Sex and Violence MTRCB Urged To Monitor TV Afternoon Sex-Drama Shows

By NESTOR CUARTERO February 20, 2012, 2:00am

JUST A THOUGHT: By plucking her petals, you do not gather the beauty of the flower.. Rabindrath Tagore MANILA, Philippines RATED SPG: What could have inspired the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board to adopt a new classification for TV programs? The MTRCB announced during a February 9 press conference that henceforth, some shows will be prefaced by the agency warning, Strong Parental Guidance or SPG. According to board Chair Grace Poe-Llamanzares, programs classified SPG may contain more serious topic and theme, which may not be advisable for children to watch except under the vigilant guidance and presence of a parent or adult. MTRCB ON MIDDLE GROUND: Ms. Poe-Llamanzares said that in implementing the revised rating system for television, the board gives due consideration to the need to balance the interest of the state to protect and promote the development and welfare of the youth with the interest of the broadcast industry towards freedom of expression. A TV info-mercial proclaiming the merits of an SPG rating has been airing on various networks. It stars the family of Zoren Legaspi, Carmina Villaroel and their two children. The MTRCBs revised rating system that underlines Strong in the acronym SPG must have been a result of the proliferation of too many sex-drama shows in the afternoon. Networks 2 and 7 have been mining the afternoon block with teleseryes that tackle adult themes, complete with suggestive scenes of intimacy. The thinking is that these shows air in the afternoon when children of school age are in school while mothers, their helpers, and very young children are at home. Nevertheless, these programs with adult themes are watched by teens and other young people. Havent they heard of out of school youths? Or students who cut classes? Or children too advanced and eager to learn about sex and violence? Instead of just suggesting an SPG rating, cannot the MTRCB discourage networks from producing and airing such questionable material in the afternoon when they are so easily accessible to everybody?

The MTRCB recognizes the danger posed by the airing of such programs to the minds of young people. In crafting the SPG rating, the board explains thus: Ang programang ito ay rated SPG. Striktong patnubay at gabay ng magulang ang kailangan. May maseselang tema, eksenang karahasan, droga, lenggwahe, sekswal at katatakutang maaaring hindi angkop sa mga batang manonood.

Source: "MTRCB Urged To Monitor TV Afternoon Sex-Drama Shows | The Manila Bulletin Newspaper Online." The Manila Bulletin Newspaper Online. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://mb.com.ph/node/351879/mtrcb-urged-to-monitor-tv-afternoon->.

Violence in Media Entertainment

Taken from "Violence in Media Entertainment. <http://www.media awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/violence_entertainment.cfm>.

Between 2000 B.C. and 44 A.D., the ancient Egyptians entertained themselves with plays re-enacting the murder of their god Osiris -- and the spectacle, history tells us, led to a number of copycat killings. The ancient Romans were given to lethal spectator sports as well, and in 380 B.C. Saint Augustine lamented that his society was addicted to gladiator games and "drunk with the fascination of bloodshed." Violence has always played a role in entertainment. But there's a growing consensus that, in recent years, something about media violence has changed. For one thing, there's more of it. Laval University professors Guy Paquette and Jacques de Guise studied six major Canadian television networks over a seven-year period, examining films, situation comedies, dramatic series, and children's programming (though not cartoons). The study found that between 1993 and 2001, incidents of physical violence increased by 378 per cent. TV shows in 2001 averaged 40 acts of violence per hour. Francophone viewers experienced the greatest increase. Although physical violence on the three anglophone networks in the study increased by 183 per cent, on their francophone counterparts it increased by 540 per cent. One network, TQS, accounted for just under half (49 per cent) of all the physical violence on the networks studied. Paquette and de Guise also identified a disturbing increase in psychological violence, especially in the last two years. The study found that incidents of psychological violence remained relatively stable from 1993 to 1999, but increased 325 per cent from 1999 to 2001. Such incidents now occur more frequently than physical violence on both francophone and anglophone networks. Canadians are also heavily influenced by American programming. Paquette and de Guise found that over 80 per cent of the TV violence aired in Canada originates in the U.S. They speculate that francophone networks and stations may have a higher incidence of violence because they broadcast more movies, and this, in turn may be due to lower production budgets. Canadian-made violence is most likely to appear on private networks, which broadcast three times as many violent acts as public networks do. Overall, 87.9 per cent of all violent acts appear before 9 p.m., and 39 per cent air before 8 p.m. -- at a time when children are likely to be watching. More Graphic, More Sexual, More Sadistic Other research indicates that media violence has not just increased in quantity; it has also become much more graphic, much more sexual, and much more sadistic. Explicit pictures of slow-motion bullets exploding from people's chests, and dead bodies surrounded by pools of blood, are now commonplace fare. Millions of viewers worldwide, many of them children, watch female World Wrestling Entertainment wrestlers try to tear out each other's hair and rip off each other's clothing. And one of the top-selling video

