Social Media and Politics

Then:

While politics is an old subject with old rules, there comes along every once and a while something that changes the nature of politics and one of those things is social media.  Social media as a subject however is a new phenomenon and it is difficult to talk about its past because it is relative new.  The past for social media is short (Facebook is only about 12 years old and Twitter is about 10 years old) as far as presidential election cycles that means they have both been around for about three of them.  The subject of what effects they have on politics is equally new.

It is somewhat debatable when or if social media began to influence politics but it was early on that candidates used the new mediums as means of promoting themselves and this continues to do so.  The problem is all the theories are new and varied as far as what constitutes influence.  Social media early on though has been used to organize groups for political action and activists have seized on the idea of using social media to organize and plan events.  It has been in the past as a counter journalism to the mainstream to present events live and up front.

Social media is about connections and so is politics so they were a natural fit right out of the gate.  In large part, what has been explored in the past is how social media can organize and shape the face of politics through information and education.  If there is a problem with talking about the history of social media and politics it is that it is short and it is difficult to draw any hard and firm conclusions.

Now:

When it comes to things involving politics and social media dwell in the realm of theory and there are many. Sociologists and political sciences have debated even what social media is, but the conclusion in general is that it is a media that is used for social interaction that encompasses political empowerment and activism but also a reflects popular culture and entertainment.  In other words, social media can have many uses for social interaction but allows for political activism and empowerment.

The first concern of these new media sources is what they are doing to conventional and current media and the questions are more prevalent than answers.  The first being whether social media even influences political outcomes or simply provides a better platform to do already existing political activism.  This a real question because the question is raised as to how significant is the power of social media itself.  One answer is that social media is no better or worse as far as influence in and of itself but that political activism and change requires the same thing it has always required – passion for a cause.  Without this passion, many argue social media is just social media.  We may be more informed as to the issues facing us and have better connections but motivating people to act requires something greater than what social media can provide.  

If there is any place that is not being disputed is that social media is providing alternatives to traditional media.  Most younger activists glean all their news from social networking rather than tradition news casts or twenty-four-hour news networks.  This is what has made it difficult in many recent elections to get accurate polls as the younger generation of millennials don’t live in the world of home phone polling or traditional news source polling demographics.  This last election cycle, several networks admitted that their polling data for millennials was inadequate. 

On the other hand, Twitter Traffic this last election was off the charts indicating how vital it was to encourage people to vote and promotion of candidates.  The consensus is that Trump won the Twitter wars and it has lead some to think that it is what gave him the election.  Others simply state that Trump had the ability to leverage Twitter but whether this gave him the election is a matter for debate and it may take several months to fully analyze the data. 

In any case, Trump had much more social media popularity in the early going and many pundits pointed to this data as a potential for a Trump victory and they turned out to be right.  Political scientist will probably be talking about this for a while as to how many likes a candidate gets during the campaign and their margin of victory.  

As more hard data and studies are done, social media is used by candidates to organize and network but it might also be said there must be that passionate spark for a candidate or the best social media campaign might not help you win.  Is social media the creator of successful campaigns or is social media buzz the reflection of a campaign that already is successful? That is a question for the future as there simply is not enough data from enough different election to draw truly firm conclusions yet.

Later:

There have been many innovations in the history of politics and technology and many of them have had a significant effect.  The question for political scientists is what effect long term will social media have on political activism campaigns and elections in the future? 

There are simply too many reports now to sort this stuff out.  Every time I did research I got conflicting data and pundits taking both sides of the social media issue and its effect on political activism. 

Some argue that social media is just an extended way of spreading one’s own opinion and it affects very little actual change other than people’s voices have an extended range.  Others argue that it causes change in people’s opinions.  Another side of this battle, is whether campaigns with social media decide elections or the message and passion must be there.

I don’t see social media and politics departing from each other anytime soon regardless of the conflicting data.  This seems to be a match that is destined for a long partnership.  As time passes answers will come, but until clear answers are given Twitter campaigns and Facebook Memes will continue to dominate the face of politics for the foreseeable future.

Politicians will continue to hire social media directors for their campaign.  If there is one thing for sure politicians must get used to the transparency of social media and how instant it gets messages to the masses.  The transparency issue has victimized many older politicians as it becomes difficult to retract or reverse one’s positions without the other sides social media instantly crying “flip-flop”.  Lying I think will be much more difficult so perhaps social media’s transparency will finally end one complaint about politicians. 

