http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_church-internet_en.html

Vatican on the internet...innnnnnnteresting.


also-- my last day of work at Time Out. Officially unemployed for the first time since 2005...shiiiiit

ok ok
there was 1 more blog.
But I was young, and stupid. and look- Hello Kitty!
come on, how could I have been taking that seriously.
But you have to admit its good stuff!
hooker stabbings and everything.
ah 2006....good times.
http://ostateruggatute.livejournal.com/

Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44fgbkWQ4ek

remember that time...

...that I said I got into grad school?
and then we never spoke again.
I'm sorry blog. I'll make it up to you.
Let me buy you dinner- I can change.
I swear, this time will be different!
ok ok
...I have to come clean. There was another blog.
Don't look at me like that! It was for class. I was just so stressed.
It meant nothing to me!
well, it meant a little because it affected my grade.
But your still my #1 blog. I swear.

http://akunderstands.blogspot.com

Since I'm cutting and pasting anway...

Hey check it, here's my application essay.

you know...in case you ever wanted to know what I want to do with my life.

Or if you were wondering if I was smarter than you.

I am, so...that's settled...

::awkward::....

William Bernback, legendary ad man and Founder of Doyle, Dane and Bernback advertising once said- “all of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society. We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it. Or we can help lift it onto a higher level.” It is my opinion that professionals within the communications industry, particularly those involved in the advertising and journalism fields, should impart this creed on every new generation of media professionals. While there is no common mantra for graduates of communications, during my own studies of the subject I was often left wondering why ethics didn’t play a larger role in my undergraduate education; what is so wrong with the idea of “first, do no harm”?

As a freshman at the State University of New York, I originally declared my major as Music Industry. My thinking on the subject being that while in high school I had held several positions representing the business/finance aspect of artistic organizations. I felt that my practical personality and organizational skills would help me excel in assisting the artistic organizations which I loved dearly. Unfortunately in my first few semesters at Oneonta I floundered; I wasn’t invested in my coursework and often enrolled in courses beyond my ability. I realized that I had not yet gone through the process of “learning how to learn,” as my Introduction to Psychology professor would tell me fall semester of my junior year.

That same year I made three important realizations which changed the focus of my studies as well as my future career goals. The first was that I had to completely overhaul my learning techniques and develop a process that would assist me in the basic skills required not only for academic achievement but for professional success as well. This process gave me a profound respect for teaching which I did not previously posses.

The second was that my true passion was for the research and analysis of media. I felt liberated to finally have found something which I was excited to be learning about, something I truly enjoyed researching, discussing and debating with not only my classmates but my advisors and friends as well. This led me to the realization that my true career calling is to teach on a collegiate level, where I can research what I feel is important and can hopefully have an impact on future generations of communications professionals so that they may “help lift the mass media onto a higher level”.

In an effort to better understand various aspects of communications I’ve held volunteer positions and jobs in several fields. As an undergraduate student I was the Program Director of the campus radio station, founder of the Communication Arts Society and an Investigative Journalism Intern for the Metroland Alternative Newsweekly. I spent two years working in corporate media relations and am currently working in the advertising/marketing department of Time Out New York magazine. All of these experiences have taught me different approaches to communications which I believe will allow me to instruct across mediums and enable me to apply abstract lessons in a practical way which will be relevant to students of all types of mass media.

The Media Studies program is truly where I believe my path leads next. The combination of production and theory as well as the emphasis on research and analysis is exactly what I am looking for in a graduate program. I look forward to studying new areas of mass media and at this time am particularly interested in researching new media, ethics in on-line marketing, and the moral and legal issues involved in marketing to children.

It is my belief that, as Marshall McLuhan says, “The answers are always inside the problem, not outside”. Ideally, as a professor I would utilize my professional experience and personality to inform business communications students of the ethical responsibilities involved in their chosen profession. I am very interested in the Ph.D. offered in conjunction with this program as well as the research and classroom assistantship opportunities available to graduate students.

Names of schools, newspapers, etc have been changed/removed to make it just a smidge harder for psychos to track me down and kill me.

This is what got me into school...we all know it wasn't my grades!!

Ladies and Gentleman,

I bring you, a proper research paper. Written by yours truly.

[Excerpt from my 20pg undergraduate theisis]

Saturday Morning Spin
Mass Communication Seminar, fall 2004

“Your job is to capture the largest possible audience. You think you know what the audience wants to watch and when they’re watching. You create or schedule or distribute or sponsor programs for that audience that tend to follow a formula. The audience is children. And you think you have no choice.” – Media Now, Report on Children’s Television.