games in the world, Grand Theft Auto, is programmed so players can beat prostitutes to death with baseball bats after having sex with them. The Globalization of Media Concerns about media violence have grown as television and movies have acquired a global audience. When UNESCO surveyed children in 23 countries around the world in 1998, it discovered that 91 per cent of children had a television in their home -- and not just in the U.S., Canada and Europe, but also in the Arab states, Latin America, Asia and Africa. More than half (51 per cent) of boys living in war zones and high-crime areas chose action heroes as role models, ahead of any other images; and a remarkable 88 per cent of the children surveyed could identify the Arnold Schwarzenegger character from the film Terminator. UNESCO reported that the Terminator "seems to represent the characteristics that children think are necessary to cope with difficult situations." Violence Without Consequences or Moral Judgment The notion of violence as a means of problem solving is reinforced by entertainment in which both villains and heroes resort to violence on a continual basis. The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), which has studied violence in television, movies and music videos for a decade, reports that nearly half of all violence is committed by the "good guys." Less than 10 per cent of the TV shows, movies and music videos that were analyzed contextualized the violence or explored its human consequences. The violence was simply presented as justifiable, natural and inevitable -- the most obvious way to solve the problem. PG: Parental Guidance? Busy parents who want to protect their children from media violence have a difficult task before them. The CMPA found that violence appears on all major television networks and cable stations, making it impossible for channel surfers to avoid it. Nightly news coverage has become another concern. In spite of falling crime rates across North America, disturbing images of violent crime continue to dominate news broadcasting. As news shows compete with other media for audiences, many news producers have come to rely on the maxim: "If it bleeds, it leads." Violence and death, they say, keep the viewer numbers up. Good news doesn't. As well, movie ratings are becoming less and less trustworthy in terms of giving parents real guidance on shows with unsuitable content. PG-13 movies tend to make more money than R-rated films, and as a result, the industry is experiencing a "ratings creep": shows that the Motion Picture Association of America would once have rated R are now being rated as PG13, in order to increase box-office profits and rental sales. In movie theatres, there is some control over who watches what. But at home, there's little to stop children from watching a restricted movie on one of the many emerging specialty channels. Kids may also have access to adult video games at the local video store. In December 2001, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission reported that retailers allowed 78 per cent of unaccompanied minors, ages 13 to 16, to purchase video games rated "mature."

To make supervision even more problematic, American children often have their own entertainment equipment. According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, 57 per cent of kids aged 8 to 16 have TVs in their bedrooms, and 39 per cent have gaming equipment. A Youth Subculture of Violence While many parents are concerned about the graphic violence and put-down humour in many kids' shows, there's a growing subculture of violence that parental radar often misses. Music and Music Videos Music and music videos are pushing into new and increasingly violent territory. When singer Jordan Knight, formerly of the popular New Kids on the Block group, released a solo album in 1999, Canadian activists called for a boycott of the album because it included a song advocating date rape. And when the controversial rap artist Eminem came to Toronto in 2000, politicians and activists unsuccessfully called for the government to bar him from the country, on the grounds that his violent lyrics promoted hatred against women. For instance, his song Kimgraphically depicts him murdering his wife; and Kill Youdescribes how he plans to rape and murder his mother. In spite of (or perhaps because of) his promotion of violence, Eminem continues to be a commercial success. HisMarshall Mathers release sold 679,567 copies in Canada in 2000, and was the year's best-selling album. And The Eminem Show topped Canadian charts for months in 2002, selling, at one point, approximately 18,000 copies a week. Eminem's success is not exceptional. Extremely violent lyrics have moved into the mainstream of the music industry. The Universal Music Group, the world's largest music company, lists Eminem, Dr Dre and Limp Bizkit all of whom have been criticized for their violent and misogynist lyrics among its top-grossing artists. And Madonna's 2002 music video What It Feels Like For a Girl contained such graphic violence that even MTV refused to air it more than once. Video Games Violence in general, and sexual violence in particular, is also a staple of the video game industry. The current trend is for players to be the bad guys, acting out criminal fantasies and earning points for attacking and killing innocent bystanders. Although these games are rated M, for mature audiences, it's common knowledge that they are popular among preteens and teenaged boys. For example, players in Grand Theft Auto 3 (the best-selling game ever for PlayStation 2) earn points by carjacking, and stealing drugs from street people and pushers. InCarmageddon, players are rewarded for mowing down pedestrians -- sounds of cracking bones add to the realistic effect. The first-person shooter in Duke Nukem hones his skills by using pornographic posters of women for target practice, and earns bonus points for shooting naked and bound prostitutes and strippers who beg, "Kill me." In the gamePostal, players act out the part of the Postal Dude, who earns points by randomly shooting everyone who appears -- including people walking out of church, and members of a high school band. Postal Dude is programmed to say, "Only my gun understands me."

The level of violence in the gaming habits of young people is disturbingly high. In MNet's 2001 study Young Canadians In A Wired World (which found that 32 per cent of kids 9 to 17 are playing video games "every day or almost every day"), 60 per cent cited action/combat as their favourite genre. Stephen Kline of Simon Fraser University reported similar findings in his 1998 study of over 600 B.C. teens. Twenty-five per cent of the teens he surveyed played between seven and 30 hours a week and when asked for their one favourite game, their choice was "overwhelmingly" in the action/adventure genre. Web Sites Virtual violence is also readily available on the World Wide Web. Children and young people can download violent lyrics (including lyrics that have been censored from retail versions of songs), and visit Web sites that feature violent images and video clips. Much of the violence is also sexual in nature. For example, the site Who Would You Kill? allows players to select real-life stars of television shows, and then describe how they would kill them off in the series. The entries frequently include bizarre acts of degradation and sexual violence. Murder is also a staple of the Web site newgrounds.com, which features a number of Flash movies showing celebrities being degraded and killed. When MNet surveyed 5,682 Canadian young people in 2001, the newgrounds site ranked twelfth in popularity among 11- and 12-year-old boys. Other popular sites such as gorezone.com and rotten.com feature real-life pictures of accident scenes, torture and mutilation. In 2000, rotten.com was investigated by the FBI for posting photographs depicting cannibalism. Many kids view these sites as the online equivalent of harmless horror movies. But their pervasive combination of violence and sexual imagery is disturbing. Gorezone's front-page disclaimer describes the images on its site as "sexually oriented and of an erotic nature" and then warns viewers that they also contain scenes of death, mutilation and dismemberment. The disclaimer then normalizes this activity by stating, "my interest in scenes of death, horrifying photos and sexual matters, which is both healthy and normal, is generally shared by adults in my community." Anecdotal evidence suggests that gore sites are well known to Canadian schoolchildren, although parents and teachers are often unaware of their existence. In MNet's 2001 survey, 70 per cent of high school boys said that they had visited such sites. The presence of violence, degradation and cruelty in a range of media means that children are exposed to a continuum of violence, which ranges from the in-your-face attitude of shows like South Park to extreme depictions of misogyny and sadism. Young people generally take the lead when it comes to accessing new media but the MNet survey found that only 16 per cent of children say their parents know a great deal of what they do online. This is particularly problematic, given the results of a 1999 AOL survey which that found online activities are emerging as a central facet of family life; and that a majority of parents believe that being online is better for their children than watching television.
Source: "Violence in Media Entertainment." Media Awareness Network. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/violence_entertainment.cfm>.

