particular focus on FoxNews. Murdoch has actively sought to own hundreds of media outlets worldwide, and he has been very successful. Greenwald estimates that Murdoch’s outlets presently reach about 4.7 billion people around the globe. This man is a conservative-Republican ideologue, and he promotes a partisan right-wing agenda on his stations unashamedly. The CEO and Chairman of Fox News, Roger Ailes, was a strategist for former Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Senior. It is no wonder that Fox News has acted like a cheerleader for the present Bush administration. While claiming to be “fair and balanced,” Fox News has been anything but; the station hosts many more Republicans than Democrats, the ‘journalists’ consistently provide partisan commentary on events, and the news cover focuses on Bush administration issues such as supposed ‘family values’ (read: Christian fundamentalism) and ‘terrorism’ (read: fear-mongering and racist portrayals of Muslims). The O’Reilly Factor, a Fox News program hosted by Bill O’Reilly, is a perfect example of a strongly partisan program masquerading as journalism. O’Reilly advances a particular viewpoint, he focuses on issues such as emergencies, values, and terrorism, he seems to consciously work at promoting fear among the American public, and he brutally attacks anyone who thinks differently than himself. This sort of behavior might work on the 700 Club, but it should not claim to be journalism.
Through concentration of a large portion of the media in the hands of a man such as Rupert Murdoch, who has no desire to present “fair and balanced” stories, American democracy, and Canadian through cultural association, loses one its most important tenets, free speech. Although we may still have the ability to say what we want, Murdoch limits the range of discourse and manipulates the mind of a large percentage of the public into believing things that are not true. According to a PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll from October 2003, 67 percent of Fox News viewers believed that there was a direct link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, something that is patently not true. Unfortunately, in modern democracy, being misinformed does not prevent one from voting in an election and this fact can have a great impact on the issues discussed in a campaign and the approaches advanced for dealing with them.

B. H. Bagdikian. “The Endless Chain.” In Introduction to Communication. USA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 2005. 173-184.

The Center for American Progress
Robert Greenwald. “Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”
http://www.rapetheweb.com/cartoons/#

www.foxnews.com

In Gerbiner et al’s article Information Delivery in an Information Rich Society, they discuss the commodification of information in the current era. This is part of our globalist era, in which neo-liberal economic policies have robbed the nation-state of much of its power and sovereignty.
One aspect of neo-liberalism is the privatization of government functions. It is believed that corporations can perform the tasks of government more cheaply and efficiently than the state can. Corporations advance this idea because, although we must be weary of the state taking on too much power, the state is also the greatest protector of the public welfare. Through social protections such as laws regarding communication and transport, social security, bank and financial regulations, and labor rights, the government provides security to the average citizen. (Gerbiner, 186) Gerbiner argues that corporations drive to have “the machinery of socially responsible supervision removed . . . under the name of deregulation,” so that these financial bodies can have a greater degree of freedom of action in society. (Gerbiner, 187)
An example of privatization of government functions and commodification of information that directly affects my life and that of every other student at McMaster is the present funding situation at our university. Gerbiner notes that, “wherever profitable information is produced, the drive for commercialization now rapidly follows.” (Gerbiner, 187) This commodification of information in the university affects the focus of funding allocations by our administration and the type of research that takes place. For example, Bell Canada recently donated one million dollars to McMaster in what a Bell spokesman called “an example of [Bell’s] commitment to bringing the best and brightest minds together to come up with cutting edge technological innovation.” (Silhouette, A1) This research will, of course, benefit Bell, but will it benefit the school? It is highly unlikely that one million dollars will cover the full cost of this program, meaning that an undisclosed amount of public funding will go to subsidizing research aimed at benefiting this corporation. Therefore, Bell is essentially able to hire our school to do its research, turning our school into what the University of Miami’s vice president for research called a “fee-for-service corporation.” (Gerbiner, 187)
The implications of this new funding formula regarding the type of education one can receive in Canada are frightening. It means that the school focuses financial support on academic areas that are likely to turn a profit. Thus, biomedical research or computer engineering receive priority over the less monetarily profitable subjects such as the Arts. While one might argue that the Arts do not create the same financial and technological gains as sciences or engineering and therefore deserve less funding, this is a very shortsighted viewpoint. Arts fill out our society, they help develop a vibrant and dynamic culture in which individuals think, create, and explore the greater questions of life. These sorts of ventures do not necessarily have direct economic returns, but they lead to the betterment of our society of as a whole. Wealth and power come and go, but ideas can last forever. Athens fell more than two thousand years ago, yet the ideas of Socrates continue to shape our perceptions of the world. This is why universities should be a public institution; they create a rich and vibrant intellectual world, which transcends the short-term value of markets and dividends.