This quote from Internet media watchdog group Media Now gets to the heart of what I found in my research of children’s programming. The reason that I chose the topic of problems with educational programming and the Children’s Television Act of 1990 is that I feel there is no emphasis placed on this quickly growing field of television programming and the ethical implications it presents. With the growing number of television stations and entire networks that cater to children it is a vastly expanding job market and will be a lucrative field for anyone interested in writing, production, and especially advertising.

When I began I knew there were specific rules in place to safeguard children, but I was dismayed to learn that the rules which are in place are so lax. My main goal in researching this topic is to educate myself on the specific problems, weaknesses and regulations facing educational programming in the hopes that the communications department could be prompted through research such as this to develop more relevant courses to educate SUNY Oneonta students regarding the ethics involved in writing and advertising for children. The question I will strive to answer with my research is whether the Children’s Television Act of 1990 ensures quality educational programs for children from ages two to sixteen with little commercial input and no manipulative advertising techniques. Through my research I have analyzed what the legislation does correctly, and what problems should be addressed.

In the Children’s Television Act of 1990, The Federal Communications Commission defines programming that complies with the Act “programming that furthers the positive development of children 16 years of age and under in any respect, including the child’s intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs. (FCC Fact Sheet on Children’s Television Programming, April 1995) As you can see this definition is very vague; it leaves much open to interpretation and does not specify how many hours of programming are needed, how many commercials are allowed, and what type of programming would be suitable for specific times of day. In 1996 the FCC added a few new rules to the Children’s Television Act, hoping to enforce the regulations that inspire television stations and affiliates to provide quality children’s programming. These regulations made some strides in improvement for children’s programming, but fell short. One goal of “Adopting several public information initiatives designed to give parents greater information about the core educational programs being aired by TV stations” (FCC Children’s Educational Television Report Card) has been almost totally ignored by most television stations. There is seemingly very little quality educational programming on broadcast television and it can be argued that what is out there is hardly ever properly advertised to parents of children seeking such programs. This sends a signal to television producers that since these programs are not properly endorsed, they must not be worth making. With small changes in advertising at television networks they could easily better advertise their educational programming and may be pleasantly surprised with new viewer turnout.

Another problem with the 1996 additions to the Children’s Television Act is the definition that the FCC gives to educational programming. “They generally must have serving the educational and informational needs of children as a significant purpose; be aired between the hours of 7am and 10pm; be a regularly scheduled weekly program; and be at least 30 minutes in length. (FCC Children’s Educational Television Report Card) While this definition of what fills the FCC requirements of educational programming may seem satisfactory, historically it’s been proven to cause more harm than good. Many local stations aired cable access teen talk shows and other community programs that were educational, but had to cancel them because they did not fill the obligation that station had to the FCC and funding would not allow for the stations to produce seemingly “extra” programming. Many stations cancelled their special programming because it ran irregularly and did not meet FCC regulations. The biggest impact this definition had on broadcast television was the cancellation of the “after-school special” series. Because these programs aired once a week and were not regularly scheduled into the daily programming of the stations, they did not meet the expectations of the FCC. So, with this one definition the FCC had unknowingly gotten rid of local programming, after-school specials, and any other special programs which were aired sporadically. One of the positive aspects of the 1996 change was a definition of the amount of time needed to fulfill the daily quota of children’s educational broadcasting. The FCC drew the line at three mandatory hours a day of educational programming; which, combined with the vague definition of what that would entail, left many children’s television activists unhappy.

Before the Children’s Television Act of 1990 there were several protest groups that sought to better the conditions of educational programming for children. The largest of these groups was Action for Children’s Television. Peggy Charren, the co-founder of ACT has this to say about their organization: “People criticize ACT for the lack of creativity today. We never asked for that. They don’t remember what it was like before we were around. There was no Sesame Street or Electric Company. It was never our idea to sanitize superheroes and reduce the art of animation to its present standards. The broadcasters are responsible for what’s on the air today, not Action for Children’s Television. We’re trying to see that the product is improved, not worsened.” (Peggy Charren, Saturday Morning Censors, PG 61) ACT was founded in 1968 and was widely back by politicians as a “safe” outlet to support the women’s movement going on at the time. Using their lobbying skills and “mommy” image, ACT fought for better quality children’s programming as well as an end to exploitative advertising techniques used on children in television commercials as well as programming. It is important to point out that the 1960s were not the first decade to see parental protest of the media. According to Heather Henderson- “A variety of parent’s groups protested children’s radio throughout the thirties accusing it of ‘over stimulating’ children and causing delinquent behavior. Anti-TV sentiment existed in the earliest days of television’s proliferation. In the fifties, many Americans saw television as a potentially dangerous medium: citizens undertook letter-writing campaigns and boycotts to keep alleged Communist actors off the television; and women’s magazines asked if TV would bring families together or tear them apart.” (Saturday Morning Censors, PG 65) Obviously we are still facing these same exact problems today.

