Neg Ads

After watching the latest Youtube Rep Debate I was surprised by the amount of cheap shots that were taken. However the most interesting part on CNN was the post debate special on Negative Ads. Here's one of the neg. ads. in question:

The Ad. emphasized how the competing candidate used a Hotel phone to call a 900 sex line at the tax payers expanse. When CNN dug deer, they found out that the candidate's aid called NON-sex line number by mistake (he was off by a number when he dialed and reached retail warehouse). Total cost for the tax payers- $1.10.

Do you think that ad would sell if it told the truth? I do not think so.

That being said one of the head guys of a marketing ad firm admitted that People hate Negative Ads. but in the end, they do work.

Go figure.

One more thought on the digital divide

In class we discussed whether or not the internet access has the potential to close the gap (or at least narrow the gap) between the rich and poor. No doubt universal access to the internet has the potential to improve people's lives--if they are trained to get the best possible use out of it.

The question was asked how we can bring more people into the digital community. If we means "society," the best answer is obviously improving access to technology within our public schools and libraries. But what does that mean for us as individuals? As people who possess many of the skills that children will need to succeed in a technology-oriented world, we can as individuals have a huge impact on whether or schools and libraries have the resources they need.

We can:

1. Vote to support our local school budgets--even if we don't have children in the schools, and even if it means our taxes will increase. Generally, more people turn out to vote DOWN school budgets than they do to approve them. Also, very few people turn out for school budget votes--so skipping a vote can mean schools will be forced to cut down on "frills."

2. Volunteer our time to tutor children in need.

3. Ask the companies we work for to donate equipment/ expertise to public schools in our communities, or to community outreach programs.

4. Donate our time to help install computer equipment to help schools keep costs down.

5. We can volunteer to teach classes at local libraries to adults interested in learning about the internet.

6. Vote for candidates who are willing to invest in technology education and infrastructure.

7. Write letters to local politicians expressing our support for computer literacy initiatives and improved technology in public libraries.

Just a thought....and Happy Thanksgiving! 8)

Digi Divide

I think that some of this digital divide stuff is premature and I understand that it exists but I think that we need to give it a bit more time. If you look at cell phones they have been around for probably at least twenty years. Everyone remembers the Zach Morris (Saved By the Bell) phone in the early nineties. I mean they existed and the technology was there, but only the really rich had cell phones, because the phones themselves were really expensive and the plans were really expensive. Cell phones became popular when the plans became more reasonable and the phones became much cheaper. Now most people can afford a phone and the cell phone companies are making it much easier for everyone to own a phone, they have plans with no contracts and they also have prepaid phones, which is basically where you buy minutes to use.

With computers it might take a bit longer for them to become cheap enough for everyone to buy one but that day will come. I was without a computer for a couple of months and I just made use of my local library. I think the public library is a very important thing because it gives people the opportunity to be connected even if they can't afford it. In my ICM 501 class we were talking about this and a classmate made a point that maybe since everyone can afford a cell phone maybe using a cell phone as your primary source for staying connected might be a possibility. I'm not sure how I feel about that but I think it is definetely a possibility you can do so much on your phone right now and the things that you can do on your phone or only going to keep growing. Do you think that cell phones will be the key in bridging the digital divide?

Barbara's Post on the importance of access to the internet

Barbara is experiencing some technical difficulties so she emailed me her comments. Here they are:

First, I do not dispute the finding of Hargittai or Hoctoc on internet users. Since the inception of the internet there has and will continue to be statistics on its users.

I was not surprised about the divide between gender and race. Of course, those who can afford and know how to navigate around the internet are more informed.

We are living in a computer age there is an abundance of knowledge to find on the internet. Of course, that is understatement. Globally the internet has given a right of entry for people to voice their opinion.

However, as Hoctor point out, “Leaders in the developing world look to the internet with a mixture of enthusiasm and trepidation, at once seeing telecommunications technology as a path to free market advancement as well as the potential undoing of authoritarian control structures.” (697).

I think it is imperative for all households to have internet access. Nevertheless, it is gratifying to know that one can go to the library or school for alternative access.

Here are two websites that give more up to date statistics:

Http://answer.google.com/answers/theadview- African American/Hispanic use of Internet.

