Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the idea that all information sent over the internet should be treated equally, meaning that internet service providers (ISPs) should not influence the applications or content that you see on the internet. In other words, if net neutrality was not being practiced, companies could pay ISPs a premium to deliver their website ad their content faster than that of their competitors.

The biggest issue surrounding net neutrality is that, if it was not exercised in Canada, ISPs would be able to impose restrictions on our ability to freely explore the Internet, or ISPs would not provide the choices that we as consumers want. The Internet is so popular and so successful because it has a basic open nature, which allows it to be a free and open marketplace for all websites and content.

The problem is that, if ISPs start to impose restrictions on the content we see, the Internet will no longer be the huge collection of websites that we can freely navigate through and find a large amount of information. Our Internet navigation will be directed by our ISPs and whatever companies are paying them to have their sites prioritized. How are we being given the freedom to browse whatever we want, whenever we want? The problem is that we aren’t being given that freedom, we are being denied it.

If net neutrality were not in effect, I think it would lead to a whole new realm of the media that is almost completely controlled and directed by big corporations. We are already bombarded with messages and images from these companies, who have the money to buy whatever advertising and airtime they want. If net neutrality were not in effect, these companies could basically buy more space on the internet to further push their products and services onto us, the consumers.

In the United States, net neutrality is an issue that has been ongoing for a few years. In the summer of 2006, major U.S. telecom companies were able to persuade Congress to pretty much abolish the previous net neutrality law that they had in place, which stated that “no provider of physical infrastructure – from roads to railways to electrical or telephone companies – could have any say over the content and services flowing over their networks.” (“Battle over ‘net neutrality’ arrives in Canada”)

In 2006, when the issue of net neutrality first became a big issue, Canadian companies like Rogers, Bell and Telus, said that network neutrality should not be determined by regulations but by market forces. This, however, made people who advocate for an open and free internet nervous. They believed that Canadian telecommunication companies are trying to persuade the public to trust them so that laws are not developed to protect net neutrality so that, should they decide to eliminate this concept, they will be able to easily increase their profits.

We have seen the effects of not having net neutrality regulations imposed here in Canada. In 2005, Telus blocked its users from accessing a community website run by and for Telecommunications Workers Union members because, as the time, Telus’ union workers were striking. Also, Bell Canada has been performing traffic shaping, which is controlling computer network traffic by delaying data packets. This means that Bell was delaying certain data on its network so that other information would be transmitted faster to its users. Preventing this from happening is one of the biggest reasons for imposing net neutrality.

Currently in Canada, a Private Member’s Bill to establish the principle of net neutrality and establish rules to keep the Internet free from the control of ISPs is waiting to be debated and in the House of Commons. This bill would mean that companies like Telus and Bell wouldn’t be able to impose restrictions on consumers’ use of the Internet which, in my opinion, would be a great step for Canada.

In the U.S., the recent election of Barack Obama as the next President is widely thought to be a great decision for the world of technology and, in particular, net neutrality. In the U.S., people have realized that their 2006 decision to abolish laws that support net neutrality was perhaps not the best decision. The government is currently reviewing those laws and will probably impose more regulations to protect net neutrality in the near future. Obama has claimed to support net neutrality fully, and it is believed that when he is in office, he will ensure that laws to protect net neutrality will be imposed in the near future.

I believe that, in Canada, we need to improve our net neutrality laws and establish a plan to fight companies like Telus, Bell and Rogers from imposing their own beliefs and agendas on us, the consumers. We need to fight back in order to keep our internet free and open to its users. We are already heavily influenced by big businesses in terms of advertising and the media, and we need to keep the internet a place where we can browse freely and find the information that we truly want, not what our ISPs believe we should want. I realize that the internet may carry some biases in terms of advertisements and links, but I believe that we should fight the onset of more big business influences so that the internet will remain as free and open as it was intended to be.

Works Cited

"Battle over ‘net neutrality’ arrives in Canada." CBCnews.ca. 2 Nov. 2006.The Canadian Press.7 Nov.

