Advertising, football and controversy: CBS's gray area.

I have a friend here in Lawrence, Scott Winer, who has an interesting perspective on the recent decision by CBS to not broadcast a commercial about a gay dating website during the Superbowl (<--do I have to pay for that?!) Definitely something you should check out.

As a graduate from KU's William Allen White School of Journalism, this is such an interesting situation. Ethically, socially and media-related.
The Superbowl is such a huge advertising phenomenon and every year the cost of a 30-second commercial and banned commercials is news-worthy. Thirty-seconds of air time for, usually, America's most prominent brands. Is Coke really going to convince us to drink more Coke? Especially if Pepsi doesn't advertise? Ironically, the fact that Pepsi IS NOT advertising is news. Especially since they are planning on donating the money. Basically, it's a big deal.

Specifically in this year's situation, it comes down to ethics. Going into Journalism, I always had the idea that you do/write about what is right. But after my Ethics class, I was definitely more aware of the gray areas in journalism; both in the areas of marketing/pr and reporting. Is CBS doing acting on what's "right" (whatever that is) or are they sticking to their policies that they've recently changed? Is it one in the same? I don't know as much as I could about the situation, so I don't know.

But what's "right" for the American people to view (because something like 83% of the U.S. watches the Superbowl - it's an incredibly American thing to be a part of) CBS, or whichever network broadcasts the game, gets to determine what's appropriate. Usually, the biggest offender is GoDaddy.com. It's gotten to the point, I believe, that they make commercials with the sole purpose of being rejected, getting attention to their commercials online anyway, without having to pay the cost of the Superbowl commercials.

So, I am not really sure what the right answer is. But it certainly is an interesting question.

All aTwitter

About a year ago, a friend I know from an internship we did together, invited me to this new social networking website. I joined (I was probably bored or avoiding homework) but didn't do much with it. Last summer, said social network was prominent in several news events; during an American's imprisonment in a foreign country and was used to communicate information during the November Mumbai attacks. After President Obama was elected, another friend, still an undergrad at the local university, was planning a trip to the inauguration so I started frequenting this site a bit more. Starbucks, CNN, other Lawrence residents, former coworkers, National Debt, The Daily Show. And if you keep paying attention, the number of people you follow could balloon to 124 people by March.

Yes, I Twitter.



When people who are barely familiar with Twitter try to explain it, they get the basics: 140 characters per "tweet" and the question, "what are you doing". The thing is, these are the basics. And to make a judgment on Twitter based on this information and the fact that the people you track is called "following" leads to some pretty unintelligent and uniformed commentaries on Twitter. And it's happened. Google "Twitter" and I'm sure you'll find said evaluations about Twitter.

The thing is, Twitter has evolved from communicating just "what" you're doing and is now communicating anything you can share in 140 characters. Usually, news and media information, but also pictures (with the use of TwitPic) and sports scores (a helpful tool during March Madness day games). Without being involved, those evaluating Twitter cannot accurately comment on the tool.

Although, I'm not currently pursuing a career in any type of communications (marketing, PR, etc) I am a proud graduate of KU's J-School. So,I've rationalized my use of Twitter to stay up to date with media and networking developments. Just in case I eventually jump back into any type of communications. And really, it's also a lot of fun.

@bailann