Gerbiner et al. “Information Deprivation in an Information Rich Society.” Introduction to Communication. USA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 2005. 185-192.

O’Meara, Megan. “Bell Donates $1 Million to Mac: Prestigious MMEI Program Recipient of Donation.” The Silhouette [Hamilton] Thursday, October 26. 2006. A1.

So another phase in the trial of Saddam Hussein is over; Saddam has been found guilty and sentenced to death. The former dictator committed many crimes while in power, he attacked the Kurds with chemical weapons, ruthlessly oppressed the Shia majority in the south, and started two wars, the first of which caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. He is a bad dude.

But will sentencing him to death lead to any real solution to the myriad problems Iraq faces right now? This nation is riven with sectarian tensions, and it is quite likely that the verdict could exaserbate the already tense divisions. While Saddam should face justice, it must not be in a manner that leads to an all out civil war. The Iraqi people suffered greatly under Saddam, and they have suffered even more under the Americans, will they have to suffer more because the Americans have orchestrated the dictators death?

I say 'orchestrated' because there is no doubt in my mind that the verdict in Saddam's case was decided before he even stepped into the courtroom. Neither the Americans nor the Shia would ever let this man walk free. That he was sentenced to death two days before the US Congressional elections is but further proof that this trial is a farce. The Republicans have a lot to gain from this verdict, Bush has no problem lying or manipulating the legal/democratic system, and no serious, non-partisan legal expert has given their support to the trial.

It shouldn't be a problem to convict Saddam, as I said he's a bad dude, but this manner lacks credibility which is the most important factor in the courts decision. I just don't want to see this lead to more death in Iraq.

Man. I was just reading about some crazy shit goin down in Iraq and, although it's late and I'm somewhat drunk, I thought I'd comment. It looks as if the sectarian violence in Iraq is intensifying. What was recently Sunnis fighting Shias is now worsening to Shias fighting Shias. Iraq appears to be falling into complete anarchy. While the Mahdi Army and al-Sadr Brigade were scary enough, the fact that they appear to be becoming too main stream for the radicals is very frightening. These groups, which were the extreme a year ago, are now being left behind by those who wish to take the conflict to the next level. These new groups appear to have no desire to work with the federal government at all. While I personnally think the government is a pawn of the States, to a large extent, it is still the only major centralized Iraqi institution. This new development will only lead to further anarchy and violence.

Wireless technology is rapidly changing the way modern society opperates. In A Remote Control for Your Life, Charles C. Mann discusses the attempted development of ubiquitous computing by NTT DoCoMo. What DoCoMo wants to do is make cell-phones that not only make audio calls, surf the internet and take pictures/videos, but also can be used at "the post office, as a building pass, a corporate ID, any kind of membership card, a credit card," according to executive Takeshi Natsuno, "the phone will replace the wallet in five years." (Mann, 136) Wireless technology is expanding at such an incredible rate that it is quite probable Natsuno is right. Over the coming decades human beings are going to become increasingly wired in to their surroundings, as modern computer technology permeates further into our everyday lives. I do not think that the impact of this on our society should be underestimated. As we come to use computers and cell phones more and more in our lives, we become dependent on them. I went to school without my phone the other day and when I realized on the bus that I did not have it, it really bothered me, and I felt naked. From a guy who four years ago said he would never even own a cell phone, this is a radical change.
It seems that nowadays you always have to be connected. If someone sends me e-mail and I do not check it for a couple days, it is as if I've committed a crime. Same thing happens when my cell goes off and I don't answer it. People around me, or the selfish bastard calling, expect that I will automatically answer the call. But why do I have to? Sometimes I just don't feel like talking on the phone, it's nothing personal, I just do not want to talk. Unfortunately, when the call is from my boss or some other such authority figure, I have to answer it. This can cause work to impose on one's life all the time. Luckily, I work a shit job for $8.50/hr and my boss rarely calls me. One day, however, I will have a good job and I will probably be forced to deal with harassing calls from my superiors wherever it is I am trying to not think about work.

Mann, Charles C. "A Remote Control for Your Life." MIT Technology Review, 2004.