France vs United States Media Systems

      France is a country in Europe with a very developed and artistic culture. France has always promoted artistic creation and cultural heritage, and is a hot spot for tourists because of its numerous historical establishments and rich cultural history. Art, literature, music and cinema play a big role in impacting French culture, along with fashion and cuisine. France has a representative democratic republic with a parliament and two executive branches, one lead by the President and the second led by the Prime Minister. Although many believe that France is a "homeland of Human Rights," the press does not have as much freedom as expected. There is a high concentration of ownership in the press, along with the state playing an influential and key role in the media as well. Many newspapers and print magazines are financed by wealthy businessmen or large companies, and most media outlets will make clear their political affiliations, often promoting political opinions and political leaders.

The French print industry struggles financially, and depends on the state to support it, however they still often freely express their opinions despite this dependency. The cost of newspapers is monitored and controlled by the government, and the government will fund things such as printing plants, and does not require publishers to pay a purchase tax, as well as gives journalists a 30% deduction on income taxes. The French radio and television industry is also overseen by the government, and its money comes from license feed collected by the state. The state supervises broadcasts, and the government formed Conseil Superieur de l'Audiovisuel supervises all radio and television. Many consider France to be the "birthplace of cinema," and it has been extremely influential in terms of the film-making process and the art form itself. The French cinema industry is greatly supported by the French Government, in terms of taxes being levied from movies and tax breaks being given for movie production. Most French media aligns itself politically, and is very dependent on the government, which is its owner, sponsor and regulator for the most part.

In the United States, journalism plays a key role in the media. However, American journalists have to work hard to keep audiences engaged and buying their papers, and politics have been playing a huge role in the industry today. Although the United States prides itself on "freedom of the press," surveys in 2013 showed that only 34% of journalists had complete freedom on selecting what stories to cover. This is a result of big businesses or the government affiliating with or owning their papers, which plays a role in what can or cannot be exposed. If a journalist wants to write a story on something that could harm a group of people affiliated with that paper, they are unable to because it puts their affiliations at risk. Unlike France however, the government does not financially support print media because of laws put in place, and the cost of newspapers is not controlled by the government. In terms of public broadcasting, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is funded by the Federal Government, but the majority of their income comes from donations from members, as well as sponsorships and other means. This is in contrast with the French industry, which is supervised and funded by the state. The television industry in the United States is huge, with almost all households owning at least one TV, compared to France where TV ownership is lower. US TV is also the most widely broadcasted internationally, and is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC may control things such as "indecent material," but has very little control on the content of programming aside from that, compared to France where it is overseen and funded almost entirely by the government. Lastly, American Cinema, like French Cinema, has been extremely influential on the industry, especially with Hollywood. American films are often aired in other countries, and Hollywood is the oldest film industry in the world. Politicians used to partner with the American Film industry, but today there is little to no affiliation between politicians and Hollywood, aside from things like the Hollywood Gala that raised funds for Obama during his presidential election. This is unlike France, where the government funds the film industry in large part, but they do share some traits such as some taxes breaks given during film production.

There are many issues of free press in both countries, however the United States ranks slightly lower according to the website Media Landscapes. Although French media has a much greater affiliation with the government, and relies heavily on its funding to stay afloat, its press according to Media Landscapes is still freer in terms of what it can publish. The United States media industry is corrupt, and journalists often find themselves unable to investigate or publish what they want because of bigger businesses or even the government having ties with their paper. However, since most of the revenue comes from independent means such as sponsors and donations, they are still somewhat more free from the government since the government in general has less laws that control the media. The French media industry relies more heavily on the State as a result of laws and the fact that most of their revenue comes from the government, and party affiliations play a large role in the type of content they create. The same thing can be said for the United States media, as politics are playing a larger and larger role in news that interests the general public. However, despite its close ties to the government, the French media system is still able to more freely publish the content it wants compared to the United States.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Politics
https://medialandscapes.org/country/france
http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/DF_media.shtml
http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/DF_media-bc.shtml
https://medialandscapes.org/country/united-states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_the_United_States#Regulation

President Bush's Speech Addressing Hurricane Katrina and the Response

In August of 2005, a Category 5 hurricane called Hurricane Katrina destroyed the Gulf Coast of the United States, causing over 160$ billion in damage and costing over 1,800 lives. On September 15th, President George W. Bush addressed the nation from Jackson Square, New Orleans to discuss the current state of the country and the steps being taken to address the natural disaster and the damages it was causing. His goals were to assess the damages caused by the hurricane, and unify and strengthen the nation, reassuring it that the issue is being addressed and those affected by the hurricane will get the help they need. He is addressing the population being impacted by the Hurricane, but also the rest of the country in order to inform them of the situation and let them know that he is working to get people the help they need.

