Sunday, February 25, 2007

Illegal Film Pirating: Who’s Really Getting Hurt?

As children, we learn that it is wrong to steal. Thus as adults we’re expected to respect the property of others and suffer the consequences when we do not. With little or no exceptions to this rule, the number of people who are illegally pirating music and movies over the internet is shocking. The success of the file sharing site, Napster, created a community in which multimedia files could be shared, saved and burned to disc without any royalties being paid to the artists or production companies. Though eventually Napster was forced to charge each visitor a small fee per song, irreparable damage was done. Today CD’s and movies are appearing on the internet and made available to the public, often times even before their official release date. In retaliation, many production companies and artists have filed lawsuits against downloader’s. But many people find this unfair, especially considering the inflated prices consumers are being asked to pay. With this in mind, I’ve again decided to look at two other blogs discussing this issue and comment on their thoughts. The first post I looked at, “Less Than 5% Download Movies Legal or Not” comes from The Movie Blog maintained by John Campea. The second post, “New Study Shows Extremely Low Percentage of Movie Downloading,” came from a blog by Monika Bartyzel called Cinematical.

“Less Than 5% Download Movies Legal or Not”
Comment:
Upon reading your post, I can certainly understand your frustration with the entertainment industry. Why do production companies feel it is necessary to force consumers who are trying to abide by copyright laws to pay extra fees, just so they can play their purchases on their device of choice? It seems logical that if someone is going to illegally download, they’re not going to attempt to transfer it over to another device such as an IPod pictured on the right. I support copyright laws, and I sympathize with the concept of giving an artist credit for his or her work. Unfortunately, rather than discovering new ways to stop illegal movie and music downloading, companies seems to be passing the added cost onto legitimate consumers. This IPod scandal is simply more proof of that. If someone legally purchases both an IPod and a DVD, why in the world should they have to spend any more money to get said DVD onto said IPod? And what is particularly frustrating is taking into consideration that while the law-abiding faction of society is shelling out more and more money, there are illegal downloader’s out there; and they probably have to cope with less red tape than the rest of us. That being said, I can also understand the point view of production companies. While it may be a pain and completely unfair, the reason for the added burden on consumers is owing to the few illegal downloader’s out there, who aren’t willing to abide by the same laws that the rest of the world are. It is the few who are ruining it for the many!

New Study Shows Extremely Low Percentage of Movie Downloading
Comment:
After reading your post, there are certainly a number of valid points in your argument. The most important of which being the misrepresentation of how widespread illegal pirating is. Considering the amount of public service announcements, such as the one on the left, and federal warnings consumers are bombarded with every time they purchase a DVD or go to a movie, one would expect huge percentages of illegal downloader’s, but certainly not a mere 5%. However, upon viewing the ABI research study using the link provided on your post, I noted that researchers only questioned people eighteen years and older. This is somewhat misleading considering that a large majority of illegal downloader are eighteen years old or younger. Thus, the controversy of some parents being sued by production companies, for the actions of their children. While there is no doubt the extent of this problem is over exaggerated, how exactly should the film and music industries respond? If they take no action, the problem will only increase, and while the precautions may not have eliminated the existing pirated material they certainly have stopped the production of any new footage.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Violence in the Media: Over-Exaggeration or Are We Becoming Desensitized?

With Oscar season quickly approaching, once again the question as to whether violence in the media has become too extreme is being asked. Though gratuitous violence isn’t a new debate within the entertainment industry, this year in particular has seen a number of very violent films, such as Blood Diamond, The Departed, Babel and Letters from Iwo Jima up for academy award nominations. And though two of the films, Letters from Iwo Jima and Blood Diamond are based on actual events, the violent contents of the films are still questioned. Has violence in films, television, or even video games become too graphic?

Undoubtedly, since the early days of television and film, the content of the television program has drastically changed. From the scheming Lucille Ball in I Love Lucy seen on the left in the classic chocolate factory episode, to M.A.S.H, these shows were broadcast in an era where television sensors had to approve each episode before it was publicly aired. Films released during this time faced the same standard's. In fact, Clark Gable'sGone with the Wind almost didn’t make the final cut, because of the “foul” language used. Needless to say, a lot has changed since those days. One need only turn on the TV to notice the difference. The popular NBC drama ER shows doctors performing surgery on patients, all of which looks as though it is completely legitimate. But the 1970’s TV show famous line, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn,” in
MASH, pictured on the right, set during the Korean War never showed gruesome images of wounds or surgery.

