Monday, February 26, 2007

Spears and Seidlin: Is Any Publicity Good Publicity?

There’s an old saying that goes, “Any publicity is good publicity.” This theory of maximum exposure has worked well for some. Paris Hilton can credit her constant tabloid presence for much of her notoriety. It was the leak of her sex tape that brought many curious viewers to the first season of The Simple Life. Even Kazakhstan president Nursultan Nazarbayev said any publicity is better than nothing when questioned of Sacha Cohen’s Borat, which “portrays Kazakhstan as a country where people drink horse urine and whose national pastimes include incest and shooting dogs,” said Bloomberg in Business Report. This week I decided to see what the blogosphere was buzzing about. Two stories managed to get almost as much publicity as the Oscars: Judge Larry and shaven Britney Spears, as seen in the photo to the right. Both are rather bizarre spectacles. Find my comment on a blog concerning Judge Larry Seidlin’s strange behavior here, or read my thoughts below. A clip of his famous tears can be found at the bottom of this post. I also shared opinions on Britney Spears in response to the blog Celebrity Mound and how this attention may hinder her custody battle. Is this publicity “good” publicity?

Many people share in your distaste for Judge Larry Seidlin’s erratic behavior. Blogs and news articles joked he was a possible threat to “Days of Our Lives,” and called him ringmaster to a circus, even “Judge Crybaby.” Yet, coverage of that Florida courtroom made ratings soar. Judge Larry’s strange actions became center of attention in the media. Most of America was disgusted, but they were nonetheless enthralled. Despite the hundreds of criticisms, and universal mockery of this man, he will still most likely get his television show. Viewers watch shows like Dr. Phil and Judge Judy and hate the hosts but love the drama. As demonstrated last week, Seidlin has a flair for the dramatic. Embarrassment by those in his field makes no difference; his “circus” honored him widespread publicity. If Judge Larry is in fact looking to start his own show, this hype is exactly what he needed.

In the case of Britney Spears I cannot see how this publicity would be good for anyone but her ex-husband. Unforgiving tabloids paint Spears’ volatile behavior as bizarre and unstable. A favorite photo they use is one where her hair is half shaved and a desperate insanity is conveyed in her eyes. Spears and ex-husband Kevin Federline are in the midst of a custody battle over their two sons. This widespread, unflattering publicity for Spears may make her fight increasingly difficult. For Federline it does just the opposite. This is the perfect opportunity to use her negative attention for his benefit. “Kevin continues to be a very focused father with his children with hands-on management.” Kevin was sympathetic enough to postpone the court date and also brought his sons to visit their mother in rehab. It is hard to say whether Federline’s sincerity is genuine. But sincere or not, he is looking like the better parent.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

The Merger of XM and Sirius: Necessary to Survive or No Competition?

Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio announced on Monday that they are planning to merge. Chairman of XM Gary Parsons is shown here with Mel Karmazin, CEO of Sirius. These two companies are America’s only services licensed to provide satellite radio. As a result, this amalgamation has raised significant antitrust concerns. In order for this merger to continue the Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department must be convinced that there is sufficient competition for both pricing fairness and innovation incentive. This is addressed in Peter Kaplan’s Reuters article. Although Sirius and XM suggest that terrestrial HD Radio and other new technologies may act as competition, both Sirius and XM offer a product unique enough to compete on its own. Their union would only stunt the growth of satellite radio.

CNET boasts the special qualities of satellite radio: it is commercial and static free, uncensored and provides artist/title read outs, weather and traffic for big cities, video and internet radio. Today, XM and Sirius are the only operators that widely deliver these services. However, the relatively unknown, but growing industry of terrestrial HD radio provides several of these amenities for free. Sirius and XM cited this audio device as reasonable competition in Kaplan’s article. HD broadcasting allows stations to supply music digitally, increasing quality and making artist/title readouts possible. Digital terrestrial radio comes from stations already known to listeners and offers more specialized traffic and weather than satellite. Unlike Sirius and XM, HD has commercials, but it offers the allure of a nonexistent price tag. These are all qualities that make HD radio a significant technology, but do they make it a competitor?