2008. http:// www.cbc. ca/consumer/story/2006/11/02/tech-neutrality. html .

Lenczner, Michael. "Introduction to Net Neutrality." What is Net Neutrality? Comp. Neil Barrat and

Alison Powell. Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking. 7 Nov.

2008. http:/ /whatisnetneutrality. ca/en/node/1 .

Media Hegemonies

Torstar is one of the largest corporations in Canada, owning a variety of print media and websites, and having a stake in television and radio stations nationally, as well as a few television stations. The list of companies either fully- or partially-owned by Torstar is quite impressive and surprising at the same time. Torstar owns:

• The Toronto Star newspaper
• Metro newspaper
• Sing Tao Daily, a Chinese language newspaper which is also involved in printing, outdoor advertising, Chinese telephone directories and weekly magazine publishing
• Eye Weekly, an entertainment publication
• Real Estate News
• Sway, a quarterly magazine that celebrates the power of Canada’s black community
• The Canadian Immigrant magazine
• Desi-Life magazine created for the South Asian community in the Greater Toronto Area
• Torstar Syndication Services, which provides value-added services by collecting, packaging, marketing, licensing and distributing text, photos and graphics
• InsuranceHotline.com, an online quoting service
• Workopolis, Canada’s leading provider of online recruitment and job search solutions, which Torstar jointly owns with Gesca Ltd.
• Olivecanadanetwork, an advertising network of premium websites, also jointly owned with Gesca Ltd.
• Toronto.com, Canada’s most popular search site
• Wheels.ca, an informative website for car buyers
• Shopalot.ca, e-commerce site to find the best deals in the GTA
• Ourfaves, a website where people share what they think is great in Toronto
• Metroland Media Group, which owns over 100 community newspapers across Ontario, as well as many advertising venues, distribution networks and web publishing
• Harlequin Enterprises Limited, the global leader in series romance and one of the world’s leading publishers of women’s fiction
• Black Press Ltd., which publishes more than 150 newspapers and had 17 press centers in Canada and the U.S.; Torstar owns 19.35% of this company
• Transit Television network, which develops, installs, services and manages digital out-of-home advertising networks on various forms of mass transit
• CTVglobemedia, Canada’s premier multi-media company which owns CTV Inc. and The Globe and Mail and invests in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, and in Dome Productions; Torstar owns 20% of CTVglobemedia

I find this list to be quite impressive. Torstar owns or has a stake in some of the largest companies in Toronto, and possibly in Canada, as well as some companies I have never even heard of. I had never heard of shopalot.ca or ourfaves before reading the Torstar website.

I also found it quite surprising to learn that Torstar owns both the Toronto Star and has a sizeable stake in The Globe and Mail. I have read both these newspapers and I will admit that they seem to have similar viewpoints in terms of the issues that are presented. Then again, perhaps that is the point of this blog pot assignment. One company owns (partially or in wholly) two different newspapers that are supposed providing unbiased facts on the issues at hand; however, we all know that newspapers, like all media outlets, do print biases and formulate stories to fit with their views and goals. It can then be assumed that, if the Toronto Star is printing a certain story and depicting it in a certain way, The Globe and Mail will probably print a story on the same topic, and depicting it in the same way. The people who own both these newspapers have certain goals and opinions and will ‘report’ the news in the way that suits their company best. Therefore, it can be assumed that the people who own both these newspapers are using two largely popular forms of media not only to provide us with news, but to get us to believe what they want and support their company.

This is the issue I have with cross-media ownership. I think that it is difficult to find objective, unbiased news when the majority of publications and broadcasts in our society and owned by a select few large media moguls. For example, let’s say that the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail are both publishing a story about new restaurants around Toronto and they feature a restaurant in Etobicoke. Then, that restaurant starts to grow in popularity because readers of those papers are visiting it to try its food. Then, that restaurant appears on Toronto.com as a recommended restaurant and, therefore, more people eat there. So then, people submit that restaurant to OurFaves and it is recommended even further. Maybe at some point, that restaurant is also mentioned in Torstar’s other publications and broadcasts. If Torstar wants this restaurant to be successful and popular, it will happen through all of the channels that Torstar has to use.