Within the past few years the topic of gratuitous violence in the media has come to a head with such incidences like that of Janet Jackson bearing her breast, to the extraordinary violence in video games have caused parents and lawmakers to rethink broadcast standard laws. However, this is more complicated than one would think because studies based on television violence fail to conclusively agree. As the Media Awareness Network reports,
"media violence is notoriously hard to define and measure. Some experts who track violence in television programming, such as George Gerbner of Temple University, define violence as the act (or threat) of injuring or killing someone, independent of the method used or the surrounding context. Accordingly, Gerber includes cartoon violence in his data-set. But others, such as University of Laval professors Guy Paquette and Jacques de Guise, specifically exclude cartoon violence from their research because of its comical and unrealistic presentation." Furthermore, looking at a comparison of crime statistics from the 1950s and today is misleading because society has evolved so much, additionally a large majority of the crimes committed in the US are drug related and popular drugs like crystal meth, weren’t available in the 50s.

A better way to look at this issue would be to explore the changes that have occurred over the last few years that may offer an explanation for this violence. According to about.com, in 1950, only one in three women held a job, compared to 1998’s figure of three in five women working outside the home. The direct implication of this data is that the lack of parental involvement in their children’s lives is to blame for increased crime misbehavior in younger generations. Take for instance the massacre at Columbine High School in April of 1999, where Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold seen in their high school year book photos, plotted and carried out a shooting rampage, ultimately killing thirteen and injuring many more before taking their own lives. In the months following the tragedy, everything from movies, violent video games and heavy metal music were blamed for the incident. What ever actually triggered the boys to commit these acts will never be known. Interestingly, the boys built pipe bombs, stock piled guns and ammunition, wrote a “hit list”, and even picked out matching outfits, all from the basement of Eric Harris’s home, leading one to believe that lack of parental involvement is more to blame than the media.

It is undeniable that violence has become more prevalent in the media, but to lay all the blame on the media alone is over simplifying. It would be impossible for a child to be shielded from the realities of everyday life, but parents must take responsibility by explaining to their children what they are seeing, as well as censoring the vastly inappropriate. Seeing gruesome incidences on TV has become part of the everyday, and with parents being forced to work in order to maintain their lifestyle, no one is around to stop children from viewing inappropriate content. Precisely why networks need to adjust program to be less graphic, especially during time periods where children are more likely to be watching without parental supervision.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Celebrity Paparazzi: Fulfilling a Market Niche or Crossing a Line?

Lately in the news, you may have noticed an increase in celebrity gossip stories. And with potential million dollar paydays for exclusive pictures, celebrities are becoming more vocal about their loss of privacy. One need only visit official fan websites, to read posts complaining of the daily intrusions into celebrities personal lives. But just how much of that complaining is justified, and how much is over-exaggerated? The reality of the entertainment business is that it is a business, and while media coverage surrounding celebrities may be intrusive, it is a necessary evil. Heightened interest in a celebrity boosts sales-be it movie and concert tickets, record albums or merchandise. Mass-media marketing isn’t cheap, often costing millions, but paparazzi photos and tabloid magazine articles are free, and the privacy that’s sacrificed is well worth the financial benefit. However, with the recent entrance of several celebrities battling drugs and alcohol into rehab, as well as many stars facing personal tragedy, it appears that some stories have crossed the line with personal attacks. Therefore, this week I’ve decided to explore this issue further by venturing out to other blogs devoted to the entertainment industry and commenting on them, all in an effort to determine if all this media scrutiny is warranted. Have the paparazzi and entertainment news outlets crossed the line? Below are my thoughts on my findings, as well as permanent links to the blogs where my comments were made.

On January 27, Angelina Jolie’s mother Marcheline Bertrand, pictured left with her daughter, lost her battle with breast cancer. The 56 year-old Bertrand died surrounded by her children at Cedars-Sinai Medial Center. While most people are afforded the luxury of privacy while coping with the death of a parent, Jolie and partner Brad Pitt, found themselves amid a mob of paparazzi and media coverage. Throughout her mother’s treatment, the media chose to focus on Jolie’s infamous affair and pregnancy with one-time co-star Brad Pitt, having never been questioned about her mother’s illness until her recent Larry King Live Interview. But now that tragedy has struck the young star, the media has decided to take an interest. The attention was so intense as to force Pitt to get a police escort while leaving his office. Later that week, Pitt went so far as to personally plead with photographers camping on the couples’ front lawn to leave. Anyone who has ever lost someone whom they loved understands how ignorant the comments posted on The Superficial blog are. How can anyone honestly suggest that during her final moments on Earth, Bertrand’s last thoughts were romantic allusions to the father of her daughter’s children? Before writing such ridiculous statements, one should consider how they would feel if they were in Jolie’s position? If it were your mother, and your grief, how would you feel about such postings? Obviously, this posting is exploiting the misfortune of this celebrity, and unfortunately, it is merely one of many media outlets that have crossed the line with its coverage of this sad story. Shame on you, and others like you!

