Movie Ratings

Seeing various movies over Thanksgiving weekend caused me to think back to the movie chapter and lecture of class, and led me to blog about the pros and cons of the movie rating system. I believe the current rating system, updated in 1990, is still an issue of controversy, as it has been since first established in 1968. Today the current rating system stands as: NC-17 (no children under 17 should be admitted),R(restricted for anyone under age 17 unless accompanied by an adult), PG-13(parental guidance suggested for children under 13), PG( parental guidance- may be unsuitable for children under 13), and G(suitable for general audiences and all ages). From a far this system appears to be a great working solution, but really I believe that there are both major pros and cons to the system.

I think a major pro of the rating system is that it shifted from censoring the content of movies, to simply notifying the public of how graphic or violent a movie is. The industry should not be limited to the type of content they are allowed to use in movies, but should warn people about what may be seen in the movie. The warning then puts the problem into the hands of the public; if a person is appalled by the violent content of the movie, it was ultimately their decision to watch the movie, knowing that their is indeed violence present. The system is also a great way for parents to know which movies are appropriate for their children to go see. We have learned in an earlier chapter that violent television shows and movies can lead children to imitate the behavior and act out violently. With a rating system, parents can take their children to family flicks and not worry about there being a negative influence.

However, although the idea of a rating system is good in theory, and a good rule of thumb in which movies children should stay away from; I don't believe that it is totally effective. First off, although the ratings are supposed to tell which movies are appropriate for a certain age, it is pretty subjective. One person in the United States may find the amount of violence and profanity in a PG-13 rated movie to be innapropriate for teenagers, and believe it should instead be rated R. In contrast, another person may believe the same movie isn't violent at all, and allow their 9 year old child to view it. Another con of the movie rating system is the enforcement of the ratings, especially when it comes to those movies that are rated R. Although all theaters are supposed to check ID's of younger movie-goers, to assure no one under the age of seventeen is admitted without an adult present; many aren't. I can speak from experience, as when me and my friends were under seventeen, we had no problem getting into many R rated movies. Even if ID's are being checked where tickets are being bought, teens find their way around it by buying tickets to a different movie, and sneak in to the R rated one. Is there a way to get past this problem? I personally believe that their are bigger issues to be concerned about, but more strict enforcement could definetely be put into place. For example, one movie theater near my hometown checks all ID's for rated R movies, no matter the age of the ticket purchaser. Also, they usually have an employee standing outside of the entrance to the R rated movie, and only those with a ticket to that specific movie are let in. this in turn prevents teens from sneaking in to these R rated flicks. On the downside, checking IDs causes long lines and potentially angry customers. So is it really worth it?

In addition, I was recently reading an article on backstage.com titled "MPAA to Offer Full Disclosure on Ratings" which eluded to a few changes that will be made to the rating system. Although nothing drastic such as a new letter will be added to the system, there are plans to increase the effort put into explaining the ratings system to filmakers as well as the public. The newest addition is a weekly email known as the "Red Carpet Ratings System," listing films, their ratings, and reasons for the given ratings. I believe this is a good step to help the public become more aware of what they are allowing their children to watch, and be more cautious about it in the future. I don't think it will cause any changes in the amount of underage kids and teens getting into R rated movies, but it definetely can't hurt to keep the public more informed on an issue that many people today disregard.

The Current Evolution of Facebook

Facebook, a social networking site started by Mark Zuckerberg, has made great strides from its birth in 2004 to its current status today. Starting out as a site solely for college students to network and gain friends, the site has evolved greatly and now allows anyone to be a part of their school network, work network, or geographical network. However, besides simply allowing a greater variety of people to take part in the site, I believe that Facebook has also become more business savvy in recent years. Will this new venture benefit the ever-evolving social network, or cause members to shy away from the ad-covered web pages?

When Facebook first began I believe that Zuckerberg truly had the users of the site in mind, with the money he was beginning to make serving as an extra perk. But recently, with Facebook's blatant popularity, I have noticed a shift in focus towards business and promotion of brands through ads on the site. When I first started my personal Facebook page in high school, there were few ads, and the only things a user was allowed to do was write on a friends "wall,"post photos, and list there general interests and educational information. However, Facebook now offers thousands of new applications which allow users to do anything from sport their loyalty to a sporting team, to give a "gift" to a friend. Another recent development i noticed was the amount of advertising on Facebook. From the banner ads on the side of the page, to companies being able to create their own pages to promote their products. According to an article on CNN.com, Facebook is going above and beyond by unveiling a new ad campaign to include Facebook users. They say that people influence people, and this new campaign will do just that. If a friend buys a product or books a vacation, the company will be able to use this information to entice others within their social network to buy the product.

I believe Facebook is becoming to commercial, and has lost much of its luster since it first began. I now feel like I am being used by the site to help make money through this new advertising plan, and I am not a fan. I think this idea will backfire on Facebook and cause many privacy issues to arrive. What if a member doesn't want their information used on a companies Facebook page? Will they have the choice to say no? It will be interesting to see what becomes of this new investment, and how it will affect the popularity of the site. Personally, although I do not like the idea of being used to help advertisers, I will continue to use this social networking site to keep in contact with my friends. I have learned to adapt to all changes the site has enforced thus far, and use the site far to often to quit cold-turkey. But in the end I think the new additions to Facebook are taking the focus away from the needs of the users, and putting it on to business and making money; a common problem plaguing many Internet sites today.

