Media Literacy News for Classroom Discussion: News & Politics, Media Ownership & Democracy, Media Economics, Global Media, etc.

PLEASE READ! Should we keep offering NEWS YOU CAN USE?. Please take one minute to THANKS!

March 26, 2008: "The state of the American news media in 2008 is more troubled than a year ago," opens the latest "State of the News Media" report from the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Among the major findings is that the Internet is not yet the democratizing media force many hoped for. "Even with so many new sources, more people now consume what old media newsrooms produce, particularly from print, than before," the report states. A detailed analysis of the news stories covered in 2007 found that "the media and the public often disagreed about which stories were important," and that U.S. media mostly ignored the rest of the world. Even though 2007 "was the deadliest for American forces in Afghanistan since that war began," less than one percent of international news dealt with that country. Original source: Project for Excellence in Journalism, March 16, 2008. Source of story lead: PR Watch.
  Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Check out the report, which is very well indexed and lets you easily pick categories for quick scanning (such as "Major Trends," one of which is "News is shifting from being a product — today’s newspaper, Web site or newscast — to becoming a service — how can you help me, even empower me?") In what ways do media and the public disagree about which stories were important? How do journalists and editors pick what stories to cover? Should they pay attention to what the public says it wants, or what the journalists thinks people should know? Does it matter that Afghanistan received less than 1% of America's coverage of international news in 2007 even though it was so deadly for our soldiers?

March 19, 2008: "This fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq offers a chance to look at how the US media has portrayed the war," says an article in the highly regarded Christian Science Monitor. "Mostly they have done well, but they've also played an unwitting role in the subtle battle to influence public opinion. Despite their best efforts to be credibly neutral and act as the eyes and ears on a distant war, journalists must also contend with efforts by both the Pentagon and insurgents in Iraq to practice what experts call 'information operations,' or IO – attempts to sway media reports. A new Harvard study, for instance, indicates a strategy by terrorists in timing their bombs. When news of violence created a spike in US public debate from 2003 to 2007, the study found, insurgents increased attacks by 5 to 10 percent in an apparent attempt to influence that debate even more.The US government, too, can influence how reporters frame the war's story line. The press already stands accused of not doing enough before the war to probe the Bush administration's arguments for the invasion, whether it was Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons or the prospects of implanting democracy in Iraq." The article provides more analysis of media coverage of the war.
    Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Read the article (it's short). What parts do you agree with, what parts do you disagree with, and why? Did you know that the U.S. government performs what they call "Information Operations" to influence media coverage? What do you think of that, and why? How can citizens ensure there is a way to get accurate information from their government when the government freely admits to influencing media coverage?

January 18-30, 2008: Michael Hirschorn, a magazine industry veteran, advises online news editors, ``Stop being important and start being interesting.'' In other words, he says online newspapers and magazines should print what readers want to see (and click on most) rather than what the editors feel is most newsworthy and important, according to Edward Wasserman's recent Miami Herald column. Wasserman (Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee Universit) goes on to say: "But chasing what's interesting has always been a lot easier, and a lot more bankable, than pursuing what's important. Big-city tabloids have done it for generations. So has local TV news: fast-paced, personality-driven, human-scale -- and hollow to the core, a civic blight.
The problem with online Popularity Pay is it that it mistakes journalism for a consumer product, and conflates value with sales volume. Journalists don't peddle goods, they offer a professional service, a relationship. The news audience renews that relationship to get information and insight on matters it trusts journalists to alert it to, even though the news may be disquieting or hard to grasp.
What's more, the public routinely benefits mightily from stories that few people bother reading. Such is the power of exposure. News can indeed be recast successfully as a menu of competing distractions. The question is whether we can afford the price of such success."
    Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: What does Wasserman mean when he asks, "can we afford the price of such success" ? What would be lost if newspapers (online or print) printed only what people demonstrate they're interested in? Can you think of any issues that you would not have known or cared about a few years ago (for example, global warming, recycling, the controversy about bottled water) that you would probably not have "clicked on" but now are glad you know about? What is the role of journalism? If legitimate news organizations start acting like supermarket tabloids, how might that affect the information people are able to get about things that really matter, such as jobs and the economy, health care, and elections?

Oct. 10-19, 2007: It isn't just Burmese pro-democracy activists who have been denied Internet access by heavy-handed government censors, according to a recent story in the New York Times. "OpenNet Initiative, which tracks Internet censorship, has documented signs that in recent years several governments -- including those of former Soviet republics Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan -- have closed off Internet access, or at least opposition Web sites, during periods preceding elections or times of intense protests. The brief disruptions are known as 'just in time' filtering," and "are designed to quiet opponents while maintaining an appearance of technical difficulties, thus avoiding criticism from abroad." While the Burmese junta easily cut off Internet access in the country, "nations with larger economies and more ties to the outside world have more at stake. China, for one, could not consider cutting itself off as Myanmar [Burma] has done, and so control of the Internet is an industry in itself," with help from Internet companies like Yahoo and Google. Original source: New York Times, October 4, 2007.Story lead from: PR Watch.
     Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Were you aware that governments of some countries in the world control the access that their citizens have to the Internet? What do you think about that? Did you know that Yahoo and Google are allowed to operate in China only by following government directives to not allow access to websites that the Chinese government doesn't want its citizens to see? What do you think these censored websites would be about, and why would the governments of these countries not want their citizens to see them?