Bush opens his speech by explaining where he is, and appealing emotionally to the audience by using diction such as "waiting for life and hope to return," and "cruel and wasteful storm." He discusses the way the storm has impacted the lives of those living in the areas affected by it, in order to address the seriousness of the situation. He outlines his plan to help those impacted by the hurricane, by listing what he intends to do, and clearly states his goals and hopes for the future. He uses simplified language to make his message clear and avoid confusion. He proposes plans such as the Urban Homesteading Act, with the intention to get people "back on their feet." He concludes his speech by giving hope to his audience, talking about a "bright future" and "triumph of the spirit over death."

The speech alone had a clear message and addressed the severity of the situation, but according to an article from CNN, his approval rating dropped to 40% after the hurricane. During the hurricane, Bush had a planned vacation to his home in Texas, and did not remain very informed with the state that the country was in as a result of the hurricane. He eventually did cut his vacation short, but only by two days, and returned to address the country. According to an article by the the New York Times, Bill Clinton stated that Bush's plan of action to aid those impacted by the hurricane only provides relief to those in the middle class and up. The article describes how the storm highlighted the class divisions under Bush's presidency, and played a role in his failing popularity. Bush also did not address how he plans to help those that had no property insurance that lost their homes in the storm. An article by the Washington Post also discusses how Bush's plan of action "prioritizes the privileged over the working poor." The article also includes how Clinton, as mentioned earlier, believed that Bush was doing nothing for the poorer class, which would disproportionately hurt people of color as a consequence. The article explains how many believe that the hurricane exposed "a truly systematic effort to distort and disable the people's government and devote it to the interests of the privileged and the powerful."

When listening to the speech, it sounded to me like Bush was taking necessary steps in order to address the issue at hand. However, I was lacking a lot of background information which came to light when reading articles written in response to his speech. I had been unaware of the vacation he was on in the midst of the crisis, and had not realized how his policies and plans to move forwards were disproportionately favoring the more privileged. The media frame in my opinion was an accurate interpretation of Bush's message, because it included background information and hindsight that I did not have by only watching the speech and doing shorter research on the hurricane and the president. Politicians come across differently when delivering their message compared to media coverage because if you are not informed, you will most likely agree with what they say because it sounds good as a result of your lack of in depth background information ability to see the holes in their story and their political plans of action. The media, however, and the other politicians they interview will likely have a somewhat broader understanding of the subject as a result of direct involvement or hours of in depth research. Of course, this is not always true as media is always biased to some degree, which is why it is always important to do your own research and explore opposing sides in order to have a clearer view of the big picture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJpcbV6FNc8
https://www.britannica.com/event/Hurricane-Katrina
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901427.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/bush.poll/
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/us/nationalspecial/clinton-levels-sharp-criticism-at-the-presidents-relief.html

The Changing Advertising Industry

The advertising industry is an industry that has existed since the 1600s. Its first uses included inspiring English settlers to venture out in ships and form colonies in new parts of the world, as well as to advertise new goods and commodities discovered and traded from newly discovered parts of the world. Nowadays, it is primarily used to advertise goods and services, and it is impossible to go a day in the modern world without seeing an ad somewhere. Things like TV commercials, previews before movies, ads on social media platforms like Facebook or Instagram, all of these are examples of modern advertisement. The growth of the advertisement industry is quick and creative, but its history is just as fascinating. In this post I will examine a historical and a contemporary ad for the same product, and explore their similarities and differences in the way that they display the desired product.