Sex and Violence Impact of Media Violence Tips

In Sex and violence by Common Sense Media, on 11.19.2010

The facts: Kids' TV shows are really violent Its not your imagination. Media has become more violent, graphic, sexual, and sadistic (Media Awareness Network, 2010). Media violence is especially damaging to children under 8 because they cannot easily tell the difference between real life and fantasy (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995). Research indicates that when they are exposed to media violence, kids can become more aggressive, become insensitive to violence, have more nightmares, and develop a fear of being harmed (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001). A sample of 77 PG-13-rated films included 2,251 violent actions, with almost half resulting in death (UCLA, 2007). Media violence does affect kids The typical 11-year-old has seen nearly 8,000 murders on TV. Yet most of us arent shocked. Thats because weve all grown used to seeing a lot of violence especially in movies and video games. Studies tell us that kids who see a lot may be more aggressive. They may even learn that hurting others is OK. They need you to help them understand violence real and virtual. What is media violence? Media violence ranges from cartoon slapstick to bloody gore, and its in everything our kids watch and play. If youve tried a T- or M-rated video game lately, or seen a cop show or music video, youve seen this kind of violence. Its in practically every form of kids entertainment. Video games allow players to attack and kill one another, sometimes in very graphic ways. Studies show that aggressive video gaming affects kids. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics says that playing violent video games leads to adolescent violence like smoking leads to lung cancer.

Why it matters When kids watch media and play games loaded with violence, studies show it can lead to harmful acts and bullying. And the more aggressive behavior kids see, the more it becomes an acceptable way to settle conflicts. They may even become less sensitive to those who suffer from real violence. Younger kids are particularly vulnerable to the health effects of media violence especially kids under 7, who often cant tell the difference between fantasy and reality. The younger kids are, the more longlasting the effects. These include nightmares and anxiety, and fearing that the world is scary and mean. Tips for parents of all kids Explain consequences. What parent hasnt heard but theres no blood as an excuse for watching a movie or playing a video game? Explain the true consequences of violence. Point out how unrealistic it is for people to get away with violent behavior. Keep an eye on the clock. Dont let kids spend too long with virtual violence. The more time spent immersed in violent content, the greater its impact and influence. Teach conflict resolution. Most kids know that hitting someone on the head isnt the way to solve a disagreement, but verbal cruelty is also violent. Teach kids how to use their words responsibly to stand up for themselves without throwing a punch. Know your kids media. Check out ratings and, when there are none, find out about content. Content in a 1992 R-rated movie is now acceptable for a PG-13. Streaming online videos are not rated and can showcase very brutal stuff. Advice by age 2- to 4 year-old kids often see cartoon violence. But keep them away from anything that shows physical aggression as a means of conflict resolution, because theyll imitate what they see. For 5- to 7-year-olds, cartoon rough-and-tumble, slapstick, and fantasy violence are okay, but violence that could result in death or serious injury is too scary. 8- to 10-year-olds can handle action-hero sword fighting or gunplay as long as theres no gore. For 11- to 12-year-olds, historical action is okay, including battles, fantasy clashes, and duels. But close-ups of gore or graphic violence (alone or combined with sexual situations) arent recommended. Kids ages 13-17 can and will see shoot-em-ups, blow-em-ups, high-tech violence, accidents with disfigurement or death, anger, and gang fighting. Point out that the violence portrayed hurts and causes suffering. And limit time exposure to violence, especially in video games.

Most M-rated games arent right for kids under 17 years of age. The kid down the street may have the latest cop-killer game, but that doesnt mean its good for him. The ultra-violent behavior, often combined with sexual images, is not good for developing brains. Just because your childs friend is allowed to play violent games or watch violent movies doesnt mean they are okay for your child.
Source: "Impact of Media Violence Tips." Reviews and Ratings for Family Movies, TV Shows, Websites, Video Games, Books and Music. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.commonsensemedia.org/advice-forparents/impact-media-violence-tips>.