Perhaps this is somewhat of a simple example, but it illustrates some of the problems with cross-media ownership. Whatever a large media mogul like Torstar decides that we will see, read or hear will be disseminated to us through as many channels as Torstar decides are appropriate to use. We may be bombarded with a particular message, think that it is coming from different sources but, in actually, it is just Torstar feeding us the same information over and over. Maybe we think that the restaurant in Etobicoke is really great because it is recommended by different newspapers, magazines, website and programs in the GTA but, in actually, Torstar would have manufactured the popularity of that restaurant by using the resources that they have available to them.

I guess that using an example like a restaurant takes away from my point in that it really doesn’t seem like an important problem. Imagine instead a political message that is being used to either promote or put down a particular candidate or political party. By disseminating a certain political message, Torstar is trying to sway people to vote for the political party that they support, probably because it will benefit Torstar in some capacity.

We believe that we have all these different sources of media that offer us semi-objective facts. What’s really happening is that we do have a variety of media sources, but they are owned by a relatively small number of large media companies and this enables them to put their messages out over a variety of media sources, promoting their messages and ideas even further. I don’t think that cross-media ownership is beneficial to the public because we are lead to believe that we are receiving a variety of viewpoints in the media but, really, we are only receiving a select few over and over again.

Works Cited

"About Torstar - Businesses." Torstar. 2007. 5 Nov. 2008. www.torstar.com/about_business.php .

Fake News

Satirical fake news has become extremely popular over the last few years with the introduction and growth of television shows like The Daily Show with John Stewart, The Colbert Report and The Rick Mercer Report. I believe that satirical fake news plays an important role in the dissemination of information for young adults. I do believe that people should be educated by other forms of media as well - such as real news sources like newspapers and television news broadcasts – to ensure that they are getting the necessary and correct facts about current events; however, satirical fake news still does a great job of bringing important issues to the public.

Regular news is not really enjoyable to watch because it is often filled with terrible stories and upsetting happenings. I believe that it may be important to hear about the murders and house fires that occur in the world, especially in our own neighbourhoods, but it is quite a downer to watch the news and hear so much bad news. Satirical fake news, on the contrary, presents some of the larger issues in a way that gets your attention but still entertains you at the same time. These programs take what is actually happening in the world and present it in a comedic way that both informs you and gives you a laugh. Perhaps I am being somewhat selfish in that I do not enjoy hearing a lot of bad news. It’s just that I want to hear the news that is most important and skip some of the heartbreaking, tragic events going on around me.

I think that one of the issues people have with satirical fake news is that they find it to be a biased and unreliable source of information. There seems to be a common belief that real news programs, on the contrary, are unbiased and completely based on facts. I believe this is far from the truth. News programs – as well as other sources of media – often sensationalize stories in order to attract an audience. They are also quite biased and often alter stories in order to persuade the public to think a certain way and do certain things. Many media outlets are associated with a political viewpoint, such as the Toronto Star being considered a Liberal paper. How are we supposed to trust these sources of information if there is evidence that points to them having biases and distorting the facts to fit their viewpoints?

At least with satirical fake news, the public realizes that they are not watching an actual news program and that they are being exposed to biases and exaggerations. I think that people who watch these programs take what they hear and see with a grain of salt – at least the majority of viewers do. We like to watch these shows because they present us with key issues in the world, but poke fun at both these issues and the way these issues are presented in the mainstream media. They have a great entertainment value. Maybe we are not getting all the facts and hearing all sides of the issues, but we are being shown what the issues are.

Personally, I am a big fan of The Rick Mercer Report. I watched this show a lot during the federal election. I read the newspaper, I watched so-called “real” news programs and I spoke to a lot of different people about the election. The Rick Mercer Report was my way of seeing the issues at hand in a comical way and laughing at how ridiculous the election got at times. It can be draining to hear the same stories over and over about what Harper said about Dion, or what Layton said about Harper. It almost seems like politicians are going in a vicious circle and the same issues are coming up over and over again. The Rick Mercer Report allowed me to think about those issues while having a laugh at how absurd the election got at times. I enjoy watching his satirical take on the candidates and the proposed ideas.

