me•dia

May 15, 2008

conclusion to my final on theory as method

Filed under: Favorites, Random — Tags: — crain @ 10:21 pm

Writing long essays under deadline is often a process of working out your thinking as you go. Here is one paragraph i can believe in…

Engaging theoretical explanation as method poses a danger of intellectual isolationism. Theory too far removed from lived experience becomes self-referential and loses its potency. Wheaton (2007) purposefully limits her analysis of Surfers Against Sewage to exclude the group’s “real impact in policy terms” (p. 284). Perhaps such examination of the ‘real’ is taken up by the author elsewhere, but material outcomes, especially those concerning systems of power such as policy and legislation, must not be cast aside as insignificant to theoretical analysis. A challenge for communications scholars moving forward is to continue to develop sensitized concepts, while at the same time exploring ways to make our work accessible and relevant to the world beyond academic publications. Like the junior scholars in Latina/o studies referenced in Valdivia’s article, we must “envision an expanding scholarship that leads to greater social justice” (p. 7). Taking this goal seriously, we would do well to follow Gramsci, whose “theoretical writing was developed out of [an] organic engagement with his own society and times and was always intended to serve, not an abstract academic purpose, but the aim of ‘informing political practice’” (Hall, 1986, p. 5).

Hall, S. (1986). Gramsci’s relevance for the study of race and ethnicity. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 10(2).

Valdivia, A. (2008). Is my butt your island? The myth of discovery and contemporary Latina/o communication studies. In A. Valdivia (Ed.), Latina/o communication studies today. New York: Peter Lang.

Wheaton, B. (2007). Identity, politics, and the beach: Environmental activism in Surfers Against Sewage. Leisure Studies, 26(3).

March 3, 2008

How Taxes Really Work: email forward and response

Filed under: Politics, Random — crain @ 11:13 pm

About a week ago an email list of close friends got an interesting forward about the tax system. Perhaps you’ve seen this floating around the interweb. A friend of mine came up with a pretty great response, to which I added a post script. See what you think:

Original “Tax Lesson” forward:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all
such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily
beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.’

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the
paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone
would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and
the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill
by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The
sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead
of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The
ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49
instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to
drink for free, but once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings. ‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’ declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, ‘but he got $10!’ ‘Yeah, that’s right,’
exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he
got TEN times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I
got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something very important….they didn’t have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax
reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just
may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where
the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Here is my friend’s reply (with just a bit of editing):

Hmm…
The problem with this analogy is that that #1 poor guy and the #10 rich guy are drinking in the same bar, which would never happen.

In reality, the #10 guy pays more so he can have:
roads built to get him to his swanky bar, public works to clear the snow from the valet stand and clean the streets around the bar, police and fire resources to keep his bar safe, public transit into his downtown bar so his table gets cleared by busboys and so that a nice #2 can hand him a towel to dry his hands, homeless shelters to keep the “bums” out of the alley behind his condo, schools to help the #1’s kids grow up to be #4s that don’t need the help, prisons to keep his #10 family “safe”…

…And all with enough money left over to make sure that high real estate prices and gated communities keeps those #1-#4s out of their neighborhoods.

But I see your point…

To which I would only add:

But you forgot one important part of the story. #10 got rich in the first place because the company that’s been in his family for a few generations happens to know people in Washington, who happen to arrange the sub-contracting (aka “privatizing”) of most government functions like paving those roads or running health care or rebuilding newly destroyed middle eastern countries. So really, all that money in #10’s bank roll is actually the redistributed taxes of the bottom 9. I can make a flow chart if you want.

How controversial…

February 29, 2008

Comcast caught blocking access to public hearing on Internet management practices

Filed under: FCC, Media Ownership, Media Policy, Net Neutrality — crain @ 10:39 am

This is truly amazing. I have been told this happens at FCC hearings, but here Comcast is caught red handed and then admits to paying random people to sit through Monday’s (Feb. 25) public hearing held by the FCC in Boston to investigate Comcast and other ISPs blocking practices. (See my previous posts on this blocking: AP Report: Comcast Blocking Certain Web Traffic and More About Comcast Internet Blocking.)

Comcast does this to prevent the actual public, people who care about these issues, from attending the hearing and providing testimony that is antithetical to the company’s practices of throttling traffic (mostly from peer-to-peer services) with ZERO TRANSPARENCY. FreePress has photos of these hired human roadblocks actually asleep during the hearing. (see video below). Wow.

Best headline on this: Comcast is Blocktastic!. See also this article from Save the Internet

February 27, 2008

Follow up to previous post on Streaming

Filed under: Broadband — crain @ 11:01 am

My crap Internet service last night (see last post) coincides with a prediction by the Telecommunications Industry Association (a trade group for ISPs) that despite projected downturns in the overall economy, the telecommunications sector will see strong growth in the next 3 years. Broadband revenue is expected to grow at over 13 percent a year until 2011.