Ethics Essay on the role and ethics of Mass Media in India

MAAHIR VIRANI

Mass media has a prominent role to play in modern society. It can bring about radical changes and improve social situation as it influences our social, civil, cultural, political, economic and aesthetic outlook. Modernization has converted media into an indispensable feature of human activity. However, factors like age, education, economic condition, personal needs and availability of proper components decide the quantum and frequency of media use. This is evident from the fact that most media centres are located in urban areas. The majority of consumers of media products are also concentrated in and around cities and towns. It is rightly said that media use is an index of development. The greater the use, the higher will be the level of education. As social beings, humans are sustained by mutual interactions, exchange of ideas, information and views with the fellow beings. Illiteracy, which is nothing but absence of education and information is a stumbling block for any aspect of development-social, economic, political, cultural and even spiritual. Media has become the harbinger of development through the removal of these roadblocks and the provision of information and knowledge. In a democratic country like India, the ultimate power lies with the people. But a democratic society needs vigilant and informed people who are able to see through the gimmicks of political parties and politicians. Media creates such valuable citizens.Besides, media has done much good to society by exposing various scams, scandals, frauds, embezzlements and many other cases of corruption leading to initiation of enquiries and other processes of prosecution against the perpetrators of these crimes. History is witness that press has been instrumental in putting an end to atrocities and bringing the downfall of ruthless dictators. In India, vernacular press did the job of uniting people against the oppressive British rule and triggered its end in the country.

10

However, media too suffers from some pitfalls, growing consumerism and materialism have adversely impacted our media. The partisan attitude, sectarian outlook and biased individualism in some sections of media are a testimony that media too is susceptible to harmful influences. Often, in fierce rivalries, ethics of journalism are thrown out of the window to settle old scores. Running after opportunistic gains is another malady our media suffers from. The incidents of throwing are against the ethics of media. Deliberately creating sensational stuff to attract with reality- is another tactic that media must avoid.

Source: "Essay on the Role and Ethics of Mass Media in India | Articles | Knowledge Hub." Do You Want to Publish Your Articles? Publish Your Articles. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.publishyourarticles.org/knowledge-hub/articles/understanding-the-role-and-ethics-ofmass-media-in-india.html>.

11

Media Ethics Today The Difference Between Social Responsibility and Libertarian Theory
By: Brenna Coleman Sep 21, 2009

The need for media ethics rises as news reporting becomes driven more and more by the free market rather than the truth. As forms of communication evolve, avenues of news reporting increase, and the scope of media influence expands, media ethics becomes an increasingly important issue in modern society. People are exposed to television news, radio broadcasting, newspaper articles, and now digital media as well. The mass media is an intrinsic part of everyday lives. What exactly drives the powerful Western media government mandates, social responsibility and the quest for truth, or is it the financial goals of large media corporations? In the book, Four Theories of the Press written in 1963, Wilbur Schramm, Fred Siebert, and Theodore Peterson present four different models of the media. Two of them are relevant to the Western media today, the social responsibility system and the Libertarian system. The former has its roots in mid-twentieth century society and revolves around ethics in the media, but has always existed as an ideal; the latter is more prevalent today, and by nature threatens media ethics. The Social Responsibility System for News Reporting In the social responsibility theory of the press, the media is driven to benefit the public. It expects journalists to answer society's need for truth, requires an open and diverse debate on public issues, and honest updates of current events. In this model, media ethics is automatic because the press is free to serve its purpose for the public, as opposed to special interest groups or advertisers. Another condition of the social responsibility model, is that news reporting cannot be dependent on groups that may encourage bias and unethical practices in exchange for financial support. The British BBC news and the American NPR news are both excellent examples of Western media outlets which fall into the social responsibility category. They depend on their public audience for compensation, not advertisers, and therefore are not worried about corporate interests. They both share a focus on education, instead of merely trying to entertain their listeners and viewers. They have to focus on social responsibility and respect media ethics in order to satisfy the public. The Libertarian System of News Reporting The Libertarian model is more popular in Western media than the social responsibility model. In this system, the freedom of the press is endless; it is not constrained by the government, by society, or by media ethics. Instead of being a sea of different ideas, opinions, and voices however, news reporting in the Libertarian system is indeed restricted. It may not be as limited and biased as the media found in an authoritarian society, which

12

would serve the government's interests, but it is still constrained by its financial dependence. Western media outlets, particularly television stations, rely heavily on advertisers for money, and therefore design their news reporting to support and never conflict with the will of their financial supporters. Also, because of the deregulation movement of the past fifteen years, Congress and the FCC have allowed more freedom within the telecommunications field, loosening laws that were at one time designed to ensure social responsibility and ethics in the media. Today, a large percentage of Western media outlets, especially those in America, are part of a handful of media conglomerates, companies which have to focus on increasing their profits every year. Media Ethics in the Future Over time, the free market based Libertarian model has resulted in a number of problems, from corporate and political censorship, to media bias. Stories, that would logically be important are not always reported, and are in fact substituted with more entertaining news. For example, major world issues, such as the ongoing conflict in Somalia, are seldom covered in the news, while media outlets become saturated with sensationalist news such as the death of Michael Jackson. Also, without the requirement of social responsibility, the Western media tends to cover only the political candidates that can afford advertisements, limiting the coverage of various political movements. These tendencies result in a lack of media ethics and a deluge of entertaining information, but not necessarily the most important information. Major humanitarian issues can go unnoticed for years, environmental problems are covered intermittently, and many voices remain unheard. Media continues to change however. With the internet, there are new opportunities for information to be spread and knowledge to be shared. The media system of the future may not fall into either the social responsibility or Libertarian model, as the public is no longer dependent on mass media sources for news. What role media ethics will play in the new system only the future can tell.