September 24 - Oct. 3, 2007: Media Matters for America, the liberal media watchdog organization, has conducted a systematic study of the commentary sections in U.S. newspapers. "The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts," they conclude. "Sixty percent of the nation's daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists." Original source: Media Matters for America, September 12, 2007. Story lead from: PR Watch.
     Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Does it matter whether conservative columnists get more opportunity to advance their ideas than liberal columnists? What is the best way to ensure that citizens get balanced information so they can make good decisions for their communities and at the ballot box? What is your local newspaper's policy on columnists? Suggested activity: Get a week's worth of your local newspaper, write down who the columnists are, read what they have to say, and decide whether you think they are "conservative" or "liberal" or perhaps "centrist." Then use the Internet to research their actual political orientation, getting your teacher's help if necessary to make sure the material you find comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia and Sourcewatch.org are possible good sources.

May 2, 2007: Thursday, May 3 is World Press Freedom Day, "a day when all of us – citizens, media professionals, governments, non-governmental organizations and what has come to be known as 'civil society' - should remember and celebrate the crucial role a free press plays in democracy and development," says Rory O'Connor, in his regular column for MediaChannel.org. "Throughout the world, May 3 also serves as a much-needed annual reminder that our human right to freedom of expression is all too often violated — and that many journalists face jail or even death to give us our daily news." O'Connor goes on to describe the risks taken by journalists to cover politics and war -- many have died in Iraq -- and the awarding of the annual UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize to a deserving person, organization or institution that has made an outstanding contribution to the defense and promotion of press freedom anywhere in the world — especially when this has been achieved in the face of danger. This year's winner is the late Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, whose work was deemed so courageous and remarkable that she is the first to receive the award posthumously (after what is widely considered her assassination by the Russian government for her coverage of problems in Chechnya).
           Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Were you aware of the number of journalists who have been killed in the course of their work? Did you know that dozens have died in Iraq? Does it matter? Do you consider journalists, whose job it is to find and report the truth, heroes? Why or why not? If they die trying to do their work, would that make them a hero? Have you ever wanted to be a journalist, and if so, why? What would be the rewards and risks of this kind of work (even if you didn't cover wars or other dangerous situations)?

April 25, 2007: "In the past year, the [Iraqi] Kurds have spent more than $3 million to retain lobbyists and set up a diplomatic office in Washington," writes Rajiv Chandrasekaran in the Washington Post. "They are cultivating grass-roots supporters of President Bush's war policy....And they are seeking to build an emotional bond with ordinary Americans ... by running commercials on national cable news outlets." In Washington, the Kurdish Regional Government is represented by Qubad Talabani, the son of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. Qubad "has more clout than any other Iraqi in Washington" in part "because of his ability to call his father." The Kurds retain the lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith and Rogers, and credit it with winning $1.4 billion in U.S. taxpayer "oil-for-food money" support for the Kurdish Regional Government. Future plans include running "The Other Iraq" TV commercials "on prime-time network television." Original source: Washington Post, April 23, 2007Source of story lead: PR Watch.
           Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Did you know that foreign governments hire public relations firms to influence (some say "manipulate") public opinion? Do you think your friends or relatives would ever guess that the Kurds, a powerful ethnic group in Iraq, spend money on PR? Does it matter if we know or not? What are foreign governments trying to achieve with their money? Why do they use advertising and PR to do it instead of talking to reporters and issuing their own press releases?

April 18, 2007: The last American newspaper correspondent in Canada will be gone by this summer, replaced by by wire services, contract writers, freelancers and reporters deployed to cover specific events. The Washington Post will close its Toronto bureau this summer, and with it, end direct coverage of Canadian issues by American newspaper correspondents. Jill Carroll, a Christian Science Monitor correspondent in the Middle East, found an estimated 10 percent drop in foreign bureaus in the U.S. print media since 2000 and about a 30 percent decrease in the number of correspondents over the same time period. This trend has accelerated thanks to the costs of maintaining coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight for those conflicts. "The thing you lose when you close a bureau or cut a beat is you lose expertise and you lose your attention," explained Roy Peter Clark, senior scholar at the Poynter Institute. "The value of the bureau is that when a newspaper plants a reporter somewhere, they're saying they think the place is important and what is happening in the place is newsworthy." Original source: The Toronto Star, April 3, 2007.Source of story lead: PR Watch.
 Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Does it matter whether American newspapers have a full-time journalist on their staff in Canada? Why or why not? Is Canada "important enough" to warrant one newspaper staff person there to report on its government activities, culture, people, news, etc. Why or why not? Newspapers blame the costs of coverage in Iraq and Afghanistan as the reason to cut costs elsewhere. Do you think this is a legitimate reason? How has ownership consolidation of newspapers with other papers and other media affected budgets for reporting?

March 7, 2007:  The Army Times reports "the Pentagon clamped down on media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities ... saying in an e-mail to spokespeople: 'It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place,' referring to an investigation of the problems at Walter Reed." The president of Military Reporters and Editors told Editor & Publisher that the problem is bigger still: "It is becoming a policy in some areas where they are not allowing reporters on the base unless it is an absolutely positively good news story." The Army Times story continues, "Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center's Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media," reports Kelly Kennedy. "It is unusual for soldiers to have daily inspections after Basic Training." One Walter Reed staffer said some soldiers saw the changes as "a form of punishment" for talking to reporters. The Washington Post ran an expose on the poor conditions in Walter Reed's Building 18. Source of story lead: PR Watch.
  Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Should the Pentagon, part of our government, be able to exert control over who the media can talk to? Is it OK that media reporters would not be allowed on a base unless the Pentagon felt they would only get a good story out of it? Do U.S. citizens have a right to know what soldiers have to say without interference from the Pentagon, or does the Pentagon have the right to control what soldiers say and to whom?