Anna Nicole Smith is no stranger to tabloid articles; in fact,
the former model seems to have gone out of her way in recent memory to receive media attention. But the September 10th death of her 20 year old son, seen with his mother on the right, brought an abundance of unwanted media attention. The star’s devastation warranted doctors placing her under sedation just days after having given birth to her daughter. The interviews given by Smith following the death, show her to be heavily sedated and clearly grief stricken. However, interviews with Smith’s family members, questioned the stars parenting ability and even her involvement in her son’s drug overdosed death. The relentless media attention continued, making any sort of healing impossible. After months of being hounded by the media, the star was found dead in her Florida hotel room, Thursday. One would think that now the celebrity would be able to escape the unwanted attention. But the MollyGood Posting attempts to take one final pot shot, by claiming to have a picture of Smith refrigerator, as seen on the left, complete with Methadone (the drug which killed her son) and Slim Fast, taking the opportunity to poke fun at Smith’s weight battle. What ever happened to respecting the memory of those who are no longer with us? As if it weren’t enough that the woman’s last days were marked with tragedy, now media outlets are going to take cheap shots at someone who isn’t even able to defend herself? At the very least, have the decency to let this clearly troubled soul rest in peace.

Sunday, February 4, 2007

Fit to Fat: Tyra Bank’s Model Behavior

After fourteen years of being a model, Tyra Banks was used to seeing herself on the cover of magazines and on TV. But last week when airbrushed photos like the one seen on the right, were published on the Internet and in tabloid magazines declaring the former super-model fat, her reaction was anything but ordinary. The 5 foot 10 inch star was furious, publicly speaking out on both Larry King Live, where the 160 pound model stated,"...When [the media] say that my body is 'ugly' and 'disgusting,' what does that make those girls [who look up to me] feel like?", as well as addressing the issue on her daytime talk show by wearing the same bathing she donned in the doctored photos. Admittedly, since her official retirement from the modeling world in 2005 Tyra has gained some weight, but she is by no means fat.

All this attention comes after a firestorm of controversy shook the entertainment world. It seems there has always been pressure on women in show business to be young, beautiful and most importantly thin. But what had once been an unrealistic expectation has since become a dangerous obsession as millions of women develop deadly eating disorders in an attempt to mimic the waifish frames of high fashion models. Beginning with the success of Twiggy in the 1960's, the image of women’s figures in the media has progressively shrunk. Interestingly when Twiggy began modeling her slim frame made her unique and separated her from other models. Today however, thin is the status-quo among fashion models. In recent history celebrities such as Mary Kate Olsen, Jamie Lynn Siegler, Nicole Ritchie, Portia DeRossi, Calista Flockhart, and Lindsay Lohan have all admitted to battling eating disorders. Fueled by the controversy, the world of high fashion has been blamed for imposing such strict standards on runway models. In November of 2006, Brazilian model Ana Carolina Reston, pictured in a runway show on the right, died from complications due to anorexia. At the time of her death, the 5’8” model weighed a mere 88 pounds, and had a body mass index of 13.4. For an adult anything under 18.5 is considered underweight.

As tragic as the model's death is, she is by no means an exception.
In fact, the frail frames of runway models during the annual Fashion Week were so dangerously skinny as to draw the attention of the world. As a result, fashion designers in Spain insisted that models maintain a BMI of 18 in order to appear in the show. Those that did not meet the weight requirement were banned. Nevertheless, young starlets remain dangerously underweight, influencing an entire generation of young teens who are developing life-threatening illnesses. According to the National Eating Disorders Association, the number of women suffering from anorexia nervosa has reached an all-time high affecting between .5% and 1% of the female population in America, roughly every 1 in 100 women. More shocking still is that anywhere from 5 to 20 percent of those affected will die from it. On the Internet, chat rooms and blogs claiming to be pro-ana and pro-mia, short for anorexia and bulimia, have cropped up offering tips on how to sustain and hide the disorder from friends and family.

With all the controversy recently being brought to this deadly phenomenon, one would expect that a super-model such as Tyra Banks, who has described herself as fuller-figured, would have received support from American media outlets. Especially considering the young age and increased likelihood of death for those who suffer from eating disorders. Instead, however, the former Victoria’s Secret model was forced to defend her ten - pound weight gain, using the cover of People Magazine to pose the question to an increasingly superficial society, “You Call This Fat?” Is it any wonder that so many young girls are made to feel sickly thin is beautiful? And that while it may be tragic for so many young starlets to waste away to nothing, but it's an even worse fate for them to gain weight. Why can there not be an happy medium? Why is there no room for more than one conception of beauty in America? Isn't there room for more than one ideal in our psyche so that so many don't feel ugly.