Minnpost.com

Upon visiting the site for Minnpost.com, I was slightly confused as to what was supposed to be so special about it. To try to find an answer I began to read the section of the site that describes what Minnpost.com is all about. Upon reading the excerpt describing the intentions of this new local online news site, I discovered that there were indeed a few qualities that separated Minnpost.com from the rest. First, I found it interesting that Minnpost.com is run by a non-profit journalism group(Minnpost), and that the funding was provided by four families, as well as other supporters. This stood out too me, as I don't believe that many local news sites today with such great reliability and validity are non-profit. It definitely causes me to wonder whether or not it will be able to compete with corporate business models who are working for a profit. But since the site was launched only recently, November 8, 2007, only time will tell.

After browsing the site for fifteen to twenty minutes, I concluded that I will definitely make an effort to include Minnpost.com into my daily news diet. A big plus of the site is how they mentioned in their "about Minnpost.com" page that they will not try to spread themselves out too far, and focus on supplying news to "news-intense people who care about Minnesota". I think this is a very important aspect, as many news pages try to please everyone, and in doing so they don't put enough focus on any one area. I also like how the site seems to offer several different opinions and views on subjects, showing that they care about sharing opinions from every side of the story and are not biased. Last, I will include this in my daily news consumption because the site is simple. There are no ads flashing in your face, or links trying to get you to visit several different sites, which is always a plus.

I do believe that Minnpost.com will be able to compete with corporate, for-profit business models once the site really gets off the ground. From the looks of it, the site has the resources, journalists, as well as a print edition of Minnpost to work to its advantage. If they are able to get their name out to the people of Minnesota, especially through word of mouth, they should be able to obtain a large group of loyal readers.

Last, as I said before, one of the great things about this page is how simple it is. Unlike Startribune.com which is busy, and offers a plethora of advertisements as well as advertisement links. Also, I believe Minnpost.com will be able to offer a greater variety of opinions on stories, and stick to focusing on the people of Minnesota, where the Star Tribune may try to spread there focus to other areas of the nation. Overall I believe that there are many positives for Minnpost.com, and if they are able to compete with larger, for-profit news sites, that it will grow to be something very successful in the future.

Whose News?

When it comes to the topic of television news I usually choose local news programs on broadcast television. I prefer these over cable news programs, as they report on local happenings as well as bigger issues occurring in the nation. In my opinion, local news appears to truly care about the issues that they are reporting on, while programs such as CNN news come across as only caring about being the first to cover the story, and broadcast it out to as many people as possible. However, when it comes to reading news on the internet I like to visit both local and network stations. For local news I usually prefer reading about the news in my hometown, Milwaukee, and therefore visit the website for TMJ4, which is an affiliate of NBC. I prefer this local site over the other local stations in Milwaukee, as it is the station my family usually has on at home and also, I believe their website is set up in a better manner, and is very easy to navigate around, in comparison to other stations. When I want more information on a larger issue, affecting a different part of the country, I usually turn to CNN as they clearly post links leading to the latest stories, and always have reliable information.

Television news is beneficial as it can cut away from television programs to give breaking news, which other mediums, such as newspapers, aren't able to report the story until the next morning. Television is also constantly on in many American homes, so it is easier for families to receive their news at home, on television, opposed to in the car, where kids may want to listen to music, Ipods, etc. Television news also offers a variety of local and national network news programs to choose from. If you do not like the way in which a certain station is reporting a story, a different station is only a few clicks away. A drawback to television news is that local stations only show news at certain hours of the day, so if you miss any of those news broadcasts, you may have to turn to a different medium, such as the internet, which is always showing the latest news stories, weather, sports scores, etc.

I do not necessarily believe that any one network does a better job than the others. I think that everyone has their own preference about which station they think does a better job, and has a station that they choose to watch daily, but in my opinion, all four do a fine job. Even though I prefer to watch a local network, affiliated with NBC, it is because I am accustomed to the anchors and setup of the newscast. But from a news standpoint, as long as all networks are providing the latest news in an unbiased fashion, it is hard for me to say that one does a better job over another.

Overall, as I stated previously, I choose to watch local networks over national networks. The setup of a local station's newscast are easier to follow, as many national networks have banners flashing at the bottom of the screen, and are cutting back and forth between multiple stories at the same time. If I do want to read about national issues I usually use a national network's website, as you can choose the stories you want to read, when you want to read them. In my opinion i believe it is better if a local station is affiliated with a national network, as the news seems to be more reliable. The local station I watch in Milwaukee is affiliated with NBC. I think that the affiliation with NBC itself is not important, since I find any of the other national networks( FOX, ABC,CBS)to be just as reliable. The only important factor is that the station is indeed affiliated with a national network. If it wasn't I do not think that I would trust the news being reported as much as I would from a different local station who did have an affiliation. Since national networks have many reporters, constantly researching stories, it is easier to trust a local station who is directly receiving this information than a local station with no affiliation.