Jan. 24, 2007:  The Center for Media and Democracy has announced the launch of Defend The Press, a new coalition of journalists, public interest groups, academics and citizen activists. Defend The Press is asking the US Army to drop its subpoena of Sarah Olson, an independent print and radio journalist based in Oakland, California, in the court martial of Iraq war resister Lieutenant Ehren Watada. Olson interviewed Watada in May 2006, and in June he announced he would not go to war in Iraq, challenging its legality. Watada's Army court martial begins February 5, 2007, at Fort Lewis, Washington. Olson and Defend the Press believe that journalists shouldn’t be asked to participate in government prosecutions, especially of political speech. To do so would erode the barrier between press and government, and turn reporters into the investigative arm of the government. It would stifle speech and control the free flow of information. Source of story lead: PR Watch.

          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: How far does a journalist's job extend? Yes, they should report news, but should they also be forced to participate in government prosecutions of people they interview? What are the First Amendment issues involved in this case? Should journalists be an investigative tool for the government? If debate is the lifeblood of democracy and if the free exchange of information and ideas is in the public’s best interest, does hauling a journalist in front of a military court to testify against her sources achieve that "free exchange of information," or does it impose a chilling effect on reporters willing to write tough stories? What is its effect on dissenting and minority voices? What can the average citizen do to protest inappropriate government actions against news reporters?

Nov. 22, 2006: "Astro-turf" organizations (groups presenting themselves as "grass roots" but actually acting as public relations front groups, i.e. "fake grass") backed by Howard Rich, a wealthy New York conservative activist and chairman of Americans for Limited Government, spent over $8.6 million in eight states, primarily on TV advertising and direct mail, promoting 'takings' initiatives. 'Takings' promoters seek to limit the role of regulation by requiring compensation to be paid to property owners if a regulation has an impact on the value of their property. According to The Center for Public Integrity's Takings Initiative Accountability Project, four of the eight initiatives backed by Rich-supported groups weren't "put before voters because of legal and procedural problems." Three of those that were voted on - in California, Washington state and Idaho - were defeated. One, in Arizona, passed comfortably but may yet face a legal challenge.
             Spokesman for the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Oliver Griswold, said that "Howie Rich and his cronies came in from out of state and pretended to be grass-roots and pushed these gimmicks onto the ballot." The initiatives would have limited government’s use of eminent domain and required that property owners be compensated for regulations that diminish the value of their holdings. The result of such a measure passing in the state of Oregon a few years ago has resulted in greatly increased development, since governments cannot pay the large sums of taxpayer money that would be required to compensate every landowner whose property is affected by population growth and resulting development proposals. "Takings" initiatives require that an owner be compensated if, for example, city zoning limits a property to 100 houses instead of 400, even if the owner never intended for 400 houses to be built, or any houses at all. Original source: Center for Public Integrity, November 8, 2006, Source of story lead: PR Watch.

           Classroom focus/media literacy questions: How is the democratic process affected when wealthy individuals pay for signature-collectors to put propositions on a ballot and then spend millions on media to try to get the the proposition passed? What are the "pros" and "cons" of the initiative process, and what changes could be made to it to prevent wealthy individuals from skewing the process, either within their own states or in other states? (For example, could states require that signature-collectors be volunteers, so everyone knows that any initiative on the ballot actually has enough broad public support to muster the volunteers to get it there?) Have you ever seen signature-collectors outside a store, and if so, have you ever asked them if they are paid or a volunteer? When a campaign is in process, how can a voter gather enough information on complex propositions to decide how to vote? How has the Internet helped a voter's ability to get more information on both sides of an issue?

Nov. 8, 2006: "The steady erosion of press freedom in the United States, France and Japan is extremely alarming," the group Reporters Without Borders says in its annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index report. Those three countries slipped down the scale of global press freedom index this year, while some poor countries such as Mauritania and Haiti improved their record in a study rating 168 countries. According to the report, "The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism.' The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 U.S. states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism." Countries ranking higher than the U.S. include Estonia, Bolivia, Namibia and most European countries.

           Classroom focus/media literacy questions: How valid is the claim that the U.S. wants to "spread democracy" around the world when one of the basic foundations of democracy, freedom of the press, is being lost right here at home? Should ordinary American citizens be worried? Why or why not? What can individuals, do, if anything, to express concern or work to restore press freedoms? What groups in the U.S. are working on this issue? What websites can you find to inform yourself on the issue?

Sept. 20, 2006: A poll paid for by Verizon Communication asking leading questions has produced results suggesting that the public rejects Net neutrality, a principle that ensures every website on the Net is available to all visitors at the same speed. Telephone companies like Verizon and cable companies offering high-speed broadband want laws that abolish Net neutrality, since they want to be able to charge web content producers (i.e., everyone with a website on the Internet) for the privilege of being delivered at higher speeds. Many critics say such a development would be dangerous to democracy, as individuals, non-profits and any other website-maker that can't afford to pay would be left in the dust as websurfers drift toward the sites that download the fastest (i.e. those produced by the richest and largest multi-national corporations such as AOL-Time Warner, CNN, news corporations, consumer product manufacturers, etc.)  Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who has described the Internet as "a series of tubes," is sponsoring a bill that would abolish Net neutrality.
            Blogger Matt Stoller of the website MyDD (My Direct Democracy) offers a link to a copy of all the poll questions, one of which is: "Which of the following two items do you think is the most important to you: (1) Delivering the benefits of new TV and video choice so consumers will see increased competition and lower prices for cable TV  OR (2) Enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee?" He comments, "The rest of the questionnaire is similarly structured along the lines of 'do you want lots and lots of pie or would you like a kidney infection'." Amy Schatz of The Wall Street Journal Online says, "It’s not clear how ordinary Americans can express an informed opinion about the 287-page bill, which is so complex that the committee put together a dummies guide to it.
            Verizon's poll results, which they are very happy with, are now being taken around the halls of Congress in an attempt to influences legislators against Net Neutrality.  Source of story lead: PR Watch.
           Classroom focus/media literacy questions: When considering the "results" of a poll, how important is it to know who paid paid to have a poll taken? How important is it to be able to see the questions and how they were worded? Can any poll questions be neutrally worded, or will there always be some sort of bias? What are some ways that those seeking public opnion can ensure that questions are asked in a way that gets accurate answers? How can the public know when a poll is biased or fair? Have you ever participated in polls (online, responding to a phone pollster, etc.) for which you have very little knowledge of the issue? How can you tell who is paying for the poll? How can you tell if the questions are biased in the wording, or not?

