No telecommunications?

Today I would like to talk about the importance of telecommunications. Just imagine a world without telecommunications. What if there was no television, radio, or Internet. I don't think people realize or appreciate the ways telecommunications has impacted our lives, generally for the better. For starters, we would be far less intelligent. People can talk all they want about how bad TV, radio, and the Internet, among other telecommunications devices, are for us. But in reality, what if we didn't have these things? I for one am a hell of a lot smarter from these devices. I learn so much, and not only that, these devices make me think, mostly outside of the box. They expand my knowledge and my ability to think critically. How many times have you watched a movie or a TV show, and actually learned something? I bet a lot more than you actually think. Next time you know an obscure fact or date, ask yourself why or how do I know this. I bet a good deal of the time it will be because of the power of telecommunications.

These devices I have talked about so far not only provide knowledge, they provide entertainment. I am a big sports guy so whenever I think about this subject, I think about the impact on sports it would have. Imagine this: you have no idea what is going on in the sports world, EVER. The only way you would ever know anything is if you actually attended a game. That would be awful! Sports would not be anywhere near as popular. Not only that, money would be lost, and jobs would cease to exist. From a personal level, I wouldn't have a major since I am a broadcast journalism major. I would not know what I would want to major in. Now take my example about sports and apply it to your own personal interests whether it be history, politics, entertainment, and imagine no telecommunications.

Do not take these devices of telecommunications for granted because we are truly a lucky generation. I have always said that the later in time you are born the luckier you are. Imagine if you were born in the 1800s how much different your life would be. Just think about that. Now I am sure that in the year 3000 people will have it far better than we do now, but at the same time I am thankful that I was not born 1000 years ago. What if telecommunications never existed. What if...

Blackout?

Today I would like to talk about a very personal topic. This topic is very personal to me because I have encountered a serious problem recently. I want to talk about that rights that big media have and whether these rights are ethical or not.

Here is the exact scenario: I am a diehard Philadelphia Flyers fan. My family has had season tickets to the Flyers since the team was founded in 1967 and I have watched every single Flyers game since I can remember, that is, until I came to Penn State. Last year, my freshman year, I was hoping that the dorm rooms would have Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, which carries a majority of the Flyers games. The dorms disappointed me. I listened to all the games on the radio last year, well almost all of them. I got to watch 6 games last year. When the Flyers played the Penguins, I was able to watch on FSN Pittsburgh. So, I listened to 76 of the 82 games on the radio. This year I live in an apartment which features Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia. I was ecstatic when I learned about this. So, when the Flyers season started in early October and I sat down to watch my first game of the year what happens? Comcast SportsNet is blacked out. It would be for every Flyers game for the entire season. I own Comcast cable, but cannot get Comcast’s own channel, Comcast SportsNet, during Flyers games. Any other time of day, no matter what, the channel comes in crystal clear, but when Flyers games are about to start, a beautiful striped colorful pattern appears on CSN Philly. That is ridiculous.
I tried to figure out what was going on. After extensive research, I came to Comcast SportsNet’s website. Under the FAQs on the website reads “I have Comcast SportsNet, but cannot view Flyers games. Why?” The response, “Flyers games are blacked out in the following areas in Pennsylvania due to National Hockey League rules regarding home team markets:
Huntingdon, Lewistown, Lykens, Mount Union, Philipsburg, State College.” It says State College, awesome. I later called Comcast and they attempted to tell me the reasoning behind this phenomenon, but they seemed to be just as confused as I was. This is the one thing I do know: Comcast and the NHL blackout the Flyers because we are in a Pittsburgh area. Hello! Are we not in a Philadelphia area also? Comcast owns Comcast SportsNet; they do not own FSN Pittsburgh. To me, and please someone tell me if I am wrong about this, wouldn’t it make sense to black out FSN Pittsburgh, and not your own network?

In my opinion, Comcast, or the NHL should absolutely not have the right to black out games, unless they are available on an alternate channel. For example, if a game is on versus and CSN Philly, it would be okay to black out one or the other, but not both. Hockey fans have a right to watch hockey games, especially when a team is in their market. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are both close to State College. Both teams should be broadcasted. What the NHL and Comcast do, and in my opinion, is just stupid. People pay good money, almost $40 a month for cable services. No one can take away a channel every time a hockey game comes on just because they feel like it. No one.