Source: Media Ethics Today: The Difference Between Social Responsibility and Libertarian Theory | Suite101.com http://brennacoleman.suite101.com/media-ethics-todaya151237#ixzz1n2SABYsQ

13

Who Owns the Media? Why media ownership matters

By Amy Goodman and David Goodman Special to The Times

George Bush must have been delighted to learn from a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll that 56 percent of Americans still think Iraq...

George Bush must have been delighted to learn from a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll that 56 percent of Americans still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the start of the war, while six in 10 said they believe Iraq provided direct support to the alQaida terrorist network notions that have long since been thoroughly debunked by everyone from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee to both of Bush's handpicked weapons inspectors, Charles Duelfer and David Kay. Americans believe these lies not because they are stupid, but because they are good media consumers. Our media have become an echo chamber for those in power. Rather than challenge the fraudulent claims of the Bush administration, we've had a media acting as a conveyor belt for the government's lies. As the Pentagon has learned, deploying the American media is more powerful than any bomb. The explosive effect is amplified as a few pro-war, pro-government media moguls consolidate their grip over the majority of news outlets. Media monopoly and militarism go hand in hand. When it comes to issues of war and peace, the results of having a compliant media are as deadly to our democracy as they are to our soldiers. Why do the corporate media cheerlead for war? One answer lies in the corporations themselves the ones that own the major news outlets. At the time of the first Persian Gulf War, CBS was owned by Westinghouse and NBC by General Electric. Two of the major nuclear weapons manufacturers owned two of the major networks. Westinghouse and GE made most of the parts for many of the weapons in the Persian Gulf War. It was no surprise, then, that much of the coverage on those networks looked like a military hardware show. We see reporters in the cockpits of war planes, interviewing pilots about how it feels to be at the controls. We almost never see journalists at the target end, asking people huddled in their homes what it feels like not to know what the next moment will bring. The media have a responsibility to show the true face of war. It is bloody. It is brutal. Real people die. Women and children are killed. Families are wiped out; villages are razed. If the media would show for one week the same unsanitized images of war that the rest of the

14

world sees, people in the U.S. would say no, that war is not an answer to conflict in the 21st century. But we don't see the real images of war. We don't need government censors, because we have corporations sanitizing the news. A study released last month by American University's School of Communications revealed that media outlets acknowledged they self-censored their reporting on the Iraq invasion out of concerns about public reaction to graphic images and content. The media organizations in charge of vetting our images of war have become fewer and bigger and the news more uniform and gung ho. Six huge corporations now control the major U.S. media: Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (FOX, HarperCollins, New York Post, Weekly Standard, TV Guide, DirecTV and 35 TV stations), General Electric (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, Universal Pictures and 28 TV stations), Time Warner (AOL, CNN, Warner Bros., Time and its 130-plus magazines), Disney (ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, 10 TV and 72 radio stations), Viacom (CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, Simon & Schuster and 183 U.S. radio stations), and Bertelsmann (Random House and its more than 120 imprints worldwide, and Gruner + Jahr and its more than 110 magazines in 10 countries). As Phil Donahue, the former host of MSNBC's highest-rated show who was fired by the network in February 2003 for bringing on anti-war voices, told "Democracy Now!," "We have more [TV] outlets now, but most of them sell the Bowflex machine. The rest of them are Jesus and jewelry. There really isn't diversity in the media anymore. Dissent? Forget about it." The lack of diversity in ownership helps explain the lack of diversity in the news. When George W. Bush first came to power, the media watchers Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) looked at who appeared on the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC. Ninety-two percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male, and where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there was even less diversity of opinion on the airwaves. During the critical two weeks before and after Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations where he made his case for war, FAIR found that just three out of 393 sources fewer than 1 percent were affiliated with anti-war activism. Three out of almost 400 interviews. And that was on the "respectable" evening news shows of CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS. These are not media that are serving a democratic society, where a diversity of views is vital to shaping informed opinions. This is a well-oiled propaganda machine that is repackaging government spin and passing it off as journalism. For the media moguls, even this parody of political "diversity" is too much. So as Gen. Colin Powell led the war on Iraq, his son, Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), led the war on diversity of voices at home.

15

In the spring of 2003, Michael Powell tried to hand over the airwaves and newspapers to fewer and fewer tycoons by further loosening restrictions on how many media outlets a single company could own. Powell tried to scrap 30-year-old rules that limited the reach of any television network to no more than 35 percent of the national population, and limits on cross-ownership that, for example, prevented newspapers from buying television or radio stations in the same city. The new rules would have allowed a broadcast network to buy up stations that together reached 45 percent of the national population. The attack on the existing media-ownership rules came from predictable corners: Both Viacom, which owns CBS, and Rupert Murdoch's conservative FOX News Channel were already in violation, and would be forced to sell off stations to come into compliance with the 35-percent limit. The rule change would enable Murdoch to control the airwaves of entire cities. That would be fine with Bush and the Powells, since Murdoch is one of their biggest boosters. Murdoch declared in February 2003 that George W. Bush "will either go down in history as a very great president or he'll crash and burn. I'm optimistic it will be the former by a ratio of 2 to 1." Murdoch leaves nothing to chance: His FOX News Channel is doing all it can to help. It looked like Powell, backed by the Bush White House and with Republican control of Congress, would have no trouble ramming through these historic rule changes. The broadcast industry left nothing to chance: Between 1998 and 2004, broadcasters spent a boggling $249 million lobbying the federal government, including spending $27 million on federal candidates and lawmakers. This would normally be called bribery. At the FCC, it's just business as usual. You would think that FCC deregulation, affecting millions of Americans, would get major play in the media. But the national networks knew that if people found out about how one media mogul could own nearly everything you watch, hear and read in a city, there would be revolt. The solution for them was simple: They just didn't cover the issue for a year. The only thing the networks did was to join together and you thought they were competitors? in a brief filed with the FCC to call for media deregulation. And then, something remarkable happened: Media activists an unlikely coalition of liberals and conservatives mounted a national campaign to defeat Powell and stop the corporate sell-off. The FCC received 2 million letters and e-mails, most of them opposing the sell-off. The Prometheus Radio Project, a grass-roots media activism group, sued to stop the sale of our airwaves, and won in federal court last June. These are hopeful signals that the days of backroom deals by media titans are numbered. Powell announced his resignation as chairman of the FCC in January. Arguably the worst FCC chairman in history, Powell led with singular zeal the effort to auction off the public airwaves to the highest corporate bidder. In so doing, he did us all a favor: For a brief moment, he pulled back the covers on the incestuous world of media ownership to expose the corruption and rot for all to see.