If there is one dream we all have, it is that politicians will leave the realm of rhetoric and get to having actual ideas that will help.  Ass much as we can decry lack of privacy and the government looking in on us, social media give people the power to record and transmit information about politicians, political activism and elections that make it more difficult to get away with fraud and other election shenanigans.  Perhaps on the future this will get so prevalent as to clean up politics.

If recent election result is a consideration, then I think the opposite is true.  Every flaw of every candidate was revealed and yet no a single thing seemed to affect the candidates to the point that it hurt or helped them significantly.  Is apathy more the trend?  The current climate of mudslinging and no one caring if the mud is true or not, would indicate that social media is becoming so prevalent and common place that apathy toward it is more common that actual activism resulting from it.

Whatever the future hold until the next big thing comes along to replace social media, if it ever does, one thing is for sure its influence will be debated and researched.  Our only hope is that as future research is done the influence and affect it has will be better understood.  

     

References:

Ciment, J. (2013). Social media. In R. Chapman & J. Ciment (Eds.), Culture wars in America: An encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices. London, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sharpecw/social_media/0

Atton, and Atton, C. (2010). Alternative media. In J. Downing (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social movement media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sagesmm/alternative_media/0

van Tryon, P. (2015). Integrating social media into learning and instruction. In M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sageet/integrating_social_media_into_learning_and_instruction/0

  

Video Games and Regulation

Then

The history of the regulation of the video or electronic gaming industry starts very early with attempts to regulate youth and children’s access to video game arcades in the 1980s.  With curfew rules being still in effect in most communities, a logical extension was to limit the access to certain areas and buildings in the communities.  There was some concern for the content of some games but the concern was largely limited as graphic quality was very primitive so most concerns were quickly dismissed.  This changed and grew as the quality of graphics and the nature of games improved and changed.

The immediate concern as things improved was along the lines of sexual content, nudity and violence.  Graphic quality had improved into the 1990s and some content became more closely scrutinized. As much as there was a call to have government regulation, the gaming industry was growing at such a rapid rate the industry itself began to promote their own ideas of self-regulation with rating systems.  Such systems were initially placed by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB).  The rating had a basic component of E for Everyone, T for Teen and M for Mature.  In addition, it had over 30 different letter designations to give more specific indications of what the content of the software or game had so parents could see whether to not they wanted their child to own and play.

The video game industry because of this avoided most scrutiny until the mass shooting at Columbine which brought attention back to video games because of their supposed connection to the shooters.  The theory was that the games created the violence in the shooters but opposition voices stated that the shooters were already predisposed to violence so they were attracted to the games.  The research later supports the second theory but regulation was passed to make it crimes to sell games with adult or mature ratings to minors a crime although enforcement of these laws is nearly impossible. 

The battle at this point began as to whether video games are entitled to free speech rights or not.  Early efforts were designed to restrict sales of games but as the medium of gaming has evolved and changed it is nearly impossible to control the copying and distribution of games.   There still was some call to regulate content however as some games attempted to sneak adult content into mature rated games in the early millennium (notably Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas which snuck and sex orient mini game into its code).  The backlash caused a renewed effort at self-regulations of the industry which for a while seemed to stem the tide.

Now

The thing about rating systems is that each different medium seems to use a different one and the video gaming industry is no exception.  Unlike the Motion Picture Associations rating board which is independent of the film industry itself, the ESRB ratings board is a self-regulation body which is not independent. The free speech issue continues and so things are constantly a struggle between this idea of free expression and protection of children, youth and others. 

For the government, the choice has mostly been to let self-regulation continue in the video game industry as it is 1) the most cost effective way to regulate and 2) avoids the free speech controversy completely.  There is one notable exception to this rule which remains involves distribution of games to minors.  Even so this regulation while on the books is difficult to enforce in a world where parents can download the game but allow the minor to play it.  In addition, there are now thousands of independent game developers that put out a large amount of games often without ratings.  This creates the problem of how to regulate a game for distribution when it has no rating to begin with. 

The point then can be made that self-regulation has its weaknesses.  One is that independent developers are not necessarily required to get ratings so the content might be unknown and that it depends largely on the game developers as to how closely they want to comply with those self-regulations.  One other current ways of self-regulation content of video games is for members of the industry to follow a code of ethics.  Such codes however are often worse than organizational self-regulation as they are easier to break without penalty. 

