It has been said that media representations often reflect the social and political concerns of the age in which they are created. Discuss.

Over the years, media representations have been constructed in order to reflect the zeitgeist of different years. The media often play on stereotypes to make representations easily identifiable to audiences. However, these representations change over time as the way that groups of people are viewed changed and the media has to keep up with this. Also, issues and debates to do with the ways that groups of people are perceived changes the way that they are represented in the media to avoid controversy.

In the film noir era, women were mainly represented as femme fatales. This was because of the threat to patriarchy that they posed after the Second World War as they had more power after doing jobs for men. As the media is a male dominated industry, the representation of women changed from showing them as housewives to showing them as evil seductresses to be aware of. The earlier representation of them as housewives showed women the role that men decided that they should be in, and the later representation of the femme fatale showed men the dangers of women with power. Femme fatales were shown to use their sexuality to lure men. As Goffman states, "Men are shown in positions of intelligence. Women are physically portrayed in sexual or reclining poses with blank or inviting expressions", and this was shown in the film noir era, and is still being shown now.

After the feminist movement came post-feminism. Since the 1990s, women have self-objectifying themselves and using their sexuality. This is shown through lads mags, as although it can be said that women are being subordinated, they are still in power as they are the ones who decide what the men can see in photographs.

Another representation that has changed over time is the representation of the working class. The working class used to be represented in films and the news as a separate group of people who the hegemonic society look down on. However, after the rise of reality TV in the 2000s, the working class are given more of a chance to represent themselves positively. The majority of Big Brother contestants are working class, and it is these people who the public vote for as their winners. When there are higher class people in Big Brother, they are less admired by the public and are evicted early. This challenges hegemonic values as the working class are shown to be more likable than the higher classes.

Reality TV has also shown a change in the representation of different races. In the famous Big Brother race row, the public sympathised with Shilpa Shetty, the Asian, and Jade Goody, the white character, was represented as the villain. This is partly due to mediation, as Shilpa Shetty was shown as a victim. This could be because in current society, race is an issue so representing the Asian as the villain would have been risky as it could have been controversial.

Media representations do reflect the age that they are created. The representations of both women and the working class have changed over time, and reflect the views of society at the time.

Did the washing machine change the world more than the internet?

I think that the washing machine has changed the world more than the internet. The internet provides audiences with information and entertainment, and some would say that the powers of the internet are endless. However, the internet did not bring anything new, but just changed the way in which we consumed things, not always for the better. We now live an immediate society where people expect things straight away and in the most convenient way, which could be breaking our society down. People have less time to talk to each other as social networking means that they can talk online while doing other things. Also, people have less time to spend on more intellectual things, such as reading, as so much time is spent on the internet. The washing machine is more beneficial to us as it gives us more time to spend with people and to do more worthwhile things because people do not have to wash by hand. It gave women liberation as rather than washing clothes, they had the opportunity to be independent. Also, while the internet is a want, the washing machine is a necessity.

The net isn't as important as we think

Ha-Joon Chang: The net isn't as important as we think

The economist and author says the washing machine changed the world more than the internet, a tool we overestimate while ignoring its downsides

Ha-Joon Chang, born in South Korea in 1963, is an economist based at Cambridge University specialising in development. Known for his heterodox views, he is the author of several books, including Kicking Away the Ladder (2002) and Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism (2008). In his new book, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism (Allen Lane, Chang debunks many cherished myths about the free market. In one chapter, he says: "The washing machine changed the world more than the internet."Top of Form

Is it really true that the washing machine has changed the world more than the internet?

When we assess the impact of technological changes, we tend to downplay things that happened a while ago. Of course, the internet is great – I can now google and find the exact location of this restaurant on the edge of Liverpool or whatever. But when you look at the impact of this on the economy, it's mainly in the area of leisure.

The internet may have significantly changed the working patterns of people like you and me, but we are in a tiny minority. For most people, its effect is more about keeping in touch with friends and looking up things here and there. Economists have found very little evidence that since the internet revolution productivity has grown.

And the washing machine was more transformative?

By liberating women from household work and helping to abolish professions such as domestic service, the washing machine and other household goods completely revolutionised the structure of society. As women have become active in the labour market they have acquired a different status at home – they can credibly threaten their partners that if they don't treat them well they will leave them and make an independent living. And this had huge economic consequences. Rather than spend their time washing clothes, women could go out and do more productive things. Basically, it has doubled the workforce.