Sept. 13, 2006: "How did 9-11 change the news?" asks the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ). Says the report on its website: "If the network evening news is any proxy, the attacks of September 11th 2001 in Washington and New York and the wars that resulted have led to increased coverage of foreign policy and global conflict on the network evening news, but less coverage of domestic issues...."  The data is from ADT Research’s Tyndall Report, which monitors those newscasts and studied the four years prior to the attack and the four years following it. The study reveals "increased coverage of foreign policy and global conflict ... but less coverage of domestic issues....The number of minutes devoted to coverage of foreign policy was up 102%, according to ADT's data. Coverage of armed conflict rose 69%. Coverage of terrorism rose 135%. At the same time, there has been a serious decline in reporting about domestic issues. Coverage of crime and law enforcement dropped by half (47%). Science and technology coverage fell by half (50%). Coverage of issues involving alcohol, tobacco and drugs dropped 66%." This citation is from PR Watch.
           Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Who loses and who gains when there is less reporting of domestic issues? What is the value of knowing more about what's happening outside the U.S.? Who decides what to cover, and what influences those decisions? According to the Tyndall Report, each network (ABC, CBS and NBC) averages 19 minutes of editorial content per 30-minute broadcast. The rest of the time goes to commercials and internal promotions (for the network's other shows). Since these networks get free use of public airwaves, should they be required to devote more time to domestic issues so that the American public is better served? What government agency regulates the public airwaves? How can citizens influence the decisions this agency makes in how networks are regulated so that more public benefit can be obtained?

August 29, 2006: A Penn State study found that embedded reporters relied heavily on soldiers for information; 93 percent of their stories featured soldiers as sources. Only 43 percent of independent reporters' stories featured soldiers as sources. It concluded that when considering the practice of embedding journalists with U.S. military units in Iraq, the question is not whether they "can provide neutral reporting," but "whether embedded reporters had the access or opportunity to talk with people other than the soldiers." The study reviewed nearly 750 print articles in major outlets by more than 150 journalists -- some embedded, some reporting from Baghdad hotels, and others reporting independently. Iraqis were sources in just 41 percent of embedded reporters' articles, compared to 73 percent for independent reporters. The study also found that "articles by embedded reporters were both more prominent and more widely available than other types of reporting." From mid-March to May 2003, 100 percent of USA Today's Iraq articles came from embedded reporters. SOURCE: Penn State University (U.S.), August 11, 2006. This citation is from PR Watch.
            Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What are the different reasons the Pentagon gives for "embedding" reporters with military units? Might there be other reasons that they don't reveal to the public, and if so, what could those other reasons be? What does the American public gain -- and lose -- by the practice of embedding reporters? Can a reporter be completely objective after living and working alongside soldiers in highly charged emotional situations? Where else might the public can seek objective reporting during wartime? How was it reporting in previous conflicts and could that be repeated today?

April 12, 2006: NASA is touting a more accessible public information policy after acknowledging that a White House appointee in its public information department attempted to silence one of the agency’s experts on climate change. The new policy clarifies the right of NASA experts and others to express their own opinions on policies without political vetting. NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin says that the new policy will ensure that “(s)cientific and technical information concerning agency programs and projects will be accurate and unfiltered.” Washington D.C. watchdog OMBWatch isn’t so sure, stating that the new policy “sets the right tone” but “remains too vague and contains too many loopholes to fully function as a vehicle for public disclosure.” The policy does appear to resolve the original tempest: NASA physicist and climate expert James Hansen won’t be stopped from expressing his views to National Public Radio that the government isn’t acting aggressively enough to address global warming. The New York Times reported in January that a 26-year-old Bush appointee, George Deutsch, had blocked Hansen’s interview. Deutsch left the agency soon thereafter. This citation is from PR Watch.
            Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Should the public have the right to hear personal opinions of government-paid scientists (i.e., public servants paid by taxpayer dollars) without political interference? Should these scientists have the right to speak to media outlets without first getting permission? Why or why not? What, if anything, is lost when this type of free speech is suppressed? What can we do to protest such suppression?

March 1, 2006:  Americans apparently know more about "The Simpsons" than they do about the First Amendment, according to an Associated Press article published on Yahoo.com.  Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half can name at least two members of the cartoon family, according to a survey. The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms. The survey also found more people could name the three "American Idol" judges than identify three First Amendment rights. They were also more likely to remember popular advertising slogans.
         Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Whose responsibility is it to teach Americans about their First Amendment rights? Could you have named more than one of the five freedoms if they hadn't been listed above? Does it matter? Why or why not? Some people would say that if we don't know what our freedoms are supposed to be we are in danger of losing them, either from lack of knowledge, lack of caring, or both. Would you agree, and if not, why not? How can we care about and stand up to protect something we don't know about? Media teaches us about the Simpsons, American Idol judges and ad slogans. What would be some effective ways to teach us our First Amendment rights? [Hint: Check the excellent First Amendment Center.]