ACT was gaining ground in the fight for children’s programming, but the television industry had one more card up their sleeve. Their new strategy put in place in the 1970s and 80s to which ACT fought adamantly against was the product based cartoon. In the 1980s Hallmark came out with a new line of toys, the “care bears”. They were cute, cuddly and had their own TV show. This cartoon was featured as children’s programming, even though the network it was featured on, and everyone involved in its creation knew that the show’s sole purpose was to endorse, promote and advertise Hallmark’s new line of plush Care Bear toys. Hallmark even coined their ad campaign “operation C”, shrouding it in secrecy until the television debut of the product. More blatant of an example was the attempt of the Frito Lay Corporation’s “Yo! It’s the Chester Cheetah Show”. This show took the well-known marketing logo of Chester Cheetah and placed him in his own half hour animated program. ACT protested the cartoon, calling it a “program length commercial”. The FCC ruled that they couldn’t do anything about the show unless it was deemed “indecent” but the project fell through because of pressure felt by Frito Lays from organizations such as ACT. Peggy Charren was quoted as saying “we feel we have zapped, for the time being, the problem of logos turning into half-hour programs”. (Saturday Morning Censors, PG 91) While Chester Cheetah would have to fade back from the full-length cartoon spotlight, he is a perfect example of the problems we still face in the world of broadcasting. Chester, along with the Care Bears, Strawberry Shortcake and the Transformers do not break any laws in place by the FCC, but they are considered unethical. “In 1996, the Children & the Media Program’s annual media conference explored the role of advertisers in improving the quality of TV for children. During this gathering, advertisers told us (Media Now) they were largely unfamiliar with the research that has been conducted on the impact of the media on children.” (A Report on Children’s Television, Children Now, 1997) Assuming that their advertising executives were not just lying to cover up their own breach of ethics in their advertising to children, there is obviously a problem with the state of broadcasting in America if advertisers are not made aware of the separate ethical issues that come along with advertising to children. While at this point in time there is no example as laughably blatant as Chester Cheetah, it is not hard to find programs similar to the “full-length commercial” that ACT used to work so hard to stop. In a study I conducted on Spongebob Squarepants as well as other programs featured on Nickelodeon’s after school programming “Nick You Pick Live” I noticed some similarities to the programs Hallmark created in the 1980s. While watching Nickelodeon I noticed that during the hours of 3-6PM when “U Pick Live” was shown there were several commercials during every commercial break for a Spongebob related product; at times the advertising for Spongebob taking up as much as 40% of the commercial in one three minute break. They also took it one step farther in their daytime advertising, using every commercial break to advertising not only for products related to the show being watched, but to advertise for Nickelodeon Magazine, Nickelodeon theme park, other networks owned by Nickelodeon’s parent company, and other programs shown on Nickelodeon. While this may not seem like a huge deal to the average adult, the impact that this barrage of advertising has on the average child sitting down to enjoy Spongebob is phenomenal. Child psychologists and media analysts agree that children simply do not have the cognitive ability to differentiate between television shows and commercials. The Children’s Television Act of 1990 does not regulate manipulation of child audiences in this form but such practices are surely unethical.