16

Kevin Martin, Bush's newly appointed FCC chairman, will, according to an FCC insider, be even worse than Powell. Leading conservative and right-wing religious groups have been quietly lobbying the White House for Martin to chair the FCC. Martin voted with Powell on key regulations favoring media consolidation, and in addition has been a self-appointed indecency czar. The indecency furor conveniently grabs headlines and pushes for the regulation of content, while Martin and the media moguls plan sweetheart deregulation deals to achieve piecemeal what they couldn't push through all at once. This is the true indecency afflicting media today. The major media conglomerates are among the most powerful on the planet. The onrush of digital convergence and broadband access in the workplaces and homes of America will radically change the way we work, play and communicate. Fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) from the regional Bells, Voice over IP (VoIP) telephony, bundled services from cable companies, and increased capacity in satellite and wireless technologies will transform the platforms on which we communicate. Who owns these platforms, what is delivered over them and, fundamentally, in whose interest they work are critical issues before us now. Given the wealth of the media companies and their shrewd donations into our political process, the advocates for the public interest are in far too short a supply. A blow against media ownership consolidation now or in the future will have farreaching implications, as critical information gains exposure to a caring, active public. Instead of fake reality TV, maybe the media will start to cover the reality of people struggling to get by and of the victories that happen every day in our communities, and in strife-torn regions around the globe. When people get information, they are empowered. We have to ensure that the airwaves are open for more of that. Our motto at "Democracy Now!" is to break the sound barrier. We call ourselves the exception to the rulers. We believe all media should be.

17

Credibility of Media Can we trust our media today?

By: Allison Buchan-Terrell Thursday, November 2, 2006

My father and I constantly debate the state of the media and journalism. He usually begins with the premise, all journalists are scum, and I usually defend journalists. However, its becoming harder to defend journalism when I have this wrenching feeling something is deeply wrong with the profession and the monolith we call the media. Though Im only a student journalist, I still feel the sting of scathing critiques on the profession and feel responsible for some of the ills plaguing it. Media face problems like concentration into conglomerates; fabrication, embellishment, or spinning of news; and neglecting to ask the important questions or question government. When these things happen, the media and journalists fail the public they are supposed to serve. In June 2006, the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications released a report on the state of Canadian media expressing grave concern over the centralization of coverage, ownership, and diversity of opinion and information in coverage. It concluded many conglomerates centralize their news coverage and close local or foreign bureaus to cut costs. Some might say the individual media outlets have autonomy, but media conglomerates like CanWest, Bell Globemedia, CHUM, and Rogers are ultimately businesses looking to turn a profit. At the end of the day, perhaps only a few voices are represented in numerous papers. When one or two media conglomerates own most Canadian newspapers, the opinions arent tremendously diverse and citizens cant effectively participate in debate. This media model doesnt service the need for local coverage, diverse opinions, and thoughtful questions. News, information, and discussion are vital to Canadian democracy and people need multiple mechanisms to acquire information and participate in larger societal debates. Media organizations are an important part of that debate. Journalism wasnt supposed to be a business; it was supposed to be a service to society, an anchor of healthy democracy. Media conglomerates arent entirely to blame; journalists have equally contributed to the predicament through fraud and by neglecting the important questions. One poignant example is The New York Times coverage of the Duke University lacrosse rape case. The Times coverage of the case has been described as trial by newspaper; they delivered the prosecutorial case as established fact, often ignoring exculpatory evidence from the defence.

18

In the end, DNA testing proved the accused lacrosse players werent involved, but by then their lives had been ruined by constant front page coverage in The Times. Rather than looking for sensational stories, journalists should pursue stories in the public interest, ask the important questions, and examine facts critically. When they dont, the media betray the public and their duty to a thriving democracy. Journalism rests entirely on credibility, and when journalistic fraud shatters that credibility, journalism loses the publics trust. This isnt to say mistakes will never happen; journalists are only human. But its important how journalists handle these mistakes. People feel they cant trust journalists. In a recent University of Indiana study participants considered The Daily Show, a comedy program, as substantial as network news in its current events coverage; host Jon Stewart was considered one of the most trusted journalists. That says a lot about the problems plaguing journalism. I believe the onus is on the profession itself to regain the publics respect. Its time for journalists to examine the profession and figure out where it all went wrong and how to fix it.