Jan. 25, 2006: "Throughout the six-month trial that led to Richard Scrushy's acquittal in the $2.7 billion fraud at HealthSouth Corp., a small, influential newspaper consistently printed articles sympathetic to the ... fired CEO," according to an article in Editor and Publisher. The author of those stories, Audry Lewis, now says "she was secretly working on behalf of Scrushy, who she says paid her $11,000 through a public relations firm," The Lewis Group. Audry Lewis (not related to the owner of The Lewis Group) wrote the articles, "sent unedited copies" to Scrushy and the PR firm's Jesse Lewis, and Lewis placed the stories in The Birmingham Times, where his son is editor. Audry Lewis and Rev. Herman Henderson "now say Scrushy owes them $150,000 for the newspaper stories and other public relations work, including getting black pastors to attend the trial in a bid to sway the mostly black jury." "The payments raise questions about the legitimacy of the ostensibly grass roots support for Scrushy seen throughout his trial. The prosecutor in Scrushy's case, however, said there would not be anything illegal about someone offering money for favorable news articles, and jurors have said they were not influenced by media coverage but by a lack of evidence that Scrushy was involved in the scheme to overstate earnings at HealthSouth. This citation is from PR Watch.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: If something is legal, does that mean it's ethical? Do you think it should be illegal to attempt to influence juries and public opinion in a trial?Jurors swear an oath to not pay attention to media coverage during a trial. But what if a mistrial is declared and a new jury has to be selected? The new jurors might have seen all the articles that the defendant had paid to have printed about him. What can citizens do to protect our jury system against this kind of tampering?

Jan. 11, 2006: After returning from recess, Republicans plan "to amplify the stories of individual soldiers in Iraq who still believe in their mission," according to The Hill, a non-partisan, non-ideological weekly newspaper covering Congress and its members. "After the White House's aggressive response to [Iraq] war critics led to higher poll numbers for the president, congressional Republicans ... are looking to fight their own aggressive campaign," reports the paper. Senate Republican Conference Chair Rick Santorum is heading the PR push. This citation is from PR Watch.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What, if any, are the ethical issues involved in using active military soldiers in a public relations campaign to influence American opinion on a war? When soldiers enlist, should they be expected to participate in such partisan communications? Does it constitute propaganda? Are the soldiers being used as pawns in partisan politics? What if the soldiers offer willingly to help influence public opinion? Could their participation affect their relationship and/or ability to work effectively on the battlefield with soldiers in their unit who don't agree with them?

Nov. 30, 2005: The Pentagon admitted writing"news" stories about U.S. efforts in Iraq and paying newspapers to print them, according to the Los Angeles Times. It marked the second time this year that Pentagon programs have come under scrutiny for reported payments made to journalists for favorable press. The Times quoted unidentified officials as saying that some of the stories in Iraqi newspapers were written by U.S. troops and while basically factual, they sometimes give readers a slanted view of what is happening in Iraq. Some of those officials expressed fear that use of such stories could hurt the U.S. military's credibility, the newspaper said. Read more at CNN.com.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: How important is it (or not) for readers of a newspaper to know where a story came from? If someone pays to place a story in the newspaper, is that advertising or is it a "news story," and should there be any disclosure of its source? Should the rules be different in times of war, and if so, why?

Sept. 19, 2005: CNN's parent company, Time Warner, announced the hiring of Tim Berry, chief of staff to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Republican from Texas, to serve as VP for global public policy (as Time Warner's lobbyist in Washington), reported the L.A. Weekly. This news, and its timing, prompted Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy to tell the newspaper: " Time Warner aligning itself with the right-wing DeLay machine should send shudders [down] CNN and HBO. Clearly, Time Warner wants DeLay insurance so it won't have to face cable-ownership safeguards, à la carte rules and broadband non-discrimination policies."
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Why do large media companies like to hire people with "inside" connections to government? How does this affect the democratic process -- can people with these connections help their employers get more favorable treatment from the government, as Jeff Chester suggests? Who speaks for "the little guy" -- average American media consumers, who don't have the money to hire Washington lobbyists? Can the interests of the people be protected when media corporations can influence legislation with all the money they can spend? If so, how?

Sept. 12, 2005: Rapper Kanye West and actor Mike Myers provided a dramatic depiction of how media is "constructed" in a piece aired live on NBC during a Hurricane Katrina fund-raiser on Sept. 2. West's unscripted remarks stand in stark contrast to Myers' rote reading of the typical script provided to stars during these events. A Washington Post article, "Kanye West's Torrent of Criticism, Live on NBC: Why We Love Live TV, Reason #137" (register here for free, then use search terms "Kanye Myers" from the home page ) gives a humorous account of the exchange. This audio clip (4 Mg wmv file, broadband recommended) makes it even more real for students. Have them listen for both vocal and text differences in unscripted vs. scripted remarks. Another example of media construction is how NBC reacted when they finally realized what was happening, cutting off the dialog. They later edited most of West's remarks from a taped re-broadcast for the West coast.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Why do networks provide scripts for actors? Do live broadcasts provide the opportunity for a more authentic communication, and if so, what does that mean for both the speaker/performer and for the audience? What are the risks of live broadcasts -- to the network, the performers and the audience? Would you like to see more live broadcasts, and if so, for what types of programming (news, entertainment, etc.) and why?