  

One problem for government regulation though is that the gaming industry so rapidly changes that once regulations are passed they are often obsolete as deliver systems and game content often changes with so many games coming out in multiple platforms.  The current download structure for games on sites like Steam mean that the person downloading the game could be anyone and now there is no physical disc to regulate as well.  This means that laws designed to keep children form seeing forbidden material are possibly obsolete as there is no way to control a download system online.  There is no way to guarantee that the recipient is an adult and so game producers are left simply producing games, selling them and distributing them without any way to control who gets them. This makes the self-regulation of gaming ratings difficult as well.  The industry can slap a rating on the description, but it can be completely ignored.

The issue of independent developers also has other issues.  Often independents remain so because it is their design to produce games with questionable or objectionable content.  They become underground developers to produce games that would by any self-regulation standards would have such red flags they might not even be sold. 

Later

If there is a discussion that remains it is the issue of free speech.  The industry itself is pretty divided as to where the world of video games and regulation will go from here.  Underlying this issue is whether video games can be considered art or are they merely toys.  If they are classified as art then free speech rules come into play as they would for sculpture, paintings or drawings.  If they are merely toys, then toys have been regulated to death as far s safety and content with little regard to free speech rights.  The question is do video games cross the line into art as it is no longer an activity solely for children?  Does the artistic nature of game graphics make them art?  In 2011 the National Endowment for the Arts declared video games an art but is that sufficient to classify them as such? 

It’s the question from a legal standpoint that remains unanswered that could have the most effect on the gaming industry.  Games now involve a large amount of creativity from development, story writing, and graphics.  In many ways, it is a merging of many artistic forms into a completely new art form.

 

Critics argue that games are still ‘kid stuff’, but when some of the themes of games can be very mature and with multiple endings possible depending on the choices of the player in a sense it is multiple movies overlaid that is interactive, this definition is difficult to maintain.  Truth be told the fact that games often have a story nature that is much like any other story that would fall under free speech rules and then the graphic arts part of games simply makes the games seem much more like art than just ‘kid’s stuff’. 

I think this is why government regulators will continue to focus on distribution rather than content to avoid this fight altogether and the video game industry will continue to promote self-regulation for the same reason.  There is a lot at stake with this definition as to whether this media is art or toys.

Government regulators on the distribution front are encountering a system now that distributes view the internet and as that continues, this will make things very near impossible as controlling who games are distributed to and the underground system of independent games will compound this.

 

I have watch this fight from beginning to end and right now I think things will remain as a stalemate.  It is better described as a Mexican standoff as the government regulators could lose a lot of control if video games are classified as art.  On the other side, the gaming industry could face severe regulation if games lose the protection of ‘free speech” On the side of the unknown, could such regulations then be enforced given that the reason the governments of federal and state keep self-regulation in place is that without it they would be overwhelmed.

 

As time passes, technology and innovation might make games even more artistic and that might mean that government officials might sense that challenging the artistic nature of games more and more difficult which would lead them to continuing the situation of self-regulation of content and some regulation of distribution.  Future innovation may change this, but I don’t see too much changing until such innovation actually comes along.

References:

Skalski, and Skalski, P. (2007). Regulation, Electronic Games. In J. Jensen Arnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of children, adolescents, and the media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sagecam/regulation_electronic_games/0

Lambe, and Lambe, J. (2007). Regulation, industry self-regulation. In J. Jensen Arnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of children, adolescents, and the media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sagecam/regulation_industry_self_regulation/0

Warren, and Warren, R. (2007). Parental advisory labels and rating systems. In J. Jensen Arnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of children, adolescents, and the media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sagecam/parental_advisory_labels_and_rating_systems/0    

Television Advertising and Regulation

Then

Advertising fraud is not a new thing in advertising but it is on television that the most controversy takes place because it is much more difficult to protect the consumers when it comes to something with visual component and the potential to deceive through misleading visuals and over the top claims is very high.  Oddly enough the issue of free speech was never considered in this issue as the ruling of the government was that free speech did not extend to advertising per se and it wasn’t until the 1970s that that changed a bit to say that advertisers had the right to limited free speech. This gave advertisers a little more leeway but from the standpoint of many consumer groups this has been a little too much as they seek to get more standards on advertisers about claims, content and the effects that advertising can have on teenagers and children.

The most significant action in the United States regarding advertising was the creation of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to regulate all ads although consumer groups have always complained that the FTC about fraud cases against advertising has a poor track record of success. Consumer groups seem to have a better record of success in getting results against fraudulent claims historically than the FTC. The FTC has been in the past reliant on regulation being complied with by the advertisers on their own as they often do not have the size to police all ads effectively.  It does rely on consumer groups to help.