Http://www.webmarketingwatch.com/web_marketing_video/January_2007/African American_internet_statistics (Sage Lewis).

--BarbaraJ

Just like The View, ignorance will only get worse

Abramovitz and De Leo (or is it Matthew Robinson? The text attributes this article to different people depending on where you look. Anyway....) provide a multitude of examples to illustrate how Americans know more about entertainment than politics, more about advertising than history, more about Bill Cosby than Bill Clinton.

Is anyone surprised by this?

Polling illustrates just how much we don't know, and how much this lack of knowledge can have a detrimental effect on public debate. But I would have preferred that the authors delved a little deeper into finding out how and why we ended up this way. It's no secret that most of us prefer watching television over reading The Bill of Rights, but what caused us to get to the point where we know so little about important current events? I discussed this issue with my dad, age 62, to get his perspective. He told me that when he was a kid, his family would sit down together and watch the news every night after dinner. Why the news? And why every night? Because that's all that was on during that half hour with the limited channel selection they had. That got me thinking: do the increasing media choices we have only make us more ignorant? And will it get even worse as more niches, going far beyond Food Network, develop? When there was less choice in the past, perhaps Americans were less entertained and more informed because they couldn't find that channel or website that served their unique tastes. Abramovitz and De Leo/Robinson's humorous use of comparisons shows just show stark and troubling this ignorance is. 99 percent of college seniors polled were familiar with Beavis and Butthead but only 22 percent knew that the phrase "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" came from the Gettysburg address (362). Yikes.

Wade Roush might think that we will continue to have better access to information than ever before, but even he or she (this person is referred to by both pronouns in the text. I guess they were still trying to nail down gender by the time of publication.) might not think that better Internet services will have a causal relationship with a more informed public. His/her article is very far from an emphatic "Yes" to the question of Are People Better Informed in the Information Society. Just because information is delivered faster and more securely does not mean that people will improve the kinds of information they decide to consume.

Does anyone else think these editors had a few too many wine coolers before throwing together Issue 18?

Media and Fear and Here

I barely watch TV because everytime I sit down to watch the news I get very frustrated. On every channel, it would be safe to say that someone who isn't up on world affairs and who is afraid of everything would be pretty scared by the state of the world.

The only thing I saw reported much were child sex with teacher cases, why this media channel is worse than the one you are currently watching, and why the Middle East is going to destroy the world in a flame of jihad... or Iranian nukes.

What about good news? I know this question has come up many a time before, where someone says "Well only bad news sells". Maybe, but wouldn't it be nice to hear a report of "This senator commented today on how well the US is doing in this area". That would make me feel good.

It just seems like the United States never does anything right. It seems like our media, consciously and semi-unconsciously, always point out the bad things about America. Just this morning I saw on the news about that woman whose son died and she runs around the country protesting at soldier's funerals. The whole story was about how she brings 1 of her 10 children to stamp on the American flag at these protests that get close to violent some of the time.

Why are they talking about this woman? If they didn't speak about her, I wouldn't be thinking about her right now. She is just some loon who believes this country is a horrible place. I don't think it's a horrible place. I think there are some things that could be BETTER, but that doesn't mean this is a horrible country.

I wonder if the media portrayal of its country is the same in other countries, like England, France, heck, anywhere. Why does our media feed on our fears and then downplay the country whenever we can?

Now, some of the readers here may be thinking, "Go watch Fox news". I think that network is just as biased as any other network on T.V. The problem is these networks feel they know what is best for the American people instead of just telling us the objective facts. You ever notice how EVERY show has the host's opinion segment? Why do I care about your opinion? It is no better than my opinion. The segment should be emails with others opinions, and just get rid of the host's opinion. News is supposed to be objective.



I guess that's how it works these days.

Confused

Although I am not the lead blogger for this week, I have to mention one thing about this week's readings. In De Leo's article (NO) great emphasis is put on the misinformed society that is the U.S.A. I do agree with him to a certain point. There does exist a huge number of citizens who are clueless when it comes to politics, medicine, and economy. However, with that being said, I feel that a good chunk of the population is either confused and/or manipulated.
Here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4