Sexual Themes in Music

There has always been an association between music and sex, but in the past decade or so this connection has tested the limits of what is acceptable in our culture. Newer songs, mostly rap and hip hop, which talk about topics like rape and murder, have stirred up much controversy across the nation. Using women as sexual objects has become common in modern day music. This is done for one simple reason, sex sells. Women are constantly sexually exploited in order to accommodate our country’s sexual culture.

In our society there is a steady depiction of girls, particularly African American girls, as sex objects which sends a message that some people in our society find extremely offensive. There is a distinction between a music video “fantasy” and reality, but many people believe these songs and music videos depict real life. Although people most certainly do mistreat women, these ridiculously sexist acts seen in music videos are not common in our country. This is where the problem arises. Many children are not mature enough to understand the difference between “fantasy” and reality. They very easily could believe that mistreating women is acceptable and common in our culture. This problem is magnified even greater when the artist himself can’t seem to tell the difference between music “fantasy” and reality. Artists sometimes turn this “fantasy” into a reality and treat women like they own them. Obviously, these are not the types of acts that children should be exploited to, as they may start to act this way themselves.

The one thing that I find particularly interesting about this entire topic is the fact that rappers sometimes rap so fast that there is a chance that people might not even be able to comprehend these offensive lyrics. Also, our society is so accustomed to hearing songs with that talk about drugs, sex, and disrespecting women that people may not even pick up on what is actually being said anymore. The fact that these types of songs are accepted has lead to problems, but the fact that people listen to these songs and try to imitate what they hear is a huge problem. Women are constantly Exploitation of women has become an accepted part in the music industry, for both the artists and the public. These explicit lyrics commonly lead other men to think that treating women disrespectfully is tolerable. Why is this? Because hip-hop and rap music promotes degrading women. Even though rap is extremely well known, it has developed a reputation by some people as being explicit, violent, and disrespectful. Since the beginning of rap music, artists have used derogatory lyrics about women. Today, these degrading lyrics have become more brutal, and more common to hear.

Rap music is definitely the most influential and powerful part of the hip-hop culture, and the fact that it is encouraging the disrespect for women is concerning.
These artists are role models to people throughout the country, including children. These rappers are well respected in our culture by some and some even look up to them, wanting to imitate their actions. These children are of a new generation, and they have already been exposed to these sexual and derogatory songs about women. The longer we allow women to be objectified against, the longer it will take our culture to get rid of this idea that women are sexual objects.

Broadcasting ethics

Public indecency is a hotly debated issue these days ever since Janet Jackson revealed her left breast to almost all of America during Super Bowl XXXVIII’s halftime show. Although this act of public offensiveness may have made just about every American aware of this problem concerning television and radio, public indecency has been occurring for years. As far as I can remember, public indecency has existed on both radio and television. I grew up listening to Howard Stern, watching NYPD Blue, and watching Seinfeld. All of these shows till this day, I feel are great shows, and I could watch or listen to reruns over and over again without being bored.

All of these shows have a few things in common. They presented a lot of indecent content in their shows throughout their entire existences on air. Seinfeld constantly talked about sex; it was a central them in Seinfeld’s nine seasons. NYPD Blue was the first show that I can remember that displayed nudity on network television. The Howard Stern Show took Seinfeld’s sexual theme to a whole new level. Stern was not afraid to talk about anything; he constantly had women, sometimes porn stars, coming into the studio and getting naked. These shows all had sexual themes, but they had another thing in common as well. They were all extremely popular. Stern was so popular that his radio show received a simulcast on televisions’ E! Network.

There is no doubt that sex sells, which is one of the reasons that public indecency is such a highly debated issue. These shows are extremely popular, but is the content they show ethical? I say yes. I am on the side of the broadcasters. The American foundation is based on freedom of speech; you cannot fine a person for cursing on the street, so why is it fair to fine a broadcasting company for airing curse words. No one forces people to watch these shows in the first place; parents now have access to the technology to block any offensive programs from their children, and adults can easily turn off any program they find offensive.
The one thing that I wish that would change about the television broadcasting business is the way television is monitored. I feel that it is just plain dumb that network television monitored by the FCC, but cable television is not. We are no longer in a generation where network broadcasts dominate television anymore. Just about everyone that I know has cable. According to the Sourcebook for Teaching Science, almost 60% of American homes pay for cable television. Both cable and network television should have the same set of rules to follow. With the amount of viewers being just about even for the two, I believe that the same set of rules should apply for both network and cable broadcasting.