Similar to why people buy cable, satellite radio must have the programming listeners are willing to pay extra for. This merger will obviously create a wider programming pool: more music, more news and both Oprah Winfrey and Howard Stern. However, is this necessary to keep satellite radio alive? XM and Sirius’s content may be appealing enough as it is. XM radio boasted 8 million subscribers last year and Sirius had 6.3 million, according to Ashok Bindra’s report of In-Stat Worldwide Research. This is an increase of 5 million subscribers to each provider since CNET’s early 2005 data, a significant jump that is only expected to continue growing. Bindra states, “The In-Stat report titled ‘More Consumers to Tune Into Digital Radio in 2007’ indicates that this growth [of satellite and digital radio markets] will come from increased awareness of terrestrial HD radio and the continued popularity of satellite radio in the United States.” This study, conducted before XM and Sirius’s announcement, projects that satellite and HD radio will both continue substantial growth. Though HD may seem like a competitor, offering many of the same services for free, the two are different enough to coexist. Listeners can have both; satellite for specialized programs, like specific sporting events or talk shows commercial free and HD for local traffic, news, and weather. Satellite might be considered the “cable” of radio and HD the broadcasting networks. Now imagine if America had only one cable provider.

As indicated in Bindra’s article, Satellite and HD are the future of radio broadcast with an expected 25 million digital receiver shipments in 2010. In order for satellite radio to develop as predicted, there must be several service suppliers in the field. At this moment there are only two and by them combining they are creating a force with which emerging providers will have difficulty competing. Antitrust lawyer Stephen Axinn states in Reuters, "The fact that somebody invented satellite radio and charges for it, and a million people own it, is a strong indication that it's a different market than something that is free…It looks to me like a deal that can't happen." If this agreement were to continue, they would be limiting the growth of satellite radio to the development of this single company. What is going to persuade them to continue researching and improving? There will be no competitors attempting to out do them or other services keeping the price down. Although digital terrestrial radio will compete, realistically it could just be considered a better version of what there is now. Better quality and digital readouts will not steal numerous people away from satellite radio; these services are just a fraction of its appeal. The graph to the upper right, from Jacobs Media, shows that at least three of the top four reasons why Sirius clients subscribe are qualities that will still be exclusive to satellite radio even after HD radio emerges. With XM and Sirius in a unique market, this combination shows definite signs of a monopoly that should be prevented.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Media Violence: The Ever Present Controversy

Violence in the media is constantly at the center of public debate. Psychologists, educators, and television executives are incessantly in dialogue regarding the subject which has numerous research studies outlining its effects. This week, I decided to dive into the blogosphere to see what other online writers had to say on the topic. One entry discussed the recent New Yorker article regarding torturing depicted in the television drama 24 and how it is affecting the mentality of troops in Iraq. To the left is a production still from a torture scene in ABC’s hit series Lost, which was also criticized. Military officials and human rights activists went to executives of 24, asking that they portray torture more realistically, saying it is rarely successful and can take weeks or months to complete. You can read my thoughts below, or visit this link to view the whole blog and my comments. Another interesting blog summarized detailed research regarding media violence and its effects on children. My comments on this post can be found here along with the blog or directly after my thoughts on 24 below.

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/02/10/stranger-than-fiction-does-24-inspire-real-life-torture/

Television violence is often a subject of concern, but the notion of one hour dramas like Lost or 24 “trumping military training” (as stated in the New Yorker article) is ridiculous. Imagine a highly educated doctor throwing out all medical knowledge in order to do an operation Grey’s Anatomy style. These programs may inspire and galvanize viewers, but it is those committing the torturous crimes that are responsible for their actions. A lack of knowledge regarding reality reveals a flaw in military training, not a flaw in primetime television. These troops ought to be educated enough on torture tactics to realize that shows like 24 and Lost are not accurately depicting the situations. Television programs often bend the truth for viewing pleasure; do they seriously expect Jack Bauer to spend seven full seasons trying to get information out of one guy? It would seem that military officials are using 24 as a scapegoat for immoral procedures revealed in Iraq, while human rights activists jumped at an opportunity to criticize the controversial show.

http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/why-some-kids-seem-immune-from-the-bad-effects-of-television-violence-and-violent-video-games/#respond

This blog raises the ever present question of media responsibility in censoring violent content. Germany took one route with its recent legislation hoping to outlaw overly aggressive video games entirely, while some countries prefer a more hands-off approach. With the extensive research conducted on the subject, to ignore the affects of this content on children would be both naive and careless. Yet still, the FCC cannot be expected to ban violence on television completely. The obligation lies once again with good parenting. Guardians are accountable for regulating a child’s media exposure, but how much do they know about the effects of television violence? Perhaps this is where media responsibility comes into play, in educating the public on these harms. Research like this should be more actively publicized. Harmful effects should be outlined in a warning before violent programming, something akin to the Surgeon General’s words on cigarettes. More needs to be done, more than just a TV14 in the corner, but without crossing into censorship.