Note: During the election, The Rick Mercer Report aired an extremely funny clip about the commercials aired by political candidates. I highly recommend you watch it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hfGy_b87gI

Social Uses/Implications of Technology and Media

My life is constantly being mediated by technology: by my cell phone, my iPod, the radio and the internet. For my Media Autobiography a couple weeks ago, I chose to focus on the Internet because I believe that it is the one form of technology that impacts my life the most. So, for this blog post, I believe it is only natural for me to write about my laptop, because it is the form of technology that mediates my behaviour and my environment the most. I think the best way to demonstrate this is to take you through a typical day in my life:

I wake up to the sound of my alarm going off. I don’t actually own an alarm clock, because the one I had broke about a year ago. So I set an alarm on my laptop each morning and that wakes me up by playing one of the songs in my iTunes library. I then check my e-mail – both my personal e-mail, then my Guelph-Humber e-mail – which is usually accompanied by a quick Facebook check to see if anything new has been posted. Then I have a shower and start getting ready for school. Of course, I need to know what I should wear, so I go back online to check the weather. Then I get dressed and have breakfast. I also use the internet to monitor my diet, so I have to go back online and log whatever food I just ate.

So now I am ready to go to school, and I always bring my laptop with me. I use it to take notes in class because it is so much faster and easier than trying to write by hand. Plus, between taking notes, I can work on some other homework – or I can check back in with Facebook to see if any updates have been made. Then I go home, and I am sure to log on to MSN to chat with my friends. Of course, I check my e-mail again and maybe do a little online browsing for clothes. I also use my laptop to do my homework, whether I am writing or researching a project. Then it’s off to work for the evening and I have to leave my laptop at home just in case it were to get lost or stolen. Perhaps, if no one’s around, I will go up to the office on my break and use the desktop computer to check my e-mail again.

Then, when I get home from work, I’ll finish up whatever I was doing earlier and set my alarm for the next morning. Then I’ll put my laptop into sleep mode, and I’ll retire for the night... only to pick it up again in the morning and start all over again.

I don’t know exactly how many times a day I use my laptop, or for how long I use it, but we can see that it’s definitely a big number. My life is constantly being mediated by my laptop, both at school and at home. Even when I’m busy serving customers at the grocery store that I work at, I am still thinking about getting online and checking my e-mail to see if I’ve received anything new.

I think that my laptop is constantly mediating my life and, therefore, is playing a big part in shaping my life. I feel like I constantly need to be able to get on the internet, or access the functions that are on my laptop. I feel like I can’t really take notes in class without it because I write too slowly. I can’t really plan my outfits without checking the weather online to see what would be appropriate to wear.

Theory/Praxis

To me, media literacy means being aware of the media you see and hear, as well as the messages that the media is sending you. Being media literate means being able to read the messages that you are exposed to and decipher which ones are true, which ones apply to you and which ones you should believe or at least give more thought to.

When I apply the concept of media literacy to my own life, I want to say that I am extremely media literate and I am able to apply a great deal of critical thought to the messages that I see and hear every day. I want to believe that being a Media Studies student, and having successfully completed a Diploma program in Public Relations, I have learned enough about the media and the dissemination of messages that I am able to critically assess what I see and hear. The problem is that I can’t honestly say that I do this.

When I am looking at media – whether it is the internet, television, radio or some other form – I am able to assess it with a critical, media literate mind; however, I believe that I take the messages in blindly most of the time, as long as I am seeing or hearing a medium that I am used to. For example: When I am reading the Toronto Star, I tend to take the information provided to be true and accurate. I read the Star almost every day and I find that my own views and beliefs are usually in line with those of the paper. I think that I put so much trust and belief into the Star because I am presented with the same format and similar information on a daily basis. Yes, the stories do change from day to day, but they are still the same general topics and are still presented in the same format.