Censorship of Music

Today I would like to talk about censorship in music. This history of censorship dates back to ancient civilization. In the 5th century B.C.E., the Romans viewed enforcing censorship as an honorable task. Currently, music censorship is probably the most controversial censorship topic in the United States. There are many people that argue for censorship saying that young kids should not exposed to songs about violence, gangs, drugs, and alcohol. These pro-censorship individuals argue that children imitate what musicians sing about. These people blame artists for violence among children, underage drinking, and drug abuse amongst kids.

Any argument that a person can make for total censorship is complete bogus. Musicians should be allowed to write lyrics about anything they want. I agree that there should be restrictions on what can be seen or heard on television or radio, but only to a certain extent. On standard AM/FM radio stations, there should be censorship of certain inappropriate words, but on satellite radio, there should be no censorship at all. The same goes for television. On standard music stations, like MTV, VH1, etc, there should be censorship on the songs and videos, but on certain music channels, like the music stations that Comcast Digital Cable offers, there should definitely not be any type of censorship. The F.C.C. should regulate what is censored and what is not regarding this particular issue. Nowadays, with the V-chip technology, parents can block anything that they do not want their children to view. The V-chip allows parents to block certain stations or shows based on the television content ratings. It is the parents’ responsibility to know what their children are listening to.

There is no true need for censorship anywhere, although I still think basic stations on both television and radio should be censored. With that being said however, parents are responsible with what their children listen and watch. If adults find the lyrics in songs offensive, or they believe a certain music video is offensive, than they have the choice to simply not listen to the song or not watch the video. I agree with the fact that children should not be exposed to certain songs or music videos, but this is not the job of the artists, the radio stations or the television stations to censor their music. It is the job of the parents to prevent their children from listening to offensive music.

Complete censorship would take away the musicians’ ability to express themselves. It is widespread knowledge that drugs and alcohol are closely related with musicians all across America. Artists get inspiration to write their songs from their very own lives. If a rapper smokes marijuana every day, of course he is going to write songs about smoking weed. The same is true for a musician who may have an alcohol problem. A lot of songs are written on personal experiences and firsthand accounts; taking an artist’s ability to write songs about his own life away from him is absolutely ridiculous. A musician’s main job is to entertain his listeners. Many people like to listen to songs about drugs and violence; censoring goes both ways.
If you censor all parts of the media, then you take away individuals’ rights to listen to songs that they might enjoy.

Overall, I feel that there should be censorship, but to a degree. There should not be a ton of censorship at all because censorship does hurt an artist’s audience as they cannot hear the musician express his true lyrics. If there is not censorship, either online, on television, or on the radio, it is solely the parents’ responsibility to make sure that their children do not listen to offensive material if the parents do not want to expose their children to such music. Regardless if parents disagree that something should be censored when it’s not, parents have the ability to restrict what their kids watch and listen to. If adults do not want to listen to music about offensive material, than they simply do not have to listen. Artists should be able to record music with whatever lyrics they want. Whatever happens after that is not the artists’ responsibility. As Jay-Z says in his song “99Problems”, “If you don’t like my lyrics, you can press fast-forward.”

Sports Bias

Today I would like to discuss media bias in sports. As a die hard sports fan, and a broadcast journalism major, I feel that bias is a huge problem in the sports media. Upon graduating from college, I want to become a sports broadcaster. I have covered sporting events in the past couple of years, and have learned from some great professors and professional sports broadcasters. The number one rule that I have been taught repeatedly is to not have a bias when covering a game.

I was at a conference a few days ago in which ESPN.com's Senior writer Jayson Stark gave a speech. Stark also appears regularly on SportsCenter, Baseball Tonight, and Mike in Mike in the Morning. He had a very interesting case in which he grew up in North East Philadelphia and now covers baseball for ESPN, including the Philadelphia Phillies extremely often. When asked if he was a Phillies fan, Stark said, "I am not a fan of any team." Now this is hard to believe that he is not a little bias towards the Phillies. He even said his entire family is full of Phillies fans. This is just an example of the reasoning biases exist in sports. Every single sports broadcaster or journalist grew up liking certain teams. They rooted for their teams all while growing up and then when they become professionals these feelings for the teams just go away? I don't think so.