Past issues of regulation for the FTC have included effects of ads on Children and Teenagers as well.  In large part Television ads for smoking were removed to prevent the influence the cigarette companies were having on teenagers with their cool ads on television and then later in magazines.  Infomercials were banned at first because they could target children who it was deemed could not tell the difference between a show and a commercial.  This was the same rationale that was used for toy manufacturers not being able to advertise products at the same time as a show the toy represents.  This changed in the 1980s when Transformers and GI Joe were allowed after deregulation to advertise transformer and GI Joe toys at the same time the show was on.  I saw this happen and there was a lot of talk at the time as to how this would influence children.  In the end, all we could say is that it caused them to make and association between the two and buy more toys related to the show.

One other thing could be stated about regulation in the past is that the FTC did not in the past (nor the present) must prove that claims of advertisers were not true, but that at the time the advertiser had no basis to believe it was true even if it is found out later that it was true.  It simply has to be misleading in its claims.  One pain reliever fell into this trap several years ago claiming it was better at stopping headache pain than other pain relievers but failed to mention that its main ingredient wsa aspirin one of the pain relievers it was putting itself up against.

              

Now

Despite the FTC’s oversight advertisers are still very much capable of running false ads.  Some of their techniques, regardless of regulation, are still questionable.  The most common misleading techniques have been long documented and you can have a closer look at them here:

That said there are three forms of regulation that are currently employed to combat these tactics and they are: Government agencies, consumer groups and self-regulation. 

Government agencies covers most of the official regulation of advertising with the FTC being the top of the regulation pyramid as far as regulation importance.   Under this agency state agencies align themselves as well as self-governing bodies that we will talk about later.  There is a twofold aim of these regulatory bodies.  One is the impact of the claim the advertisers make on the target audience and the other is to police false or misleading claims.  The first measures the effects of advertising on groups that are considered vulnerable or impressionable – children and teens most often but now on the elderly more and more.  The second is to determine if the ad was misleading in any way and that does not mean the claims are untrue but that the way the ad presents them might give false impressions as well.

The second advocacy agency is consumer groups.  Group like the National Advertising Division (NAD) and the Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of the National Advertising Review Council (NARC) all use FTC guidelines and were largely the product of the leadership of militant consumer advocate Ralph Nader or are at least his advocacy children.  These group are more often than the FTC to take immediate action on false products or products they deem harmful in some way.  Because they often have the funding and the ready-made advocacy base of supporters they are often more effective in helping consumers take on misleading claims than the FTC. They also are the first to damage an advertiser in the place that matters most by helping victims of fraud sue the company responsible.

Finally, many companies that sell products self-regulate to make their companies at least appear more legitimate by coming under certain voluntary standards.  Groups like the Better Business Bureau (BBB)and others seek to run under certain common standards for advertising that seek to comply with the regulations and even go beyond them to present their companies as trust worthy.  It is also not uncommon for these groups to work with consumer groups so that there is a double seal of approval on the advertiser that this product’s claims have been double checked on all fronts before they are presented.  Whether perception meets reality is a matter for some debate but the effort is to make provide a respectable side to advertising products even though advertisers and their agencies routinely finish at the bottom of the list as far as trustworthiness.

          

Later

Looking to the future of advertising regulation, I can personally see nothing on the horizon that will change the current situation.  The FTC remains the body of regulations on advertising along with local agencies, but their lack of manpower will always mean they can only deal with a select group of violators.  Their record is one of filing very few claims against advertising and getting few convictions.

The most effective form of ‘regulation’ is probably going to continue to be the partnership that exists between consumer advocacy groups and self-regulating bodies on the world of business.  This is simply because these two institution do not have the red tape of bureaucracy to deal with when a problem with an ad is reported to them.   They can act and advocate for the victims of bodies can pull their endorsement faster than the FTC can act to bring charges and prosecute them.

 

If there is one thing that has changed television it is streaming has made ads more prevalent and varied.  This has made the FTC’s job even far more difficult because ads are difficult to police and now there are even more to police.  This is going to probably invoke some changes to the FTC being necessary but more importantly consumer advocates and self- governing bodies should be even more active but there is also something to be said for personal responsibility.