May 25, 2005: A new study entitled “Broken Promises: How Digital Broadcasters Are Failing to Serve the Public Interest,” conducted by the Media Policy Program of the Campaign Legal Center found that digital television broadcasters are failing to live up to their promises and failing to serve the public interest, despite having received additional spectrum (aka “airwaves”) for free. The study documents direct quotes from TV executives (when they lobbied to receive the free spectrum) on how they promised to serve the public interest with local programming and better-quality signals, and then documents what has actually happened:

• Only 0.3% of digital programming focused on local public affairs - compared with 8.8% for reality shows, 6.9% for paid programming and 2.5% for celebrity news shows (such as Access Hollywood).
• Less than five percent (5%) of programming aired by digital broadcasters is aired in high-definition (HD).
• Ninety eight percent (98%) of HD programming is entertainment-oriented in nature.

Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Who owns the airwaves? Who's in charge of deciding who gets to use them? Is this system fair? Does it serve the public good? Why do corporations get to use public airwaves for free and not give anything back to the public? Should they be required to do something in exchange for this free gift? Now that TV will be shifting to digital, should they be required to give back the analog airwaves for genuine "public" broadcasting? (Teachers: see Free Press and Center for Digital Democracy for discussion resources.)

May 18, 2005: Journalist Bill Moyers closed the National Conference on Media Reform in St. Louis on May 15 with his first public response to the revelation that White House allies on the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have secretly been holding PBS in general — and his show in particular — to a partisan litmus test. “I simply never imagined that any CPB chairman, Democrat or Republican, would cross the line from resisting White House pressure to carrying it out for the White House. And that’s what (CPB chair) Kenneth Tomlinson has been doing.” Moyers has endorsed a call by Free Press, Common Cause, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union and Media Access Project for town hall meetings nationwide that would allow Americans to speak directly to PBS station managers and policymakers. That call came in the context of a broader appeal for media reforms and a fight against manipulation of the news in the public and private sector. “An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical,” Moyers said. “And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too.”
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Who's in charge of "public" broadcasting? What is public broadcasting, and how is it different (or supposed to be different) from commercial broadcasting? Can citizens participate in the democratic process if they don't have access to information on both sides of important issues? How important is public broadcasting to ensuring that both sides are presented? Can you find examples of how public broadcasting (PBS television, NPR radio) has covered news stories and perspectives that are different than what you can find on network and cable TV? Why is important that we have different perspectives presented?

May 11: Two animal welfare experts said they resigned as advisors to fast-food chain KFC after the company asked them to sign an agreement preventing them from speaking publicly about its policies on such issues as animal slaughter. Dr. Temple Grandin of Colorado State University and Dr. Ian Duncan of the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, said they stepped down from KFC parent Yum Brands Inc.'s animal welfare committee this week after being sent the agreement, which Grandin said would have required them to refer all media inquiries to KFC's corporate headquarters. "I resigned because there is a document that I can't sign," Grandin said. "I feel very strongly that I can talk freely to the press about how the program's working, what's been going on with the program." A corporate spokesperson said the document is simply an update of the same one the two advisors had signed before.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Does requiring corporate advisors to not speak to the press constitute censorship? What would be the value, if any, of having "independent" advisors on controversial issues if they are not allowed to speak freely to the media? How can the public effectively evaluate the opinions of corporate advisors if their comments are filtered through the corporation's media relations office?

April 25, 2005: The percentage of adults who report reading daily newspapers has fallen from 81 percent in 1964 to just 52 percent in 2004. If the trend continues, there won't be any readers left within a few decades, says journalism professor Philip Meyer, an author and former reporter who teaches at the University of North Carolina. This Christian Science Monitor article  discusses the industry's struggles with internet competition for advertising and readership, and questions whether the print format can survive.
         Classroom focus/media literacy questions:  How many students in your class read a newspaper, or at least glance through it? If not, why not? Where do they get their news? Is TV a reliable source for in-depth coverage of important issues? What's the best way for people to get the commentary and analysis they need on big topics like the the environment, or controversial and complex political topics such as Social Security privatization? What is the role of information in how a democracy functions? What kind of information do citizens need, and how much, in order to make democracry work and preserve what citizens feel is important?

March 17, 2005:  Expanding on a practice that began during the Clinton administration, at least 20 federal agencies have made and distributed pre-packaged, ready-to-serve television news segments to promote President Bush's policies and initiatives. Congress' Government Accountability Office determined that these "video news releases" were illegal "covert propaganda" and told federal agencies to stop. But last Friday, the White House ordered all agencies to disregard Congress' directive. Free Press has started a grassroots campaign to force the administration to disclose how taxpayers' money has been spent to advance the government agenda.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Why does Free Press call this situation "news fraud?" What, if any, are the ways that TV viewers might know that what they are seeing is "government covering itself" rather than an unbiased, objective reporter covering the story? Is the station broadcasting the video news releases responsible for disclosing to viewers that the government (or a corporation) is the source of a news item? If not, who is responsible? Why is it important for viewers to know that a news piece came from somewhere other than the news organization itself?

March 10, 2005: Should Internet communications (blogs, websites, etc.) be subject to U.S. campaign finance laws? Federal Election Commissioner Brad Smith thinks so. In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines. Read the story on CNET News.
           Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What are the issues behind whether Internet communications should be regulated relative to campaign finance? How can it be ensured that partisanship (such as which political party the FEC commissioners belong to) doesn't interfere with making a fair decision? What are the other types of media that are already regulated?