When I am presented with a medium that I do not have that same level of belief in, I tend to be more media literate. As I am surfing the web – a medium that I am aware can be fake, contrived, misleading and biased – I am much more sceptical about what I am seeing and the information I am receiving. The same can be said about television, which is a medium that is often put under scrutiny for the messages that it disseminates.

I realize that there are other forms of media – like billboards, magazines, posters, etc. – that I am exposed to every day; however, I tend not to notice these messages because I receive them on a more subconscious level, without really noticing that I am seeing or hearing them at all. We all receive so many messages each day that most of them are subconsciously received.

In terms of media literacy, I think that I am media literate but only at select times when I feel that the medium is not very credible to me. This brings to mind Marshall McLuhen’s famous statement: “The medium is the message.” I guess, to me, the medium is the message. Why else would I blindly trust certain mediums, believing that they are in line with my beliefs and views? The message that I am ultimately getting is that certain mediums are always credible, while others deserve scrutiny.

I believe that I am media literate at times when I have a reason to distrust the medium that I am presented with; however, I don’t think this is enough. As I am writing this blog post, I am thinking more and more about my media practices. Maybe I’m not as media literate as I would like to believe. Maybe I should be more aware of all the media that I am exposed to, in all mediums. I think that McLuhan was right in saying that the medium is the message, but I also believe that we shouldn’t blindly trust any medium. I think that I am capable of being media literate, and I do practice media literacy, but I should start to question all of the messages I receive from all mediums if I want to truly practice media literacy.

Decoding/Deconstructing Advertising

I have chosen to analyze a commercial featuring Gwen Stefani for her perfume, L. The commercial can be seen at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efotq1vsFFk.

I think that this commercial is very typical for a woman’s perfume ad. It barely even shows the actual perfume because it is focusing on the extravagant, sexy feeling and lifestyle that you can supposedly achieve by buying and wearing this perfume. I believe that this commercial is mostly about sex, and sex is what is almost always used to sell perfume. Let’s look at the different signifiers in this commercial, to speak in terms of semiotics, and then discuss what they signify.

The commercial opens with Stefani swimming in a pool of water – well, she’s not exactly swimming, but twisting and turning in the water. She then comes out of the water, all wet but still in full make-up and perfect wardrobe. Water, in my opinion, is a sign for sex. In many commercials, television shows and movies, we see people taking a shower, standing in a waterfall, or pouring water on themselves, and they are always supposed to look very sexy. I think there are many conclusions that can be drawn from this, such as the idea of a woman who is “wet” or a woman who needs a shower/bath because she is supposedly “dirty.” I must also mention the background voice of Stefani saying “I want you all over me.” My guess is that she is supposed to be talking about the perfume, but I think it is pretty easy to see the truth behind that line. How much more sexual could that message get?

The next part of the commercial shows Stefani standing in front of a gold wall. To me, this signifies money, and the rich, extravagant lifestyle that could be yours with this perfume. Gold is often used as the colour of money, or richness, so I believe that richness is what Stefani is also trying to sell with her perfume. This is also shown with the huge pool that Stefani is swimming in, as well as the extravagant house behind it.

We then see Stefani is a bright red bathing suit, as well as lying down with her head back, wearing bright red lipstick. To me, the colour red is another signifier for sex. Red has often been used to signify sexiness, as women often wear bright red clothing or accessories to assert their sexuality. Also, red is hot and passionate colour, which is another reason why it signifies sex to me. Plus, Stefani wearing bright red lipstick is a huge signifier for sex because it draws attention to her mouth, one of the biggest sexual signifiers that could be used.

Perfume commercials – like many commercials in general - are almost always trying to sell you the lifestyle that you can supposedly obtain by buying and wearing that product. Still, I don`t think this is the best way to sell the product. After watching this commercial, I have no idea how this perfume smells, where to buy it or how much it costs. The only reasons that I would even consider pursuing this product further are because it is made by Gwen Stefani, or because I want to be sexy and extravagant like the commercial shows. I think that commercials should be more about the product and less about the unobtainable lifestyle that I can presumable get if I buy that product.