In the early days of advertising, the slogan was ‘let the buyer beware”.  Later as television regulation became more extensive then the slogan became ‘let the seller beware” but now things are changing so rapidly it may be rapidly be changing back to ‘let the buyer beware’ because the FTC, consumer groups and self-regulating bodies are becoming rapidly overloaded. 

This is what may make the internet even more important as people review products online and report problems.  It is ultimately networking between people who buy products and have concerns about how they are being advertised that may be the new type of consumer groups.  These groups may be less formal but they are no less effective at creating awareness about product ads and whether their claims are fraudulent or controversial.  Social networking is taking this to a whole new level as product reviews can almost be instantaneous.  How this will ultimately affect ad claims and regulation is anyone’s guess.   

References:

Mosdell, N. (2009). Regulation (Television). In Q. Langley et al., Key concepts in public relations. London, UK: Sage UK. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sageukpr/regulation_television/0

Lee, S. and Lee, (2007). Advertising, regulation of. In J. Jensen Arnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of children, adolescents, and the media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sagecam/advertising_regulation_of/0

Cheng, H. (2004). Advertising fraud. In L. Salinger, Encyclopedia of White-Collar & corporate crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sagewccc/advertising_fraud/0 

Internet Blogging

Then:

Blogging or writing a 'web log' has now been around since roughly 1996.  While other types of blogs online the practice of blogging gets its start with websites that regularly update their content.  The practice of blogging with its more formal systems like we see on Blogger.com and WordPress don't appear until later, but the idea of journal online that others can read and interests others.  The idea of sharing one's thoughts and ideas took off though during the Iraq War in 2003 as alternatives to traditional news sources.  Many blogs of that time were focused on giving alternatives opinions and consideration to other 'facts' that might reflect on the conduct and implications of the war.

The first blogs, as mentioned before were more websites that were updated regularly and often involved several contributes.  The blogging that is known today really didn't get its start until the World Wide Web with its system of addresses became standard. This allowed a blog to have its own address and accessibility limited only by the web itself.  This combined with the increasing popularity of the Internet, led to more and more people longing to express themselves in written form.

Blogging has grown from humble beginnings to well over one million blogs on the Internet.  As blogging continued to be more and more popular certain companies sought to create hosting sites and standardized blogging came into existence.  These platforms made it possible that anyone could create a blog and start blogging in a matter of minutes.  This made things easier and the popularity of blogging has increased tremendously over the last 15 years because of it.        

Now:

Today blogging is probably bigger than it has ever been.  Bloggers come in all types and interests but basically fall into four categories 1) Hobbyists who blog for fun, 2) Professionals who blog part or full time for money, 3) corporate bloggers that write to enhance their position and 4) multi-author bloggers who collaborate on a blog for various purposes.  All of them have one thing in common and that is they are writers who use the platform of blogging to write and post so others can read their work.

Types of blogs are even more varied than their authors as there is literally a blog for very topic under the sun.  Bloggers, even hobbyists, can make money from their blogging either through monetizing or advertising.  Some make money from the blog they contribute to as part of their income.  In any case, blogs reflect their authors to a high degree.

If there is any current effect blogging has, it is that it creates an alternative form of journalism. Journalism that cannot be controlled.  Bloggers have taken on established journalism and at times been considered more trustworthy than the mainstream journalism.  There is no shortage of difference in opinions or viewpoints in the blogger sphere.

The one thing the blogger sphere has bee subject to is fashion.  Blogs have changed over the years but the one constant is this idea of what is fashionable/  For a time it was cooking blogs, then it was business blogs, etc. More broadly the kind of personal family blogs that were once very common have fallen off in popularity as people embrace social media to be connected instead of blogs.  Blogs then adapt but some types remain a constant.

Political blogs are very popular and in many ways this reflects how many blogs started.  Social issues, health issues and other types of issue related blogs have long dominated the world of the blog and still do. Blogging has always been a soapbox of sorts where people can express opinions but that has led to problems that still continue to this day.

The question that is often encountered is are bloggers actually journalists that are responsible for their content or are they just people who write their opinions on the Internet.  Often this question comes down to a question of legality as to whether bloggers can be sued for slander or liable.  This often comes down to the popularity of the blogger and how much influence they have.  At what point does a blogger cross the line from person with an opinion to professional journalist and subject to the code of professionals remain and will remain a question for some time.

Blogging's influence is also another question.  How many people read blogs and are influenced to act or think a certain way based on what they read?  Is the influence of blogging rising or falling?  Is a blog being attached to a website simply something people now expect rather than an unique feature?  Is social media undercutting the influence of blogging?  These are questions people are asking about blogging and the answers are difficult to find.  As we turn to the future of blogging there are many challenges.