Article from Infoworld

February 26, 2008

Blogging during the streaming of the democratic debate

I’m currently typing this as I’m staring at the nbc peacock-turned-loading wheel symbol that tells me to “wait for a few minutes and if we’re not back, just wait longer.”

I don’t have cable. It’s expensive and Comcast, the only provider, clearly mistreats their subscribers. Plus TV would be a serious distraction. Instead I get wireless “broadband” from a different anti-consumer company, ATT (my only other choice). So I planned to watch the debate on MSNBC’s website. At first it was all good. I had to sit through one ad at the start, but I can handle that. After the ad, for 5 minutes the debate streamed beautifully, so then I got a little adventurous and clicked the full-screen button. Then, as if by some miracle, the picture got bigger, the resolution was decent, and the stream didn’t degrade.

I watched full-screen, live, streaming video for about 10 minutes. Clinton and Obama were even talking back and forth about specific issues regarding health care policy and not about Brian Williams’ empty horse race fluff.

It felt like I was peering into some glorious future. I was timid, but I dare not look away.

Then the video started to break up and the audio began to stutter. Quick as a flash I minimized, but to no avail. The audio began chirping. So I closed out and went back again. Watched another ad and got back to the debate. 5 minutes went by, and it started to break up again. I closed out, went back, watched ad. This ritual repeated every 5 to 10 minutes, but each time, somehow the ad managed to come through no problem.

Now I’m just watching the peacock twirl. In the middle of an Obama rebuttal, the stream just dried up, his movements slowed to crawl, and then … nothing. Ridiculous. There is no good reason why we shouldn’t be able to get decent broadband in this country. Is this the ISPs fault? Most likely. Is it the FCCs fault? Right again. Is it MSNBC’s fault? Not sure. Is it the consumers’ fault, as firms like Comcast and ATT would suggest, for “hogging bandwidth?” No it is not.

We need to get this problem fixed, because if we let the regulators and the providers continue to hold hands all the way to the bank, our service will never improve.

Wow, now its back. But the aspect ratio is off, the picture is stretched. The candidates heads look a little wide; Tim Russert’s takes up the entire window. : )

February 21, 2008

Lessig, Change, and why I like Obama

Filed under: Politics — crain @ 8:25 pm

http://lessig08.org/

This is a video by a law scholar from Standford, Lawrence Lessig. He is pretty famous in law and communications for his work on copyright and culture in the changing technology environment. But after his last book he decided to change his research focus to figuring out where our *system* of government fails. What he comes up with is the corruption of basically good people via an inherently flawed system of corporate interference in campaign and policy-making processes. Now he is considering actually running for a congressional seat in California, but my point here is that he addresses so clearly our problems of governance at the structural level. And this is exactly what I see in Obama that I see in no other candidate: the glimmer, even if at the rhetorical level, of recognition that the wheels fell off a long time ago and the system itself needs an overhaul. What I like about this video is the Lessig spells out how he thinks it might be done. Maybe he’s right, maybe not, but calling it out feels like a big step to me.

I got fired up tonight for some reason.

January 27, 2008

Happenings

Filed under: FCC, Journalism, Media Ownership, Media Policy — crain @ 11:35 pm

Top bidders put up 2.78 billion in opening rounds of spectrum auction

FCC approves Comcast takeover by private equity firm Bain (w/ heavy ties to Mitt Romney)

FCC puts out new localism rules, Adelstein calls thems bunk

Afghan journalist sentenced to death for distributing an article deemed to have “insulted Islam”

November 12, 2007

Bankrupting Hate

Filed under: Random — crain @ 2:23 pm

Finally, these ignorant fools are going down:

Gods hates Westboro Baptist Church

This article is great and it says it all.

October 25, 2007

More about Comcast Internet blocking

Filed under: Net Neutrality — crain @ 7:36 pm

Eric Bangeman at Ars Technica hits it on the head. Read it here.

Comcast’s attempts to clarify its traffic shaping practices are having the opposite effect of what the company intends. As is the case with its nebulous bandwidth caps, customers can find themselves running afoul of what appears to be an arbitrary limitation imposed by the ISP. As a result, Comcast’s customers don’t really know that what they’re paying for, aside from a fast connection that may or may not give them access to the web sites and applications they want.

In a perfect free market, customers would be free to pack up in leave Comcast for greener and more open broadband pastures, but the competitive landscape in the US doesn’t always provide that kind of choice. More than a few Comcast customers are faced with the choice of Comcast or dial-up, leaving them with the Hobson’s choice of hoping their data packets can evade Comcast’s traffic shaping police or not having broadband service at all.

