Media Blackmail

During junior theme, a lot of my research surprised me. But the most shocking discovery I made was that advertisements are starting to have an effect on the media. According to the articles I read, advertisers can censor the material magazines and newspapers cover. This is done by advertisers making numerous demands. For example, if Newsweek wanted to run an article on the adverse affects of smoking, Marlboro would pull their ad. Although this may seem like a minor problem, newspapers and magazines need revenue from ads to stay in business. They can't always afford to lose an account on behalf of an article. In this case, they'd just pull the article, which essentially is limiting freedom of the press. To give you an idea of how wide an impact this has, here is a list of all the brands Philip Morris owns:

Marlboro
Virginia Slims
Capri Sun
Country Time
Crystal Light
Kool-Aid
Tang
Maxwell House
Balance Bar
Cool Whip
Handi-Snacks
Jell-O
Cream of Wheat
Golden Crisp
Grape-Nuts
Great Grains
Honey Bunches of Oats
Honeycomb
Oreo O's
Raisin Bran
Shredded Wheat
Cheese Nips
Chips Ahoy!
Honey Maid
Newtons
Nilla Wafers
Nutter Butter
Oreo
Ritz
SnackWell's
Teddy Grahams
Triscuit
Wheat Thins
Planters
Milk-Bone dog treats
Altoids
Creme Savers
Gummi Savers
Jet-Puffed marshmallows
LifeSavers
Now and Later
Cheez Whiz
Cracker Barrel cheese
Di Giorno
Easy Cheese
Kraft
Velveeta
Breakstone's sour cream,cottage cheese
Breyers yogurt
Kraft macaroni & cheese and other dinners
A.1.
Grey Poupon
Kraft barbecue sauce, mayonnaise, salad dressings
Miracle Whip
Shake'N Bake
Lunchables
Oscar Mayer
Boca burgers
Claussen pickles
Tombstone pizza
Splendid
Miller Lite
Miller Genuine Draft
Miller Genuine
Draft Light
Miller High Life
Miller High Life Light

If any article in a magazine offends a single one of theses products, the magazine could lose several accounts. Basically, you probably won't print the article you wanted.


According the article Can't Live Without It by Alan Durning, "most American magazines reserve 60% of their pages for advertising...Newspapers are no different; in the United States, they typically contain 65 percent, up from 40 percent half a century ago" (3). In order for ads to print, they need to sell a certain number of ad pages. If companies are pulling their ads, they cannot meet their quota, and the magazine will lose money. This technique is essentially blackmailing the media into printing only articles it approves of.

Some see this as a huge problem. According to the article The Cost of Commercialism by Gray Ruskin, "Advertising is a 'powerful censor and influential taskmaster that systematically undermines a free and democratic press,' writes University of Pennsylvania law professor C. Edwin Baker in his book Advertising and a Democratic Press" (5). There are many examples to back Baker up.

One example includes, "when Fortune Magazine ran a 1997 cover story about IBM CEO Louis Gerstner describing his as arrogant and obsessed with status, IBM and its subsidiary Lotus removed their advertising--worth about $6 million a year--from the publication" (5). Although the ad company has the right to remove its advertising pages if it feels necessary, I think the practice of threatening is detrimental. Now Fortune Magazine probably feels it necessary to censor the articles it prints now for the benefit of the ads. But in reality, we should have freedom of press, and this essentially restricting it.

How realistic is America?

Today when I was thinking of examples of realism vs. idealism in my life, the most seemingly obvious one hit me: the presidential elections. If you look at the candidates you can clearly see how are country could fall into either category. But the elections in November will end the debate.

If you look at the democratic potentials, you have the idealistic side of America. The first candidate is Barack Obama. He's a black man with a radical Muslim father. He went to school in Indonesia for several years. He is not the typical candidate. Yet, he is the front-runner in the race. The odds are against him because we have never had a non-white president. The other candidate is Hilliary Clinton. She was once the first lady of the US. She is somewhat overshadowed by her husband. The odds are against her because we have never had a female president before. Some critics have called her emotional (with her "crying" episode).

Now if you look at the Republican party, you have the realistic side of America. John McCain has ran for the presidency before. He is white. He is male. He is Christian. He served in the Vietnam war where he was a Prisoner of War. Realistically, he would be the next president.

I think the elections in November will prove whether America is currently an idealistic or realistic nation. In these elections, we have seemingly unlikely candidates very close to actually holding the presidency. Personally I am a realist, but in this case, I would like to see America as a whole be idealistic.

City for Sale?

Imagine we went to Disney High School instead of New Trier High School. Disney HS was in Xerox, Illinois instead of Winnetka, Illinois. Instead of Elder Beach, it's McDonalds Beach. Instead of going to Lincoln Park Zoo, we would go to Starbucks Zoo. Instead of going to Comisky Park, we would go to US Cellular Field. Oh wait, that already happened.