The advertisement displayed on the right is an ad from 1923 by Colgate & Company that advertises a shaving cream called "Colgate's Rapid Shaving Cream." The first thing that stands out is the image of the bearded man at the top. His beard looks very well kept and soft, and is drawn that way to make the reader want the same thing. The ad is inferring through this that by using their shaving cream, their beard can look as nice as the beard of the man in the picture. The tones of the ad are soft, with blue being the only color used aside from black and white. This soft, less poppy color palette was chosen to soothe the eyes and create a connection with the softness that the shaving cream claims it can create. The way the text was placed on the blue circle makes it stand out. The beginning of the text with the white background hooks the reader in by describing the unruly beards of politicians forty years ago, and ends it by saying the Congress had an excuse for unkept beards, which was that the product being marketed did not exist yet. The text uses humor and irony to emotionally appear to the reader, and also drops a few names of important historical men who were in the government. And, since men were aware of and admired many political figures it makes them think "Well if important men such as Blaine and Conkling would have used this product, I should too!" The ad also displays two images, one of shaving with other shaving creams, and another with Colgate's Rapid Shaving Cream. The first image shows that the other shaving creams don't go all the way down to the bottom of the hair, but the second image does, and it explains how it softens the hair "where it meets the edge of the razor." The second paragraph with the blue background explains exactly how the shaving cream works, using exciting and well thought-out language to make the shaving cream seem revolutionary. It also offers to send in a free sample of shaving cream to whoever mails out the attached coupon. These free samples will give the shaving cream an opportunity to demonstrate how it works, and since it is free, readers will think they have nothing to lose by trying the shaving cream. If they like the samples, the company has a new buyer.


This advertisement is a modern advertisement for a shaving cream called Edge. The first thing that catches the eye is the pretty girl in undergarments. This creates an association with using the shaving cream and pretty girls. In small white print, the words "With a smooth shave, she may give you a chance," which reinforces that thought process. Bright and soft tones of orange with a sunset background on a beach give the reader a sense of paradise, and that added with the pretty half naked girl appeals to what the advertiser believes are men's desires. The words "What's behind our shave cream? There's only one way to find out." are also displayed as a sort of challenge, challenging the reader to try out the shave cream and find out for themselves.

The first ad referenced political people and although it did mention a man's wife trying to kiss him through his tangled beard, it was more centered around appealing to a mans desire for a smooth shave. It used proper, more complex language and actually explained how the shave cream works and what makes it stand out from the others. The second advertisement appealed more to a man's emotional desire to be attractive to the opposite sex by using a hot girl and inferring that by using the shave cream, it will make them more desirable to women. It had more sexual undertones, and used more bright, vibrant colors to really pop and stick out. Contemporary advertising images use less words and explanations so as to not overwhelm the reader. This is because most ads nowadays are only glanced at, and most people wouldn't take the time to read everything. Contemporary ads also use more sex appeal, particularly those for hygiene products such as shaving cream and shampoo. Ads nowadays also tend to steer clear of mentioning politics because our country is so divided and they would not want to alienate half of their potential buyers. However in the past people were less angry and emotional about politics, so mentioning political figures would not necessarily turn people off from the product. Advertisements have existed for a long time, but the way they are designed and the methods they use to appeal to their audiences have changed dramatically in order to adapt with the changing times.

Riot Games Social Media Use

Riot Games is a video game developer that created and runs League of Legends, who, with over 100 million players every month, is the most played video game in the world. Every year, Riot also holds many League of Legends tournaments worldwide, with competitive League of Legends being one of the biggest eSport games to date. Riot uses social media to inform its players of new updates coming to the game such as new champions, skins, and patch updates, as well as to keep in touch with its players thoughts on the game and what they want changed or improved. Riot also uses social media to bring attention to fan-made creations such as fanart, and even has a twitter called @RiotSupport in order to be able to talk in real time with problems players encounter when playing the game.

Graves splash art after he got his cigar back

Riot mainly uses Twitter to keep in touch with its player base, and has numerous different twitters for different uses. There is the main League of Legends Twitter @LeagueofLegends, the official Riot Twitter @riotgames, the eSport Twitter @lolesports, and the help Twitter @RiotSupport. There are also other twitters for different regions in order to appeal to its fanbase around the world, such as Europe's League of Legends Twitter @loleu. Each Twitter has its own uses, but League of Legend's main Twitter @LeagueofLegends is used to keep players informed of new things coming out in the game, as well as keep players updated on patch notes and changes being made to the game in each update. Each Twitter is very active, and replies to many Tweets sent to them. @RiotSupport responds to every Tweet sent to them, as it is there to assist players that are having problems with the game, such as technical issues. @RiotSupport even occasionally gifts players with a few extra Riot Points, which is a currency you can buy with real money in the game, if they draw Riot a picture and say that they are only a few RP away from being able to buy a certain thing in the game. Riot also has Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and a few other social media accounts. Riot is very effective at keeping in touch with its player base, and is aware of all the ongoing jokes and memes about their game. For example, at one point Riot removed the cigar from Graves' splash art, which is the image you see of the champion in the loading screen of the game. The fanbase turned it into a meme, and said things like "Riot can make all these changes but still won't give Graves his cigar back." In response, Riot actually re-added the cigar to Graves splash art. Riot is very active on its social media sites, particularly Twitter, and responds quickly and Tweets regularly with new updates and announcements about the game. Riot is also great at opening discourse on its social media with music, fanart, even character creation contests, and uses engaging captions, pictures, and videos to keep its fanbase interested. For example, when new skins are created they announce them, then show us the splash art and follow it with a short gameplay video trailer to let us see how the skin looks in-game. Riot also retweets player creations such as fanart and cosplays, and posts things like interviews of famous eSport players, as well as trailers for new lines of skins and champions that are coming out with exciting animations and graphics. Their Twitter also keeps fans updated on eSport game results, and knows how to hype its players up for upcoming tournaments and new releases.