19

NEWS MEDIA'S CREDIBILITY CRUMBLING

Journalists seen as slightly more believable than used-car salesmen
By: Timothy W. Maier Published: 05/08/2004 at 1:00 AM

Editors note: WorldNetDaily is pleased to have a content-sharing agreement with Insight magazine, the bold Washington publication not afraid to ruffle establishment feathers. Subscribe to Insight at WorldNetDailys online store and save 71 percent off the cover price.

President Bush recently turned to Brit Hume of Fox News and told him flat out that he prefers to get his news from White House and national-security staff, rather than as reports from journalists. Though that may have stunned the media elite, many ordinary Americans cheered. For two decades polls increasingly have indicated public dismay at the spin and fantasies of the press.

In fact, a recent Gallup Poll says Americans rate the trustworthiness of journalists at about the level of politicians and as only slightly more credible than used-car salesmen. The poll suggests that only 21 percent of Americans believe journalists have high ethical standards, ranking them below auto mechanics but tied with members of Congress. More precisely, the poll notes that only one in four people believe what they read in the newspapers. Chicago Tribune Editor Charles M. Madigan may have put it best when he offered this advice: If you are a journalist, you should probably just assume that you come across as a liar. A 2004 study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, part of Columbia Universitys storied Graduate School of Journalism, underscores Madigans observation. Since 1985, believability of the daily newspaper has fallen by a quarter, from 80 percent in 1985 to 59 percent in 2002, notes the study, which includes data gathered by the Pew Research Center to form its conclusions. The study also points out that there has been a rapid decline in newspaper readership since the 1980s, with slightly more than half of Americans, 54 percent, reading a newspaper during the week. The three television network news divisions and local news also saw significant drops from 1985, when they were all above 80 percent for believability, the study reveals.

20

A 1999 survey conducted for the American Society of Newspaper Editors also points out that about 53 percent of the public view the press as out of touch with mainstream America, while 78 percent think journalists pay more attention to the interests of their editors than their readers. Indeed, the recent humiliation of the once highly regarded journalist Jack Kelley of USA Today and former New York Times rising star Jayson Blair hardly shocked the public. About 22 percent told a Pew survey in 2003 that they thought the unethical practices of Blair, which included fabricating sources and events, occur frequently among journalists, while 36 percent said they thought wrongdoing happened occasionally. Another 58 percent believed journalists didnt care about inaccuracies. A 2002 Harris Poll produced similar results. In the age of Enron and WorldCom disasters, even accountants scored higher on trust than journalists. That same survey said Americans tended to trust clergy, teachers, doctors, police officers and the president, while those at the bottom were Congress members, corporate leaders and journalists. I never bought into the polls, says Ted Gup, a former Washington Post and Time reporter who is author of The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives. Indeed, that 2002 Harris poll noted that even 51 percent of the pollsters say they dont trust polls, so who is to be believed? I think journalists play a very big role in the feelings about the world, and anyone who is that influential is going to attract criticism, Gup says. But I still notice that when a politician and journalist walk into a room, [people] gravitate toward them. I dont think the public is going to run them out of town on a rail. And yet, Gup observes, it breaks my heart whenever a journalist is outed as unethical. You know, Janet Cooke was a friend of mine, he recalled about the disgraced Washington Post reporter who had to give back a Pulitzer Prize for fabricating a story in 1981. Ten years after it happened, I bumped into her in a grocery story and she saw me and rushed into my arms and gave me a big hug. I couldnt remember her name. I blocked it out because the pain was so big. While Gup says he has no reason to believe the number of dishonest journalists is greater than in the ranks of politicians, stockbrokers or priests, it nevertheless deeply concerns him. How we are perceived affects our credibility, he says.

21

In the last two decades nearly two dozen writers have been caught breaking the unwritten canons of journalism. And certainly the recent DVD release of Shattered Glass, the gripping and frightening story of Stephen Glass, a serial liar at the New Republic, is not likely to restore faith in the craft. Glass stories about computer hackers and drunken Young Republican orgies all fabricated are as legendary as the fictional notes, phony corporate websites and bogus business cards he created to cover his fraud. To the public, Shattered Glass likely will reinforce the Hollywood stereotype of journalists as sleazy and insensitive attack dogs with no regard for the truth, but it also should be a wake-up call for journalists. For me, I think its editorial leadership, says Adam Penenberg, the former Forbes Digital Tool reporter who helped expose Glass. Author of Tragic Indifference: One Mans Battle With the Auto Industry Over the Dangers of SUVS, he says that even when I worked at Forbes, no one ever gave me a piece of paper to sign about ethics. Penenberg believes an ethics guideline on the dos and donts such as not altering quotes, avoiding use of anonymous sources, not holding positions that could be considered a conflict of interest for a reporter, and not owning or purchasing stock before or after writing about a company would clear up a lot of gray areas between reporters and editors. Creating an ethics standard of the sort that Fortune 500 companies require of their employees would put the fear of God into reporters, he says. Alex Jones, director of the Kennedy Schools Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and a former media critic for the New York Times, says many media organizations have a strict ethics-standards policy. Coauthor of The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family Behind the New York Times, he notes that the Times has very rigorous standards, but says rules that are obvious to the profession, such as not plagiarizing, hardly need to be put formally into a code. You dont have those types of rules. You have an assumption of professionalism, he says. That assumption apparently went astray at the Times, but the Blair incident has caused the paper to move aggressively to fix problems. For instance, it finally has acknowledged that it took, without proper attribution, a quote from a 1997 Insight story about singer Pat Boone and heavy metal. The Times explained on March 7 that a request for acknowledgment went astray for seven years. Meanwhile, it remains unclear under what circumstances the Times must include attribution when picking up the work of other journalists.