Deja vu. I was just thinking the same thing…

October 19, 2007

AP report: Comcast blocking certain web traffic

Filed under: Net Neutrality — crain @ 9:13 am

Comcast is secretly blocking peer-to-peer web traffic because, they argue, it takes up too much bandwidth. If consumers are paying premium prices for broadband access and Comcast ads are touting super-fast internet connections so that we can achieve “ultimate comcastic enlightenment” or whatever the cheese-marketing slogan is, then comcast should be investing in upgrading their networks rather than covertly blocking certain types of traffic. Yes, it’s within their legal rights to do this, because net neutrality is not mandatory under the law. So if Jane Consumer is an independent film maker who wants to distribute via Bit Torrrent (or if she wants to pirate music), good luck. But if she don’t like it, Jane Consumer can always switch her ISP. Wait, there are no other cable ISPs. Damnit.

Full Story

October 16, 2007

Whack-a-Murdoch

Filed under: Media Ownership, Random — crain @ 7:22 pm

Whack-a-Murdoch if you dare. Excellent.

September 27, 2007

Some thoughts on graduate school…

Filed under: Random — crain @ 3:28 pm

My neighbors and I were talking the other day about the information overload that comes as a part of grad education. Here’s a good metaphor we pieced together…

It’s like an intellectual free-climb. This wall you are climbing, this Olympus, is your field. Each concept or piece of writing or body of thought or mode of organizing the world that you come into contact with is a possible handhold. As you move through your education you try out all sorts of possibilities. There is no one way to climb this facade; the number of individual handholds is endless. Some concepts seem solid but you feel like many others could never support your weight. You try to develop a frame of reference, a map of where you’ve been, but your goal is never to reach any summit, only to establish a trajectory. To move in a direction. To strive for progress.

Your path is anything but linear, dependent upon reading lists, faculty research pursuits, assistantships, current socio-politico-economic events, and if there is time, even your own personal interests. As you climb, new footholds become available even as familiar outcroppings that you have relied on begin to crumble. Those you passed by, when taken from a new approach, may prove strong for you after all. Choose your battles, always keep an open mind. And remember, if all else fails, there is little shame in getting the hell off of the mountain and going to pizza hut.

September 17, 2007

Photosynth demo: Hyperlinking pictures

Filed under: New Tech — crain @ 3:53 pm

This demo of a microsoft project called photosynth is pretty neat stuff. A sort of “collective intelligence” and “meta-data” approach to dealing with images, a category of information in which search and combination techniques seem to lag behind other categories (such as words).

June 7, 2007

High School Football on YouTube?

Filed under: New Media/Old Media — crain @ 9:27 am

Get ready. Google via YouTube is poking a big digital toe into local tv broadcast. This article from Ars Technica talks about YouTube’s recent content distribution deal with “independently owned TV broadcaster” Hearst-Argyle Television.

The agreement with Hearst-Argyle Television will put local TV programming from five markets—Boston, Manchester, Sacramento, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore—onto dedicated channels on YouTube. The revenue sharing agreement is the first of such between YouTube and an independent TV station, according to the companies.

Although the majority of the currently-available content appears to be in the form of news clips, other local content available through the Hearst-Argyle channels will be weather, “entertainment videos,” local high school sports, other local TV shows, and local amateur entertainment.

June 5, 2007

Recent Project – NYT home page

Filed under: Random, The Changing News — crain @ 2:46 pm

I fell off the blog for a while this spring. I blame the emergence of nice weather, cross-Atlantic excursions, and finishing coursework for my degree! Granted, I do still have a ton of independent work to do this summer (including getting my video web logging study ready to submit for publication! more on that later), but I don’t have to physically sit in any classrooms. This makes me happy.

One of my projects for this quarter was a rhetorical design analysis of the New York Times home page. Overall, I’m glad I took the class that this project came out of, but I’ve found rhetorical analysis of design a little empty. I will completely own up to the fact that mine is no landmark study, but I did spend a fair amount of time looking at the NYT from the analytical lenses we were given by the prof and I came up wanting. I can definitely see the usefulness in a straight-up functional analysis of design as in human computer interaction and usability testing. I can also see the value of a cultural/rhetorical study of the NYT home page as a “text” having all sorts of layers of political meanings, inclusions and exclusions, frames of discourse, etc. Separate the rhetorical examination and the design analysis and it’s easier to digest.

But we were supposed to look at the rhetoric of the design and I ended up sort of lightly treading through various authors’ semiotic frameworks (the icon is a sign, a picture, a symbol, etc.) and talking about Gestalt, which is de-bunked at this point…

I guess I didn’t come up with anything particularly constructive using the analytical tools we were directed to use. But this isn’t really my area of research and we get out what we put in… Anyway, I’d be more interested in looking closely at the relationship between the print and online versions of the paper or alternative methods for presenting information such as the interactive map I talk about in the project (in the Verbal Codings, Visual Codings section). This is a great example of leveraging the web to present information in a useful way and in a manner that could never happen in print.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.