The saddest part about the folding of Action for Children’s Television is that there has been a sense of complacency looking over this entire issue since their 1992 decision to fold due to FCC compliance to the CTA. The Children’s Television Act has done more harm than good for the industry of educational programming. It has created a false sense of security for parents, making them believe that anything on during the hours of 7am and 10pm will be quality family programming. It has created a sense of accomplishment for protest groups such as ACT to the extent that no major groups are in existence today. It has created low-budget, lackluster programming for children because of its low standards and vague guidelines; and what I’m most afraid of is that it has created a generation of under-stimulated, non-creative, consumer obsessed television viewers who will someday grow to make the same mistakes in children’s programming that we have been allowing ourselves to make- all in the name of the Children’s Television Act of 1990. There have been many studies done about the success of quality educational children’s programming, such as Sesame Street, on children from all walks of life in America and internationally. It has been proven that children who watch these programs have an easier time in the early grades of school, and show more advancement in social and psychological development when compared to children who watch low-quality, advertising-based children’s programming or adult-focused programming. Quality educational programs for children do not generally cost more money to produce or more manpower to create, just innovative ideas and a little effort from networks. They do note get lesser ratings or less advertising money. According to the Children’s Television Workshop “Children do not distinguish between educational programming and non-educational programming, and they don’t find educational programming less appealing.” (Communication in Public Interest, pg 5) In short, the answer to my own question is no, the Children’s Television Act of 1990 does not provide quality educational programming for all children. While I am not a supporter of the censorship of media, I believe that the students of advertising, marketing and media broadcasting should be made aware of the special circumstances related to children’s programming and be better motivated to create a quality product. While the CTA is a good beginning to safeguard our children and their television viewing, it should not be the end of regulations or incentives for children’s programming. The question is now can media educators will pick up the torch and create a new dawn for children’s programming; I fear the answer can be found from my own personal favorite Saturday morning commercial- “the world may never know.”

BESTESES

I got the BEST mail today.

Because it was so fucking random.

Item #1-

an application for a TOTALLY FREE copy of Fairlawn Cemetary's book "Deal with it Now" which, aside from having an amazing name- is all about booking, payment plans, and maintaining your funeral plot. You know, for you and your loved ones.

amazing

Item #2-

A settlement check I received from a class action lawsuit I drunkenly agreed to with the creators of Airborn. (This is why I need drunk-lock on my laptop)

This would be like.."woah awesome, I just got $20) EXCEPT- when I saw the envelope I was pretty sure I was getting sued. So it was extra pleasant to open it to find a check.

If anybody can beat that combo I would be happy to hear about it. 

xoxoxox-=sticky

No News is No News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090323/us_time/08599188682600

New study says what a person with half a brain could assume on their own- when your local newspaper shuts down people stop giving a shit. Shocker.

O snap

I got into grad school.

eat it universe!

Now I just have to figure out how to get the money....

just when you least suspect it

slept in late today

daylight savings sucks big balls

don't steal my time, man.

funny things

walking home from work last night some crazy vagrant took a look at me and screamed:

MIIIIIIILEY CYYYYRUS!! MILEY CYRUS!

granted, I do have bangs and a ponytail but I think the comparison stops there. The weird thing was...I was oddly flattered, until I remembered that she looks a little bit like an otter.
Tonight the Brooklyn Bomb Squad is having photos taken for the 2009 season program- woot! If I can I'll post on here. Also, possibly pictures from Time Out's singles party this past Monday. Thats if I don't look like too much of a haggard drunk.
Hope everything has been good with you, internet. Lets keep in touch.
hugs 'n kisses,

::sticky::

Writing...

I resolve

To respect myself more, and others less.

To not waste time on people who think I'm a waste of time.

To eat more yogurt, even if "live and active cultures totally creep me out"

To worry less about other people's opinions and think more about my own.

To stop wasting time.

 

To light a fire.

To not stop going until I get there.

2009s

Happy New Year!

I would love to say my resolution for 2009 is to update more often, but I've got more important things to worry about right now. I'm trying to cut back on the partying in order to save $$ and be healthier; but I'm wondering if there is an easy way to "cut back" or if I should just cut it out entirely? I honestly don't miss drinking when I take a break from it- I feel better and it saves me a ton of money! BUT- I wonder how many friends I would have left if I stopped boozing it up on a regular baisis....

ALSO- grad school or no grad school? I'm totally stuck on this one. It seems like the perfect time to go but for the past year I've been stuck between going for an analysis type degree which I can parlay into a PhD program on the professor track or do I get a more practical communications/business degree? I've been weighing the options between the two for over a year now and am getting frustrated. Spending the money seems SO scary but at the same time most of my friends seem to be on a specific career track and back in school whereas I am 26 working a data entry job....my goal for the next few months is to go to more open house and info events for the programs I'm interested in and talk to some professionals in the communications field and ::hopefully:: have a decision in time for spring 09 admission deadlines.

SO both of these issues can be resolved by keeping up on events/meetings that can help me sort out of life. Less partying, more thinking, lol. I will keep you updated if only to remind myself throughout the year - fingers crossed.