The washing machine is just one element here. Other factors have contributed to the liberation of women – feminism, the pill and so on.

Yes, but feminism couldn't have been implemented unless there was this technological basis for a society where women went out and worked. Of course it's not just the washing machine, it's piped water, electricity, irons and so on.

Do we tend to overestimate the importance of communications revolutions?

Not always. The invention of the printing press was one of the most important events in human history. But we overestimate the internet and ignore its downsides. There's now so much information out there that you don't actually have time to digest it.

In another chapter of the book, I talk about the American economist Herbert Simon, who argued that our problem now is that we have limited decision-making capability rather than too little information. If you try to find something on the internet, it's a deluge. And in terms of productivity, the internet has its drawbacks – for example, it makes it a lot easier to bunk off work.

But what about the sheer speed at which it allows us to do things?

That is exaggerated too. Before the invention of the telegraph in the late 19th century, it took two to three weeks to carry a message across the Atlantic. The telegraph reduced it to 20 or 30 minutes – an increase of 2,000-3,000 times. The internet has reduced the time of sending, say, three or four pages of text from the 30 seconds you needed with a fax machine down to maybe two seconds – a reduction by a factor of 15. Unless I'm trading commodity futures, I can't think of anything where it's really so important that we send it in two seconds rather than a few minutes.

Does it matter that we overestimate the internet's importance?

On one level, no. If I think the Sun goes round the Earth, it's not going to affect how I do my grocery shopping or teach economics. But where it does matter is that a lot of people have come to accept a policy action or business decision on the grounds that this is something driven by technological changes rather than by active human decisions. So anyone who is against total globalisation is a modern luddite.

This idea that the internet is driving globalisation has enabled business leaders and politicians to get away with decisions made for their own self-interest, because people have been too ready to accept that things have to be like this.

Do we fundamentally misunderstand the nature of capitalism, as the title of your book implies?

Let me start by saying that I am an advocate of capitalism. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I think it's the worst economic system except for all the others. So I'm not an anti-captialist, or anarchist. I want capitalism to work. But the version of capitalism that we have practised in the past two or three decades is a very extreme free-market version which, contrary to the claims of many economists, is not the only or best way to run things. There are many different ways and in the book I show that countries that have run capitalism differently – even if they practise free-market capitalism today – have done much better.

Net Neutrality

What is net neutrality?

Net neutrality is when internet service providers don't restrict particular websites and how fast users can connect to them.

Is the internet neutral?

The internet is not neutral but I think it's as neutral as it will ever be.

Should it be?

No. If internet service providers want to use different speeds, they can. If users don't like it, there are other internet service providers.

Net Neutrality - The New York Times

Net Neutrality, Back in Court

It was predictable that a telephone or cable company would challenge the rules proposed last December by the Federal Communications Commission to guarantee that the Internet remains an open network.

Still, the lawsuits filed by Verizon and MetroPCS earlier this year against the F.C.C.’s net neutrality rules are disappointing. The suits fall into a swirl of antiregulatory fervor among Republicans on Capitol Hill. The continuing resolution passed by the House last week forbids the F.C.C. from using any money to put the new rules into effect.

That bill, and the lawsuits, risk stripping away the F.C.C.’s light-touch attempt to ensure that the Internet remains open — an approach carefully crafted in months of negotiations with Verizon and other companies.

The suits could potentially free Internet service providers from regulation — allowing them to treat their own content better than that of rivals, and block content that they didn’t like or competed with. Verizon and AT&T have about 60 percent of wireless subscribers. And 80 percent of Americans live in areas with only two wireline broadband providers. In a market with such slender competition, consumers are likely to lose out.

Verizon’s argument is simple: it doesn’t want the F.C.C. to write rules for the Internet. This is especially true when it comes to wireless, which it views as virgin territory. The question is, should Verizon be allowed to, say, block Web sites that compete with its own services and discriminate at will to pursue its business interests? To us, that should be an area of federal intervention.

Both lawsuits take advantage of a weakness in the F.C.C.’s approach: in proposing new rules for the Internet, it decided to stick to the Bush administration’s definition of the Internet as an “information service” rather than reclassify it as a telecom service. The F.C.C. has limited regulatory power over information services, and much more over telecommunications.