22

Penenberg argues for a strict set of rules to eliminate the gray areas. For example, is it ethical to alter a quote to fix grammatical errors or improve clarity? Must a reporter identify an anonymous source to his editor or fact-checker? Are there different rules for star reporters such as Glass, who for so long duped fact-checkers with fabricated notes? Stephen Glass was the best liar I ever dealt with in my life, he says. In my only phone conversation with [Glass], that lasted an hour long, I had him dead to rights. I had a checklist. I didnt give him any breathing room. Yet Stephen Glass was able to manipulate the situation and never admit he made it up. The only thing he didnt make up in the story Hack Heaven was that there is indeed a state of Nevada, Penenberg chuckles. Glass succeeded at fraud because everyone trusted him. Gup says: Journalists cant function without trust one is between the journalist and the public and the other is between a journalist and an editor. An editor cant police journalists at every twist and turn. All they can do is have an antenna up and look for anything suspicious. A journalism professor at Case Western University School of Law in Cleveland, Gup recalls an incident in which an editor changed quotes in a story; he responded by stating in a memo that unless the editor also conducted an interview with the subject, the quote should stay as written. His quotes never were changed again, and that sort of care helps build reader and editorial trust. Jones says of most concern to him is not the idea that journalists pipe quotes or write phony stories, but that the editors involved have done their duty. There is not enough blame on editors Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley should never work in journalism again. They betrayed a trust, but the editors did not follow up when there was reason to think that actions should be taken. They bear responsibility. The shock to me is not that Blair and Kelley were able to survive in the environment but the [editors for whom they worked] tolerated them as long as they did. What needs to be done? It begins with hiring practices, Gup says. Editors should be hiring someone with character, he explains. Companies need to spend more time investing [in] people with character someone with integrity that grasps the full and humbling responsibility a journalist has. The problems of the Blairs and Glasses begin with culture and end with culture, he says. [A sound] culture promotes integrity. If you hire someone with high character, they will police those who dont have it and if you are fabricating, you will be outed. You will be revealed and found out.

23

And finally, when the story ends up in the editors hands, Jones says, News organizations should take the advice of the great communicator, President Ronald Reagan: Trust but verify.

--Timothy W. Maier is an investigative reporter for Insight magazine.

24

Legal Environment Media and the Law: Legal Issues and Challenges
21. July 2011 A report by MLDI's Peter Noorlander on the legal environment for the media.

The legal environment in which a media outlet operates is a crucial factor in its success. A liberal and empowering legal regime will allow media to publish hard-hitting investigative reports and fulfill their function as watchdog of democratic society without fear of legal sanction, thus helping to make governments more accountable. This is a public good lost to citizens of countries with restrictive legal regimes. In a report to the Center for International Media Assistance, MLDI's legal director, Peter Noorlander, surveys the legal regime for the media in a number of countries. The report surveys the different kinds of laws that affect the media and explains how they are used in many countries to influence the operations of news outlets and the information they offer. It focuses on restrictive laws more than on those of the enabling and empowering variety, for the simple reason that enabling laws areunfortunatelyrelatively rare. It also considers how Internet-based outlets are affected by laws, and how the legal regime in a country affects the ability of individual bloggers or citizen journalists to hold their governments to account. While the focus is on the impact of laws on media in the developing world, it also considers the use of lawsparticularly on terrorism and libelin other parts of the world. Many countries have inherited their libel laws from Britain or France, for example, and legal developments there continue to be influential elsewhere. Similarly, many countries have taken a copycat approach to introducing new anti-terrorism laws from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Western Europe and have applied them to clamp down on those who criticize the government. There are some harsh findings. Statistics on the number of journalists in prisonthe harshest possible use of the law against the mediaindicate that at the end of 2010, there were more journalists imprisoned than at any other time in the decade. There has been a steady rise in the number of imprisoned journalists, from 81 in 2000 to 145 in 2010. While this is a troubling statistic, it must be noted that the problem of imprisonment of journalists is concentrated in a relatively small number of countries. More than two thirds of the cases are in China, Iran, Eritrea, and Burma. Together with Cuba, which was a consistent jailer of journalists until 2009, these countries have been responsible for 68 percent of all journalists incarcerations since 2006. The only other countries to have consistently jailed journalists in 2006-2010, though in lower numbers, are Uzbekistan, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Russia. The laws that affect the media most are libel laws; national security and related laws; and licensing and registration laws. While there is a slight move away from criminal defamation laws, largely as a result of many years sustained effort of the media freedom community, both civil and criminal libel laws are still easily abused by represessive regimes to silence

25

their critics. It is very easy to bring a libel claim, and comparatively hard to defend one. One of the easiest ways to silence a journalist or media outlet is to tie them up in endless libel suits. National security laws are in similar active use: Of the 145 journalists imprisoned as of 2010, nearly half were in prison on charges of national security or acts to undermine the state. But the report also finds that civil society action can push back repressive laws and abusive prosecutions. In the UKa country with strong notions of democracy and civil society activisma libel law reform campaign resulted, first, in decriminalization of libel, and second, in a governmental commitment to wholesale reform of the countrys libel laws. This will undoubtedly have an impact in other common law countries. In Malaysia, Gambia, and in Sri Lanka, all countries with much weaker traditions of democracy than the UK, journalists have defeated criminal trials against them on the back of civil society efforts, and the explosive growth in freedom of information laws is in no small part due to sustained campaigning on the issue by a number of NGOs.

26