Now I have read Stark's work. You would never know he grew up in Philly if you read one of his stories that features the Phillies. He is very good at not having a bias present in his work. Whether he actually has a bias towards the Phillies we will never know; however, there are many cases in which biases are present in the work of both journalists and especially sports broadcasters. If you are watching sporting events on a national broadcast, for example on ESPN, or any of the Big Three Networks, you are very unlikely to hear a commentator who is bias towards one particular team. However, while recently listening to an NCAA basketball game between Ohio and Georgetown on West Wood One, they had John Thompson, Sr., Georgetown's former coach, doing the color commentary. Besides being Georgetown's ex-coach, the current coach of Georgetown is his son, John Thompson, Jr. There is no way that West Wood One should have allowed Thompson, Sr. to cover the game. He clearly has a bias and wants Georgetown to win, so why would they have him cover the game? To me, it is just plain stupid and it hurt the integrity of the radio station. Also, I feel that the audience's opinion of the game was completely altered, since the color commentator had a clear bias toward one particular team.

The final topic I would like to talk about is local sports broadcasters. The guys you will hear on Comcast SportsNet, Fox Sports Net, SNY, or NESN. I go to school at Penn State and have the pleasure to watch FSN Pittsburgh, which covers both the Pittsburgh Penguins and Pittsburgh Pirates. I tend to watch the Penguins games a lot, and what I have heard from the commentators is a ridiculous bias towards the Penguins. Yes, I understand that a majority of the viewers are Penguins fans, but not all of them are, including me. Also, in this day and age in sports, anyone from anywhere in the world can be viewing this game on FSN through outlets like the Internet, NHL Center Ice, or the NHL Network. All three of these will feature the same two FSN Pittsburgh broadcasters. People that are not Penguins fans will view these games, hear the biases, and I feel will not enjoy the games as much. You want a sports broadcaster to be impartial when telling the story of the game. This is not the case at FSN Pittsburgh.

Better March Madness?

Since we are in the middle of college basketball's finest three weeks, March Madness, I felt that I should take some time to reflect on how the media presents the biggest three weeks in college sports. The CBS coverage on the national college basketball tournament is unmatched. They have the rights to every game in the tournament, and they constantly are switching games to catch all the excitement and madness that happens. But couldn't it be better?

If CBS had more alternate channels, like the way NBC has MSNBC, USA, and CNBC, they could cover every game in its entirety instead of showing different games it different regions. Yes, CBS does show the endings of just about every game, especially if the score is close with little time remaining, but I would rather have the luxury of watching any game I want. CBS has a monopoly on the NCAA college basketball tournament, and when a monopoly is present, especially in sports, it is never a good thing.

NBC has a monopoly on the Olympics, but as I eluded to earlier, they can afford to because they have so many channels and the viewer can watch any event that he or she wants. CBS tries to allow the viewer to have this same right by having "March Madness On Demand," in which viewers with access to the Internet can watch any game they want online for free. But this is not perfect. There have been many reports of problems with viewing the games online. Personally, I have experienced problems with attempting to view the game online as well. Sometimes, the connection can cause problems and the game can freeze up or have to buffer. Also, the games on the Internet appear to be behind the actual game broadcasted on CBS. CBS puts the scores of all the games at the top of the screen of the game you are watching. Every time I am watching the game on the Internet the score at the top of the screen on CBS changes before either team scores. So if you are simultaneously watching CBS and March Madness on Demand, you will now what is going to happen in the online game before it actually happens. Every sport fan knows that if you know what is going to happen before you watch it happen, watching sports is not fun.

Something must be done about the production of the March Madness tournament. If NBC can show everything on 5 different channels for the Olympics, than CBS should have to do the same for the college basketball tournament. If they fail to do so, than the NCAA should refuse to accept their bid to the rights of the tournament after the current contract expires.

Future of Television- Advertising

Technology is a great thing, but as far as the television industry goes, technology may do more harm than good. With more and more people failing to watch live programming, especially on the Big Three (Four) networks, one has to wonder if advertising revenue will severely decrease in the next couple of years. With the invention of Digital Video Recording, the television industry took another big blow. With the ability to fast forward through commercials, since they are no longer live, as an advertiser why would you pay top dollar for advertising times?