Later: 

If blogging has anything to set as its foundation on it is the simple fact is that writing as a form of communication has been around for a long time.  It was simply a matter of time before the internet provided a means for more and more people to write.   Writing has been around for a long time and as long as the internet is a place where people can write, blogging will be a part of that desire to write. The great difference is that now anyone can have a public voice through writing if they wish.

So far blogging has not taken a downturn as far as number of people participating and it does not look like it will take a downturn at least in the near future as the growth has been fairly steady and consistent.  Even with the advent of video blogging the growth of blogging a a whole has not slowed down.  It seems ot be more ad more mainstream and often writers of all types now have a blog as a matter of course as part of their careers as writers.  Many other professionals are seeing the same thing.

This growth has not been without its consequences. It is much harder for to get noticed as a blogger with more people blogging.  The future of blogging might require a greater understanding of all forms of social media to get noticed and for professional bloggers this presents greater challenges.  In the past if one simply had a unique concept they could get popular very quickly as being the only on doing that particular thing but now it is harder to even get initial exposure.  

According to blogger.com I have been blogging personally since March 2006 and if my math is correct I have currently around ten blogs.  Most of them lay dormant and I have deleted probably twice that number in the last decade.  I have tried other platforms as well so I have some knowledge of how this works and enough history to make the observation that I don't see blogging going away anytime soon, I also see that it is going to get harder and harder to make a living at it as more people continue to enter the blogger sphere.  It is going to take someone who is savvy at more than just writing to have a profitable blog.  In my humble opinion.

References:

Blogging. (2015). In J. Watson & A. Hill, Dictionary of media and communication studies. London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/dictmedia/blogging/0

Blogging. (2014). In J. Boulton, 100 ideas that changed the web. London, UK: Laurence King. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/lkingideas/blogging/0

Ciment, J. (2013). Blogs and blogosphere. In R. Chapman & J. Ciment (Eds.), Culture wars in America: An encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sharpecw/blogs_and_blogosphere/0  

Public Broadcasting Programing

Then:



The initial foundation of public television was laid in 1952 when the FCC reserved channels for educational television but it was not until 1967 until the notion of 'public television" emerged.  The idea of using money to publicly fund television stations with the purpose of education, enriching culture and providing information.  The next two years would see the development of a system of programming that remains in effect to this very day.

The biggest thing to understand about public television programming is that neither the national Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) or Public Broadcasting System (PBS) can produce programming.  All programming for public television stations has ot be created by the local stations or produce by other sources.  This was to prevent both of these organizations which are run by politicians who owe party allegiance politically, from using public broad casting as a political propaganda tool at least in theory.  Despite this, many have accused the public stations of being used in the past by the government from time to time to spread an agenda.

To further the notion of separation from government, funding must be provided by multiple sources.  While all stations receive some funding from the federal government which includes local donations, local underwriting and grants.  These sources for public funding have also been the source of questions regarding programming content as who provides private funds has been a source of controversy in the past.

The one thing that can be said is that from a funding aspect, public television has always struggled for funding and over the years has stayed afloat despite these struggles.  Mostly funding is probably connected with the quality of programming and so it becomes a viscous cycle of getting good funding to get good programming, but if the programming is not quality, the funding drys up and you enter a downward spiral.  The value of public television may be diminishing as other alternate sources of educational television are have begun to crop up as well as different delivery systems.

Technologically, public broadcasting has not always kept up over the years.  In the beginning, the stations were small and low powered and I remember as a kid in the days of the Big Three we could not even get a signal and it was only the advent of cable where it became more mainstream and outside the confines of urban areas or college campuses.          



Now:

The great issue facing public broadcasting now is this funding problem.  Commercial television has advertising and fee services to keep their funding high, but public television programming is not allowed to advertise to make money so sometimes the alternate sources of funding are just not there.  To make matters worse, many have questioned the neutrality of public broadcasting as far as the political spectrum is concerned and there have been many times that politicians have threatened to remove CPB or cut funding at the federal level.

Public broadcasting also now faces more competition than ever before.  For profit educational companies produce programming that can be purchased and often has a higher quality.  Streaming services and educational programs are available on demand or through services such as Netflix and others.  The issue of the purpose and necessity of PBS reoccurs often and those who support public broadcasting have to do even more and more work to keep things running and budget cuts threaten programming.