In my research for junior theme, I read about an interesting phenomenon going around. Cities and public places are taking in private sponsors. Although it may seem odd, it's actually happening. Clark, Texas, a town of 125, changed their name to Dish, Texas. They did this in exchange for a decade of free cable TV.

Ocean City, Maryland has Coke and Panama Jack as its official drink and sun block, with exclusive marketing rights on its beaches.

LA has Coke as the exclusive soft drink provider. Ford is the official vehicle of LA county beaches. Speedo is the official swimwear sponsor.

NYC and Indianapolis have corporate sponsors for their parks.

Milwaukee's convention center is named Midwest Express.

Vienna Beef is the official hot dog of the Chicago Park District.

While all of these are troubling, the biggest example of this is Sacramento. The city hired a consulting firm that suggested "a wide-ranging corporate sponsorship program involving all city departments" The plan calls for sponsorship partners with rental cars, ice cream, food suppliers for police and fire departments and the convention center, film, delivery service, coffee, gear for park and recreation staff, software, an official computer of Sacramento, and official security company. Now obviously people are bound to think the idea is great. Put up with some advertisements, and the city gains more revenue. In reality, "the potential income stream will be, at most, little more than 1 percent of Sacramento's $451 million annual budget."

But here's the real problem: Do people really want corporate sponsors in public places? And what will motivate people to pay taxes if corporate sponsors could just pick up the bill? "Bergeron, a director of Citizens for Public Priorities, a local network opposing the Sacramento proposal, argues the sponsorship arrangement 'will blur the lines between public and corporate spaces and functions, between what the public pays for and what the corporations pay for.'"

What's worse than that, the city will almost become slaves to the corporations. It will seem as though city employees are working for the corporation, not the city. "It will be in the interest of every city employee to see that the program continues and that the sponsors prosper. Loss of sponsorship money could mean city job losses."

But the biggest issue is the power the city of Sacramento holds. If they are using corporate sponsors, their agendas could change and they could be influenced. "Another concern is that corporate sponsors will exercise undue influence over government. 'The city also has a role as law enforcer and business regulator,' notes Bergeron. 'This role is inherently compromised when the city is taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from businesses.'"

Dominican Republic

This spring break, I spent six days in the Dominican Republic helping this church build a wall around their property. While I was there I saw things I have never been able to see or experience before. We were able to work with the Dominican kids in our free time. To entertain them, we brought crayons, paper, glue, yarn, scissors, and things these kids never really had before. They were so grateful to be given a coloring page and a crayon. As a kid that grew up in America, I was never denied many things as a child. Certainly things like crayons and markers were never something I had to go without.

Another thing I experienced while abroad was the optimism the Dominican people had. The workers who helped us build the wall were so grateful for our help. They constantly thanked us. They had big plans for the building we were working on, yet they didn't have the money or the manpower. They wanted to build more buildings and a pool to create a camp for the kids in the area. Since most of the country is living in such poverty, extra money is something that is almost non-existent. But they needed $15,000 just to finish the second floor of the building we were helping with. To me, that is idealism.

Freeganism

The other day I was watching Oprah and her show was about people living lifestyles on the edge. Her main guest was a woman who considered herself a Freegan. She claimed to live her life without buying into consumerism. She hadn't bought new clothes in over three years, and barely bought food or everyday convenience items we take for granted. To feed herself, she dumpster dived.

In New York the Freegan movement is growing. They organize 'trash tours' that go out at night and dig through the garbage of supermarkets, bakeries and delis. The people on these tours are not poor or homeless, but rather concerned for the way we live. The camera crew followed her one night and what they found was shocking. Supermarkets threw out so much food! There were cereal boxes with a slight tear, barely bruised apples, cartons of eggs with a single egg cracked, and canned vegetables just a week past the expiration date. The food was perfectly fine. Madeline, the woman interviewed, believed that Americans are so conditioned to buying, that we throw away the perfectly fine to buy newer better things. She claims to collect about $100 to $300 worth of food in one hour. Madeline said "When you think about it, we work so hard, but for what? To buy more. Whether it's a house payment or a car or food, we just want to continue to consume. Freegans have decided to kind of try and turn their back on it completely and stop buying stuff." Is she right? Do our parents work hard just for us to consume?

Daniel and Amanda, another couple on the show, also follow the Freegan lifestyle. They say that America is 5% of the world, yet we use 30% of it's resources. They've found desks, approximately 2,000 envelopes, exercise equipment, and about 50 boxes of cereal, all of which they kept in their apartment. If they find something salvagable they can't use, they donate it back to charity.

Most people in America and probably especially in the North Shore have never heard of Freeganism or would consider themselves Freegans. I think these people are doing a great service to society, recycling things most people would discard. We live in a society where way too many things are taken for granted. I think in the future, more people will live like Freegans because of the resources we are currently wasting.

Are Freegans idealists or realists?