Fanart by @sonwooang on Twitter of the new skin line coming out that @LeagueofLegends retweeted

In my opinion, Riot is doing very well at keeping its playerbase engaged, and uses social media effectively and appropriately. They Tweet daily, and are aware of their fanbase's wants and are fairly good at delivering. Of course, it is impossible to make everybody happy, especially with such a complex game with so many components to it, but Riot does a great job. Riot knows how to deliver great customer service, and keeps its playerbase updated and aware of changes through its social media. I personally have Twitter notifications on for @LeagueofLegends, because that way every time something new is announced or the new patch notes are released, I am among the first to know. I have also tweeted @RiotSupport a few times, and each time they replied the same day and offered all the help they were able to give me. I think they are doing a great job, and their social media keeps me updated and aware of all the new changes coming to the game.

Chile Transgender Law

On September 12th, Chile's Congress passed a law that allows transgender people 14 years and up to legally change their name and gender. The vote was 95-46 in favor, and was first introduced in 2013, but was able to pass only after it set the minimum age requirement of 14, with 14-18 year olds requiring parental permission. The President Sebastian Pinera has 30 days to decide whether to reject or accept it. This is a huge step towards equality for the members of the LGBTQ+ community in Chile, and is being widely celebrated by LGBTQ+ activists. I chose this topic because the LGBTQ+ community is still being discriminated against all over the world, not only the US, and as a queer person I believe it is important to stay up to date on LGBTQ+ victories worldwide. The US is a more accepting place than many other parts of the world despite being nowhere near perfect, but we have to remember that it is not like this everywhere.

Members of the left-wing party celebrate the passing of the law after voting successfully to pass it, as one of them holds up a fake identity card that says "My identity, my right." Photo: Francesco Degasperi/AFP/Getty

This picture depicts the joyful reactions of people who are either allies or members of the LGBTQ+ community as they celebrate a huge step towards equality. Our eyes are quickly drawn to the woman holding up the fake identity card around her face with the words "My identity, my choice," which is a very powerful image, as it expresses how people should have the right to choose their gender and name in order to reflect who they are. This represents how transgender people in Chile feel about their identity, and the fact that they believe it is a basic human right to be able to decide their legal name and gender for themselves.

A transgender youth shows trans pride by dying their hair and painting the trans flag on their cheek. Photo: Movihle Chile/Flickr

This photo is a portrait shot which shows one of the transgender youths that will be positively impacted by this new law. This gives a face to the LGBTQ+ people of Chile, reminding us that they are real people who deserve basic human rights and freedoms.

LGBTQ+ flags waving in Puerto Montt. Photo: Fernando Lavoz/NurPhoto/Getty Images

This is a detail shot of an LGBTQ+ flag waving in a street of Puerto Montt, Chile during a celebration. This image shows flags that people are holding, as they also hold a sign during a pride parade. This shows that LGBTQ+ rights are important to many people in Chile, and that the passing of the new transgender law will positively impact many people's lives.

Deputies Chamber of Congress where the vote happened. Photo: Morocco World News

This is a scene setter displaying the National Congress in Valparaiso, Chile. The vote on the law was 95-46, and this image makes the number of people who voted seem more real. Chile is a more conservative country, so the fact that that many people voted for this more progressive law giving more rights to members of the LGBTQ+ community is a very big deal.

A beautiful image of Valparaiso, Chile, where the vote took place. Photo: Chile Travel

This image sets the scene for where the National Congress is located, which is where the vote for the law took place.