Feb. 1, 2005:  One in three U.S. high school students say the press ought to be more restricted, and even more say the government should approve newspaper stories before readers see them, according to a survey released yesterday . The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get "government approval" of stories before publishing; 51% say they should be able to publish freely; 13% have no opinion.  Asked whether the press enjoys "too much freedom," not enough or about the right amount, 32% say "too much," and 37% say it has the right amount. Ten percent say it has too little. The survey of First Amendment rights was commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
     Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What do you think people mean when they say the press enjoys "too much freedom?" What is the meaning of our First Amendment right to freedom of the press, and if you think the press should be less free, why? How did you come to get these ideas? Do you think the notion of more restrictions on the media has become more popular since 9/11, and if so, does that make it a good idea, or merely a popular one? Why might people think newspapers should get government approval of stories before publishing? One of the core definitions of American democracy is freedom of the press -- how is is possible that so many people think there is such a thing as "too much freedom," and what does this mean for the future of democracy in America?

Jan. 21, 2005: U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Michael Powell announced his plans to leave the agency in March. The FCC regulates the telecommunications and media industries. Media reformers cheered the announcement, since Powell supported rules that allow fewer and fewer companies to own more and more media outlets. Powell once declared he did not believe in or understand the concept of public interest, stating, "The night after I was sworn in, I waited for a visit from the angel of public interest. I waited all night, but she did not come. I still have had no divine awakening and no one has issued me my public interest crystal ball."
         Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Why is the notion of "public interest" important when it comes to media ownership and control? Should a federal regulatory commission protect the public's interest in publicly-owned airwaves, or does it exist to serve the corporations that are lucky enough to use the airwaves without having to pay anything back to the taxpayer/citizens who own them? What is the Fairness Doctrine? Should citizens advocate that the next FCC chair push to restore the Fairness Doctrine? If not, why not?

Jan. 10, 2005: How does America's cultural preference for visual media affect news coverage of disasters? The tragic tsunami in South Asia gives us a clue. "Although as not as widely publicized and not as graphic as the tsunami, there are many disasters in -- pick a country -- Congo, Uganda, Sudan," said Sid Balman Jr., spokesman for InterAction, a coalition of humanitarian groups. "Not everything lends itself to this sound-bite, video-clip mentality." According to a Jan. 9 article in the Sacramento Bee, "many aid officials credit the media's devotion to South Asia for the outpouring of support. Long, grueling crises, even when hundreds of thousands are killed over time, don't capture the headlines and cameras, they say."
         Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Why do people seem to care less about 1 million people dying in the Sudan over the last few years than they do about the 150,000+ victims and survivors of the recent tsunami? Of course, some of it has to do with being able to feel that one's contribution can really make a tangible difference. But what about the "media-genic" quality of different kinds of suffering and loss? Are media consumers becoming conditioned to respond to only those disasters that make good television? What would it take to get people to care more about less visible, long-term disasters such as genocide, famine and HIV/AIDS?

Nov. 3, 2004: What role did media play in this election? How does the commercial nature of U.S. media, and American's propsensity to get most of their information from television, affect our citizens' ability to get accurate, comprehensive information for making election decisions? Take a look at the excellent new Media Construction of Presidential Campaigns, a document-based multi-media kit for integrating critical thinking and media literacy throughout the U.S. history curriculum for help discussing these issues in the classroom.
     Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Is it possible for voters to get enough substantive information on the issues from television only? Why or why not? How does the visual dominance of the TV medium influence the types of messages produced and viewed over it?
      Review old portraits of former U.S. presidents. How many of them do you think would have a chance at being elected today? Since we can't change the way people react to (and rate) the physical appearance of candidates, how does this affect our country's ability to attract the best qualified people for office? Many analysts say voters are attracted to George W. Bush because he comes across in the media as "the kind of guy you can sit down and have lunch with." Do you believe this is an important qualification for being elected the leader of the strongest country in the world? Why or why not?

Oct. 12-20, 2004: Sinclair Broadcasting, the largest owner of local television stations in the U.S., has ordered its 62 stations to preempt regular programming to air an anti-Kerry documentary a few days before the election. This means Sinclair wants to use the public's airwaves to sway the election in favor of an administration that staunchly allows companies like Sinclair to get even bigger. Is this what democracy is supposed to be about? No -- and it's not about liberal vs. conservative. If corporations (which are accountable to no one except their stockholders) can use the public airwaves to favor one candidate over another, we're all in trouble. Concerned citizens, civic organizations and members of Congress are protesting. Concerned citizens can find their nearest Sinclair-owned station at FreePress, with more good information available from MediaChannel.
     Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Why do corporations get to use public airwaves and not pay anything to the public for their use? What are the risks of allowing a few companies  to control the majority of TV stations, radio stations and newspapers in the U.S.? Should the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated by the FCC, requiring that broadcasters allow free time for airing of alternative viewpoints? When was the Fairness Doctrine abandoned, and why? What has the FCC done recently about allowing consolidation of media ownership, and what should citizens do about it?

Sept. 28 through Oct.12, 2004:  When is a debate not really a debate? Is it media's job to tell the public that the Town Hall questions were screened in advance? And that the candidates are prohibited by the rules (written by their own parties) from actually responding to each other? The organization Open Debates provides good information for starting an important discussion about these and related issues. For a comprehensive curriculum, check out the excellent new Media Construction of Presidential Campaigns, a document-based multi-media kit for integrating critical thinking and media literacy throughout the U.S. history curriculum.
       Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Does it matter if candidates give us canned pitches in response to questions they're prepared for, instead of providing unrehearsed responses to questions? What role should media play, if any, in supporting live, unscripted events with candidate interaction, rather than staged functions with prepared sound-bite remarks?

Sept. 20, 2002: Charges of bias in the news are particular serious during a presidential campaign. Fox News has been accused by many critics as being not much more than an outlet for the views of the Bush Administration. Amy Goodman's radio/TV show, Democracy Now, is dismissed by right-wingers as an example of "liberal bias."