The vast majority of funding comes from individuals and businesses but if other sources provide the same educational level of programming as public sources than is the motivation for both these individuals and business going to continue.  Programming has changed because of this and you see more and more public television programming being purchased from outside sources to run on the stations. Their long running relationship with the British Broadcasting Corporation and often buys the rights to show programs (that are older or no longer running) in the United States.

As we look at the programming that is currently being produced, controversy continues.  In 2010 the Republican dominated Congress suggested cutting funding to PBS as an unnecessary luxury in a budget that was strained to the limit at the time.  Funding at a federal level is now openly questioned regularly and this has public broadcasters nervous.

The political side of this has not gone away either as conservatives attack PBS regularly and have done so since the 1980s as they assert that political commentary shows like Frontline take a more liberal and left side stance.  PBS counters that they try to be balanced but the conservatives state that the fact they can level criticism and liberals do not indicates as bias.  Should the tax payers fund something that is used for a political agenda?  This is the constant question that revolves around PBS and their programming.

Mostly though the issue is funding and recently in July it was announced by Home Box Office (HBO), who produces Sesame Street for PBS, that they would be cutting three long time cast members.  They public line was that this was or the good of the show but the rumors were more along the lines of getting rid of the three most expensive actors to make the show cost less to produce.  This kind of thing happens from time to time affecting a lot of PBS programming.  There is a constant challenge to cut costs and yet keep the quality of programming high.

Later: 

The real challenge of looking at the future of public broadcasting is that very few people want to talk about it.  In many senses, it faces the same challenges as regular television but without corporate funding it faces greater monetary challenges.  The challenges of internet services for television as well as things like Netflix are going to cut deeper into the ability of all regular broadcast television and public broadcasting will far greater challenges as it tries to adapt.

From a programming viewpoint there are other sources coming into the programming realm that also do not have a profit motive.  As not for profit websites create educational and informational content including a video component; it might be said their are filling the role public television was originally created to produce.  The internet itself might be considered as an educational tool so does public television have a place in a world where their programming could be duplicated by other means?

I personally have mixed feelings about this situation.  On the one hand, I have some emotional connection to public television in the areas of being part of my childhood and my children's childhood with programs like Sesame Street.  At the same time I see my granddaughters learning from new media and so the necessity of public broadcasting becomes the focus.

I also could say that my horizons have been widened by watching shows on cable through public broadcasting that exposed me over to the years to art and culture as well as being one small window to other countries through the BBC.  That said, the internet can do the same thing and I have far more choice a selection as to what culture and art I want to view and learn about.   All things come to an end and I think pubic broadcasting might be seeing the beginning of the end.

References:

Goldstein, J. (2004). Public television. In A. DiStefano, K. Rudestam & R. Silverman, Encyclopedia of distributed learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sagedl/public_television/0

Chapman, R. (2013). Public Broadcasting Service. In R. Chapman & J. Ciment (Eds.), Culture wars in America: An encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sharpecw/public_broadcasting_service/0

@. (2013). Funding Cuts Leave The Future of PBS in Question. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from http://screenrant.com/pbs-funding-cuts-cpb-mcrid-106473/ 

 

Low Power FM (Frequency Modulation) Radio

Then:


It seems that the development of Frequency Modulation (FM) Radio in the 1920s by Edwin Armstrong was always part legal controversy.  Armstrong almost immediately finds himself embroiled in controversy with his former friend Sarnoff and this leads to legal issues.  Despite the superiority of FM radio in the areas of removing static, higher signal quality and a way to get past night time broadcasting problems, Sarnoff was too invested in Amplitude Modulation (AM) financially to have a competitor so he for the most part stifled the development of FM radio and used the government to help him.  Mostly this involved legal battles but the FCC did outlaw simulcasts of AM and FM together and the stations would stick with AM.

While it is easy to get caught up in the big legal battle the fact is that smaller low powered FM stations were always the subject of legal controversy and overbearing regulation.  Initially the government in 1948 licensed smaller stations for educational and non-profit situations.  These "Class D: stations were initially accepted on university and college campuses but later the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 forced smaller stations up to higher standards.  This forced many smaller stations outside education to close and later in 1978 further government regulation to upgrade in power forced many smaller stations to shut down and in the earlier 1980s all but the university stations were pretty much gone.  The regulations pretty much had crushed the smaller stations.