Monday, February 5, 2007

Celebrity Obsession: How Much for a Pair of Paris' Panties?

American society feeds on the lives of the famous. Checkout lines at every grocery store are plastered with popular magazines dedicated to star sightings and celebrity gossip, like Us Weekly shown below. Even television shows like Entertainment Weekly and Extra have gained success by prying into the private lives of public icons. Although society has always had a degree of celebrity worship, Cosmos Magazine explains that the internet boom has made it more “prevalent and intense,” in not just the U.S., but the entire Western world. Dr. Stuart Fischoff, spokesman for the American Psychological Association, explained in a WebMD Article that today, celebrity worship is bigger than ever, "You have a confluence of forces coming together in technology and the media to make it happen and it's worldwide and it's multiplying like lice." The public is continuing to demand juicy stories and the prices that publications are willing to pay for them are skyrocketing. Yet, how far is too far when infiltrating the personal life of a star? Paying $4 million for baby Shiloh’s photos is one thing; selling Paris Hilton’s dirty linens, diaries and medical information for public display is another. Celebrity obsession has fueled a business that profits by disregarding the privacy and feelings of human beings. It has crossed the line to become another ethical defect in our society.

Paris Hilton is the celebrity that the American public loves to expose: from her infamous sex tape in 2004, to the personal photos and phone numbers hacked from her T-Mobile Sidekick a year later. Her party girl antics, heiress status and famous friends make Paris an ideal media target. She has even learned how to manipulate her mishaps to feed her fame and fortune. In fact, Hilton released her sex video, 1 Night in Paris (the cover seen to the right) afte
r the film was leaked over the net. Fans and paparazzi continue to push the envelope when delving into Hilton’s personal life and just last week this intrusion was brought to an entirely new level. Hilton is suing Parisexposed.com, a subscription based website flaunting Paris’ personal belongings. David Hans Schmidt, known as “The Sultan of Sleaze” because of his time in the porn industry, and entrepreneur Bardia Persia acquired the possessions indirectly, which include“18 personal diaries, sex tapes, topless photos, love notes, medical records and friends' phone numbers scribbled on paper napkins,” says Susan Donaldson James of ABC News. They paid $10 million for the items after Paris failed to pay a $208 fee at a storage locker when she was between mansions. For website owners to make millions of dollars by revealing another human’s most intimate information is appalling. Although Hilton’s behavior often invites public voyeurism, there is a difference between photographers to taking scandalous pictures of her out on the town and purloining her possessions from behind lock and key. Making a business out of embarrassing and violating well-known people may be lucrative but is certainly not ethical. “Celebrity worship is big business,” psychologist James Houran explained, “but from a social standpoint, it’s not healthy.” Many big names exploit this obsession, making great money appearing on billboards and television advertisements, but there is a darker and more intrusive side to the growing phenomenon.

Superstar fixation is not just an Amer
ican issue either. Terence Blackler brought up one of the most famous paparazzi permeations in Britain’s The Independent: “From the moment when photographers swarmed over the dying Princess Diana to get shots which magazines would pay for and publish, ideas of privacy and decency changed for ever.” The heartbreaking incident highlighted the unrelenting nature of the paparazzi, but the business of celebrity fascination continued. To the left is a photograph of Diana being pursued by the paparazzi. December 2006, nine years after the tragic accident, Jean Francois Musa, owner of Etoile Limousines in Paris, announced that he would be selling the wrecked limousine in which Princess Diana was killed for £1 million. The British news source Daily Mail expressed concern for Diana’s children, “The attempt by someone to make a huge profit out of the tragedy is set to cause further heartache to Princes' William and Harry.” Princess Diana was a world icon. Celebrity worship gave her the ability to do many charitable acts but also holds great responsibility for her death. The desire to obtain huge earnings from the event and the fact that someone is willing to pay so much for the tragic artifacts, especially considering circumstances surrounding her passing, is just another example of flaws in society’s morality.

Celebrity worship is a vicious cycle; the media fuels the public’s fascination, while the public creates demand for the m
edia. With the recent growth in the internet and technological communication, the obsession seems to have spun out of control. Blackler addresses these concerns, “No event is too intimate, distressing or revolting to be a nice little earner indeed, the nastier it is, the bigger the pay-off is likely to be.” Star mania has grown so that the most violating material is the most profitable. Scandal, heartache, torture, disease and embarrassment have become a treat. A line must be drawn in respect for humans and their right to privacy; people should not be rewarded for putting another’s personal life on display. Sometimes the public forgets that celebrities are real people with real feelings and should be given the respect that human beings deserve.