Now live sporting events, like the Super Bowl for example, are still prime advertising options, but besides that, I see no reason for companies to spend tons of money on advertisements. Television stations and advertising companies alike have taken notice of this phenomenon, and are starting to adjust to the new technologies of the world. More and more programming is being watched on the Internet. ABC feature a majority of its most popular shows including Lost, Desperate Housewives, and Flashforward available on their website the day after the original program airs. However, the catch is that viewers are required to watch a 30 second commercial, which you can not fast forward through, every time a commercial slot occurs during the show. The 30 seconds is much more manageable for the viewers to watch, instead of the 3-5 minutes that occur during the live programming.

Overall, the television industry will never be the same. They will constantly have to come up with new ideas to keep up with the new technologies that will present themselves throughout the years. Advertising will never be the same as in the past, and in the future advertising will never be the same as in the present.

Cyber Network Dangers

As we discussed in recent lecture, cyber socializing can be extremely dangerous if you are not careful. Facebook and Twitter have become absolutely huge in recent years. Facebook has over 300 million users and Twitter has around 60 million members. Ashton Kutcher (aplusk) has 4,577,798 followers on Twitter. We as the Y generation are growing up in a society where we face new dangers. These dangers were never present in the pre-Internet era. These dangers can cost you jobs, your pride, and sometimes your safety.

There are many precautions that we must take in order to remain safe while using cyber socializing sites. First of all, we should make all of our profiles private. Facebook has done a very good job of making this extremely simple. You can make every single action that you perform only viewable to specific people or groups. Also, if someone posts something on your wall or "likes" your status, you can make the only accessible to certain people as well. With all of this being said, a majority of people's profiles are completely public. This is not a good idea at all.

People of all ages should be extremely cautious with what they post online. The Internet is a public place; everyone that has access to the Internet can view it. I have heard of many stories from friends and others who have posted information of illegal events they are attending, for example a drinking party where underage kids will be present, online. The police are starting to use Facebook and other network socializing sites to help them get a step ahead and prevent anything that might be illegal or dangerous from occurring. Now I'm not saying that the police sit on their computers flipping through Facebook pages until they find something. They obviously have better things to do with their time, but they do use this tactic from time to time. You can learn a lot about a person from looking at their Facebook. The police and government are not stupid. They also know this and are using it to their advantage.

Employers are also using Facebook and other similar sites as part of their background checks for potential employees. If you have anything that an employer doesn't like on your Facebook profile, you are not going to get the job. If you have a bunch of pictures of you drinking and being reckless, regardless if you are underage or not, an employer is going to think that you are reckless and will not be a good employee. We must be very careful with what information we make public. We should make our profiles private and do not post anything that can be used against you in any way.

I believe that parents must teach their children at a young age the dangers of network socializing sites. Besides the fact that there are predators that pretend to be teenagers online and prey on real teenagers, the police, the government, and employers are using the Internet to gather information about certain people and events. If you do not want anyone to know your personal information, then do not post it on the public Internet.

Blog 1- Music's Future

The act of illegally downloading music has officially spread throughout the world. According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), 40 billion (billion!) songs were illegally downloaded in 2008 and about 95% of all music downloads in the past 2 years have been illegally downloaded. This is how I see it: As long as people can get away with illegally downloading music, these numbers will continue to grow into the future. The music industry in my opinion is in trouble. Every single person in the music industry will be affected by these illegal download numbers in the future, if they are not already feeling tremendous effects from it right now.



The new talent of music is suffering, and will continue to suffer. This up-and-coming talent are finding it extremely difficult to break into the business and make it big themselves thanks to record companies' revenues declining every year.


Although the actual music industry might suffer, music fans might benefit. Since the music industry does not have as much money as in the past, it is possible that only the elite artists will actually make it. This would result in the actually quality of music improving.

I am not saying that recorded music will disappear altogether. Music is far too popular this to happen. Plus, as the amount of illegally music downloaded rises, the amount of legally downloaded music will increase too. The music industry will never make the money it did in the "pre-illegally downloaded music era," but it will still make money. Recording companies will never again be monopolies of the industry, but recorded music in itself will never completely disappear.

The future of recorded music is without a doubt not as bright as it was just a few years ago, but music will always be around and will always be popular. With music being downloaded illegally it will be harder in my opinion to get a record deal, but with "American Idol" and other music shows present, new talent (elite talent) will be introduced every year to the world. The music industry will never stop making music and recorded music will always be around.