At some point though the public rebelled and many people began to start and operate small FM stations illegally.  Mbanna Kantako in 1986 became famous by operating a small radio station in his living room and supposedly launched the 'micro radio' revolution.  Kantako argued that his first amendment rights were being denied him because of the overbearing regulation that favored radio with purely commercial interests.  He would have continued all the way to the supreme court except no major radio group continued with the prosecution so he never got to argue his case before the supreme court.

The final real case of the past that was related to Low Power FM was United States vs. Dunifer. Dunifer started his Low Power FM station in 1992 and was fined $20,000 for not having sufficient power.  Dunifer argued that the law only stated that a radio station had to have sufficient power to broadcast and he demonstrated that low power FM stations had sufficient power to do just that. In the end the case basically became the catalyst of a micro radio revolution that created stations that went up faster than the FCC (Federal Communications Commission)  could shut them down.



Now:

By 1998, there were more than 1000 illegal micro stations operating in the US.  The FCC shut down about 250 stations at that time but it was become clear that they were losing.  The problem was greatly increased by the fact that these illegal stations were using the new found organization benefits of the internet to avoid both fines and capture by the authorities.  The public was soon learning the potential of low powered FM.   Finally under tremendous pressure the FCC was set to create a regulations standard for Low Powered FM that would have allowed the licencing of 10000 low powered stations in 2000.

Congress itself intervened and the standards that y brought o bear pretty much limited the ability once again of small stations to gain traction.  The lobbying for restricting of licencing had its effect as well and in the early millennium there were roughly 1300 stations classified as Low Powered FM.  This has dropped as the increasing regulations have dropped this number to 500.  However there seems to be a change in the winds that even now is being felt as FM stations as a whole turning to online broadcasting.

One might think this would be the answer, but the truth is that while internet radio does have some conveniences, statistics bear out that many people still listen to regular FM radio and statistics range from 10 to 15% percent of radio listeners listen to the online version.  93% of radio listeners still listen to conventional FM or AM radio and so the move to online may be slightly overstated as to its significance.  That said if larger stations do move more online nad attract listeners that would open up more room for low powered FM to be less regulated and less controlled by the FCC and the government in general.

Changing technology is changing the game for Low Powered FM but it is doing so far slower than what might be expected.  Then again what could be happening is that online broadcasting might be made more for the small radio market than the large scale FM stations.  This is the shift that may actually be happening but the future is a little difficult to see.  Although very recently there was a major victory in 2013.

Later:

According to Pew Research, pod casting has grown from 13% to 21% in the last three years (2013-2016) for the market of 21 years of age and younger.  I mention pod casting because it may make the argument for or against low powered FM possibly irrelevant over time or provide a way where there might be a interesting or more balanced output between online broadcasters, Low Powered FM and the Large market broadcasters who are trying to stretch their market into online.  Online broadcasting does not have many of the limitations of regular broadcasting but it seems not to be growing as fast as many thought it would.  That said, the potential is there because you don't have frequencies to crowd the airways with online broadcasting so limiting radio stations or the number of broadcasters is unnecessary.

Part of this will of course involve the slow passing of time as older radio listeners give way to new ones.  This would mean that online radio and pod casting might slowly overtake regular broadcasting.  This might mean that Low powered local stations might begin to serve a role that is vacated by online broadcasting by being more locally oriented.  So far, as stations have gone online they have become more generic and this is increased as the number of radio station owner has become more limited.

In this way, low powered FM may very much be a reflection of the long term battle FM radio has had as a general whole.  It above all things has had to fight for its existence against the corporate power of RCA.  The legal battles that have surrounded FM in the earlier days still surround low powered FM as it fights against the larger corporate and non-corporate stations.  The thing that it now might face is peace as online pod casting might give voice to those who currently use Low Powered FM for that purpose.

In the end FM was designed to clear up problems that AM simply did not have the ability to fix,  The irony is that despite its technical advantages it has long lived in controversy.  Through its past. present and future, one of its children Low powered FM continues to live in that realm of controversy.  I suppose Armstrong might smile and appreciate the irony that at least on of his technical children is still causing problems even though he created it in the first place to clear up problems. I know I certainly do.

References:

Opel, and Opel, A. (2010). Low-Power FM radio (United States). In J. Downing (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social movement media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sagesmm/low_power_fm_radio_united_states/0

Whittaker, R. (n.d.). The Dawn Of Radio History. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from http://www.cybercollege.com/frtv/frtv020.htm

Irvine, V. (2015). Topic: Radio Industry. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from https://www.statista.com/topics/1330/radio/