       Classroom focus/media literacy questions: How important is it that news sources be unbiased? Where did we get the idea that journalism is supposed to be objective and balanced, and have American media outlets always followed these precepts? (Hint: No -- early American newspapers were very partisan. See the works of noted media historian Robert McChesney for more info.) How can we examine news sources to determine their balance or bias? This free lesson plan for grades 10-12 rom the Media Awareness Network introduces students to the concept of bias or slant, in newspapers and in television newscasts. For a comprehensive curriculum, check out the excellent new Media Construction of Presidential Campaigns, a document-based multi-media kit for integrating critical thinking and media literacy throughout the U.S. history curriculum.

Sept. 7, 2004: As part of The Political Process in the Media Age, a yearlong seminar and screening series by the Museum of Television and Radio, Rock the Voter: MTV and the Campaign for the Youth Vote will be offered as a seminar-by-satellite on Sept. 30, (6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Eastern, 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific) at university and college campuses around the U.S. On the evening of the first presidential debate, this seminar "will survey the history of the youth vote, examine the issues young people are concerned about, and assess whether voter-mobilization efforts have been successful."

       ML.Comments:  The Museum's website navigation is difficult. Click on Seminars and follow the links re: satellite seminars. Seminar registration is also clumsy but it looks like it's worth it.

     Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: In 1992 MTV spearheaded an effort to increase civic engagement and voter turnout with its ongoing Choose or Lose campaign. The network continues to inform young voters about the political process by working with voter awareness groups. Why would a television program get involved in voter registration? Could the use of visual and auditory media (TV, music) have an effect on citizens' attitudes and behaviors toward voting that print media might not be able to achieve? If so, why might that be? How does age affect how people respond to messages in different forms of media? This free lesson plan helps students examine the importance of videos to the music industry and the role that music plays in popular culture.

Sept. 6, 2004: "Reporters who cover political conventions are accustomed to tiny workspaces, often shoddy technical setups, and few, if any, luxuries," PR Week writes. "Last week, New York City and the GOP - with the help of GCI Group- went to great lengths to break the mold. Journalists covering the Republican National Convention ... were treated to world-class accouterments, including facials, tailoring services, and gourmet food - drawing a marked contrast from the rather cramped conditions at the Democratic National Convention held last month in Boston. Most of the pampering took place across the street from [Madison Square] Garden in The Barneys Lounge, sponsored by upscale clothier Barneys ... The services were arranged by the 2004 New York City Host Committee and supervised (and aggressively publicized) by GCI." The PR firm told PR Week, "We're basically saying to the reporters, 'We know you're working hard. Let us make your lives easier while you're in New York.'" This citation is from PR Watch. Original Source: PR Week (subscription required), September 6, 2004.

      Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Why would the Republican party think it's worth the effort and expense to upgrade working conditions for reporters covering their convention? What are the conscious and unconscious effects on journalists -- can they still be completely objective?

Sept. 3, 2004: Project Censored announced the release of "Censored 2005, The Top 25 Censored News Stories." Sonoma State University's student-run media research group Project Censored announces the release of its annual publication, Censored 2005, a compilation of the year's 25 most significant news stories that were overlooked or under-reported by the country's major national news media, as well as chapters on the grass roots media democracy, media ownership maps, real news about US involvement in Palestine, Haiti, Iraq, and more. The book is available at major bookstores or through the Project Censored website.

      Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: If one story isn't reported as much as another story, does that mean it was "censored?" How do editors of major national news media choose which stories to run, how much to say and where it runs in the paper or news broadcast? Who or what influences their decisions?

Aug. 10, 2004: The upcoming Republican National Convention's entertainment director, former Gospel Music Association president Frank Breeden, calls his part of the program "Preachers and Patriots." He explained, "Entertainment plays more of a prominent role in marketing messages today than ever before," and convention organizers want to use music and culture to sell their political philosophy "just like Cadillac uses Led Zeppelin." With limited network coverage, "we have to think like television, use a large pallet of creative ideas to convey the message." Breeden is also "competing with the many parties that are being held by politicians, elected officials, lobbyists and corporations. Many have booked performers who might otherwise have appeared at the convention." This citation is from PR Watch. Original Source: New York Times, August 10, 2004.

     Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: The ancient Greeks said that arousing the emotions of an audience was one of the three keys to persuasion. Is that still true today? What forms of media and communication technique can be used to arouse emotion, and how? Look up some of the books on our Visual & Aural Literacy page for research on music and the mind.

June 15, 2004: FaithfulAmerica.org, which describes itself as "an online community of people of faith who want to build a more just and compassionate nation," will run commercials on the al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya Arabic language networks apologizing for the torture of Iraqi detainees by U.S. servicepeople and military contractors. The ad states, "As Americans of faith, we express our deep sorrow at abuses committed in Iraqi prisons." FaithfulAmerica.org spokesperson Bishop Melvin Talbert is an ecumenical officer of the United Methodist Church, to which George Bush belongs. A State Department spokesperson would not comment on the ads, but former ambassador to Syria Edward Djerejian said they "could be harmful ... [if they are] an attempt to criticize the current administration," but if they just "say torture is contrary to our religious beliefs, then that I think would be helpful." This citation is from PR Watch. Original Source: Newsday, June 11, 2004.

     Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Why might the former U.S. ambassador to Syria have suggested that an ad criticizing the current administration could be harmful? Do you agree or disagree? How might Arabic viewers respond to such an ad in which Americans visibly exercise their right of free speech? We list books and other resources on our Religion & Media page that address these issues.