In April 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the F.C.C.’s authority over information services was so limited that past efforts to ensure network neutrality exceeded its authority. While the commission believes its new rules will survive the court challenge, we fear that its strategy is legally vulnerable. Verizon and MetroPCS are bringing their cases in the D.C. Circuit.

The choice for American consumers is between the open broadband they have come to expect — in which they can view any content from sources big and small — and a walled garden somewhat like cable TV, where providers can decide what we can see, and at what price.

Net Neutrality - BBC News

Minister Ed Vaizey backs 'two-speed' internet

Culture minister Ed Vaizey has backed a “two-speed” internet, letting service providers charge content makers and customers for “fast lane” access.

It paves the way for an end to "net neutrality" - with heavy bandwidth users like Google and the BBC likely to face a bill for the pipes they use.

Mr Vaizey said ISPs must be free to experiment with new charges to help pay for the expansion in internet services.

But critics warn the move could harm free speech and stifle innovation.

'Fast lane'

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are supposed to treat all web traffic equally - serving only as a one-size-fits-all pipe for whatever data is passing from content providers to end users.

But a debate has been raging around the world over how much they should be allowed to control the size of their pipes, and thus the internet speed that users get from the site.

In the US, President Barack Obama has backed net neutrality - treating all traffic equally - and regulators have threatened possible legal action against ISPs that block or restrict access to sites.

But some traffic management, where traffic from one source is favoured over another, is likely to be allowed, with a ruling due next year, Mr Vaizey suggests.

The EU has also backed traffic management but with greater transparency to ensure the internet remains "open" - something that will soon be enshrined in UK law.

Mr Vaizey argues that most ISPs already carried out traffic management "to ensure the smooth running of their networks" without any impact on competition or consumer rights.

In his speech, he argues that the continued quality of internet services in the UK is under threat due to the rapid expansion of mobile and wireless networks and the "massive investment" it needed.

As a result, ISPs had to be free to experiment with new ways of raising revenue - provided customers were clear about what they were buying.

He says: "We have got to continue to encourage the market to innovate and experiment with different business models and ways of providing consumers with what they want.

"This could include the evolution of a two-sided market where consumers and content providers could choose to pay for differing levels of quality of service."

He also suggests that content makers could be charged for the first time for the use of the ISP's networks - provided they too were clear about what they were getting.

"Content and application providers should be able to know exactly what level of service they are getting especially if they are paying for it," he says.

'Appalling'

He added that the government did not want to introduce new laws on top of those already being adopted from the EU to guarantee an "open" internet, arguing that light touch regulation was better.

He also argued that, that unlike in the US where some areas only had the choice of one service provider, there was enough rivalry between providers to ensure consumers' rights were protected.

"The essential competition we enjoy in Europe and especially in the UK, will be an essential safeguard against unfair discrimination," he argues.

He said ISPs must also guarantee that net users can continue to access any legal website or content.

"In order for the internet to continue as the open, innovative force for good that it has been over the past 20 years it is essential that all elements continue to prosper.

"This means ensuring that content providers and applications have open access to consumers and vice versa.

"But it also means allowing ISPs and networks to innovate and experiment with new ways of delivering what consumers want so we can ensure continued investment in the infrastructure that delivers the content and applications we all use."

But Jim Killock, of net freedom campaigners the Open Rights Group, said the proposals could have "appalling" consequences for free speech and commercial innovation.

"Ed Vaizey is wrong to assume that there is no problem if BT or Virgin restrict people's internet access for their commercial advantage. Removing 'net neutrality' will reduce innovation and reduce people's ability to exercise their freedom of speech.

"This is why ORG will campaign against any market abuse, should Ed Vaizey allow it to happen."

'Peak times'

But the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) welcomed what it called Mr Vaizey's "lightly-regulated, market-based approach" towards traffic management, adding that ISPs should be "open and transparent" to boost confidence in the industry.

An ISPA spokesman said: "This approach will reassure those who are investing in networks and coming up with new, innovative online business models.

"A number of ISPA members already provide consumers with clear information on traffic management practices and we expect to see this extended.

"ISPs use traffic management techniques so that they are able to effectively and efficiently run and manage their networks for the benefits of all users.

"This enables ISPs to prioritise time-sensitive applications, such as VoIP and online gaming, at peak times."