I chose these images because they demonstrate the important effect that this will have on people everywhere in Chile. When we read or hear about news, we are so distant and unaffected by it that we often forget that these are things actively and sometimes dramatically changing real human beings lives. My pictures tell a story, showing the beauty of Chile and the people there, but also emphasizing the important effect that this new law will have on a large number of people by showing people celebrating their victory and being prideful in their identities. Visual reporting can completely change the lens with which a story is told. If I had not chosen images of people whose lives were impacted by this law, the readers may not realize the importance that it has on the LGBTQ+ people of Chile. In the future, I believe that visual reporting will be done through videos and virtual reality, and we will no longer use still images to show what we are reporting on. Visual reporting will remain important and impactful in the media, but the way it is done will change drastically.

The Impact of Digital Media and Streaming Services on the Music Industry

1.  The Impact of Digital Media and Streaming Services on the Music Industry

I was still young during the turning point of the music industry, when it began shifting away from hard copies and towards digital media. I remember when iPods were a brand new technology, and when I got one for Christmas one year. I was so amazed that so much music could be held in such a small device. At the time, you had to either own a physical copy of the CDs and download the music onto your iPod, or buy the music on iTunes. I remember me and my mom used to cheat the system a little by going to the library and checking out a bunch of albums, and then going home and downloading them all onto iTunes. But the music industry has changed again since then, as music streaming services such as Spotify, Pandora, and Apple Music began appearing. However, I've always wondered; "How are artists paid when people listen to their music on streaming services," especially when the streaming service offers some of its services for no charge. In order to better understand this occurrence, I have chosen three of my favorite songs off my Spotify to analyze. I will begin by identifying their record labels and who owns them, and then I will explore the distribution of profit throughout the whole process, from listener to artist. In these examples, I will be basing it off of the 2.50$ that I pay monthly because of my family plan.

My top favorite song of all time that I have loved for years is Ben Howards "I Forget Where We Were." It was released in August of 2014, followed by the full album "I Forget Where We Were," released in October of that year. He released it with Island Records, a Jamaican-British record label owned by Universal Music Group whose CEO is Lucian Grainge. I logged into my spotify.me, which told me that since September 4th, the day I make my monthly payment, I have listened to 1,145 minutes of music. Assuming that a month is 30 days, if I round a little I will end up with about 2,200 minutes of listening time. Songs are usually about 3 and a half minutes long, so I listen to about 629 songs per month on my Spotify. Although "I Forget Where We Were" is my all time favorite song, I don't listen to it very often so lets assume I listen to it 5 times a month. This means that .7% of the songs I listen to are "I Forget Where We Were." .7% of 2.50$ is about 2 pennies, so that song costs me 2 cents a month. Now, according to "The New Economics of the Music Industry," an article written by Steve Knopper on the new ways revenue from music is distributed, if a song is streamed 60 times, the songwriter gets 9.1 cents and the performing artist gets 38 cents or splits it with their record label. Ben Howard both writes and performs his own songs, so if "I Forget Where We Were" was streamed 60 times by me he would get 28.1 cents and the label would get 19 cents. However, since on average I stream it 5 times a month, Ben Howard gets approximately 2.34 cents from me per month, and Island Records gets about 1.6 cents from me per month.

My second favorite song is "The Medic," by Foxing. It was released November 12th, 2013 and is in the album "The Albatross." Foxing released it with Triple Crown Records, which is owned by Eastwest Records, whose CEO is Max Lousada. I would say I listen to "The Medic" maybe 7 times a month. So, out of the previously estimated 629 songs I listen to per month, making it about 1% of the songs I listen to. This means it costs me 2.5 cents a month. Going off of the breakdown explained in the previous paragraph and the fact that Foxing writes and performs their own songs, they get about 3.28 cents monthly from me, while Triple Crown Records gets around 2.22 cents.

I don't really have a third favorite song, but one song I am listening to a lot right now is "ave cesaria" by Stromae. It was released in 2013 with Universal Music Group, which is owned by Lucian Grainge. I listened to that song maybe 20 times in this past month, making it about 3% of the songs I listen to. This means I am paying 7.5 cents this month. Stromae writes and performs his own songs as well, which means he gets about 9 cents from me per month, and UMG makes about 6 cents per month.

After all these calculations, it became clear that artists do not make very much money per individual person on these streaming services, especially compared to the explanation given by Steve Knopper in the article previously mentioned that explained how the artist would get more than half of the revenue from a CD. In order for an artist to get the same amount of money from you listening with a streaming service that they would have gotten from a CD, you would have to listen to their album thousands of times. This shift towards digital media and streaming services has made it easier and cheaper for the listener to have access to more music and be able to easily make playlists and share music, but it has made it much harder for artists to receive the same revenue they would get in the era of CDs.