Net Neutrality - The Guardian

Berners-Lee warns ISPs on net neutrality

Inventor of world wide web says plans for 'two-speed' internet go against its principles

The inventor of the world wide web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has warned internet service providers (ISPs) that plans for a "two-speed" internet go against the principles that have let the net grow so rapidly in the past two decades.

"Best practices should also include the neutrality of the net," Berners-Lee told a round table in Westminster on Wednesday morning, convened by the communications minister Ed Vaizey. Content companies, represented by Facebook, Skype, the BBC and Yahoo, squared up to ISPs, with input from consumer representatives including the Open Rights Group, the Consumers' Association and the communications regulator Ofcom.

Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group, who was representing consumer interests at the meeting, said afterwards that he was concerned about the direction the debate was going: "The potential for something going terribly wrong is absolutely there. The regulator and government do not wish to intervene, for good reason; but industry is not putting forward anything that looks like meaningful self-regulation."

ISPs have for years sought to charge the BBC or customers, or both, for the huge amounts of data transferred over their networks by applications such as the iPlayer, whose popularity has exploded in the past few years. ISPs have to pay for carriage of data from BT's core network to customers, but offer unmetered services on broadband – meaning that when people's demand for data grows, ISPs can be out of pocket.

But the BBC and other content providers such as YouTube have resisted calls that they should pay, on the basis that they are providing a service that allows the ISPs to find customers. In response, ISPs both in the US and Europe have mooted the idea of "two-tier" connections where some services are slower than others. Skype complained at the meeting that its service is effectively blocked on all of the mobile services in the UK except 3, meaning that carriers are violating the principle of net neutrality because they fear it will affect their call revenues.

Berners-Lee told the meeting that "every customer should be able to access every service, and every service should be able to access every customer ... The web has grown so fast precisely because we have had two independent markets, one for connectivity, and the other for content and applications."

Vaizey said the meeting had been "useful and productive" and that "it was important to discuss how to ensure the internet remains an open, innovative and competitive place."

"Net neutrality" – in which services are treated exactly equally as they pass over the net, no matter what their source or destination – has become an increasingly vexed topic as demands on ISPs and mobile carriers have begun to outstrip capacity.

ISPs have thus suggested that they should be allowed to manipulate the transfer of data, but that they would be transparent about how and what they were doing.

On Monday the Broadband Stakeholder Group launched a new traffic management transparency code, which has since been signed by the largest fixed-line and mobile carriers, including BSkyB, BT, Everything Everywhere (formerly Orange and T-Mobile), TalkTalk, 3, Virgin Media and Vodafone. Together they represent more than 90% of all fixed-line broadband and mobile customers in the UK.

It pledges that "information will be provided in a common format to explain what traffic management techniques are used, when and with what impact for each broadband service currently marketed by the code's signatories."

But Rob Reid, senior policy adviser at the Consumers' Association, who was among the attendees at the meeting, said that there was concern that transparency was only one half of the required commitment – because users might be tied into contracts lasting 18 months or more, meaning that if they disliked a change to the traffic management policy it would be expensive to switch to a different provider who offered one they preferred.

Antony Walker, the chief executive of the Broadband Stakeholder Group, told the Guardian: "The issue of [customer] switching is critical. It's the other side of the coin to transparency. Ofcom is working on guidance on this and it is an issue that was highlighted. Everybody agrees that it is important."

Adding faster systems would only work as a short-term measure to relieve congestion on networks, said Walker: "it's like adding more lanes to the M25 – it just attracts more cars. Having faster networks will mean that people will want more services using more data."

But Killock said that not enough was being done yet: "In contrast with the US, where rules are being put in place through the Federal Communications Commission, or Norway where ISPs have agreed a meaningful code, our ISPs are not offering us what we and the UK economy needs. If that continues to be the case, then Ed Vaizey will find himself with the task of breaking the log jam."

"Digital media have, in many ways, changed how we consume media products." Who do you think benefits most - audiences or producers?

Throughout the years, technology has expanded to the point where audiences no longer consume media texts in the same way. New and digital media have made it easier for audiences to consume certain products. Convergence and other technological advances have increased accessibility and made consuming the media more convenient for audiences. As well as audiences, producers have also been affected by new and digital media. Web 2.0 means that audiences can now be producers too, and ever changing media means that producers have to adapt to compete with other companies. The impact of new and digital media is evident in both the news and TV broadcasting as both are now consumed differently to before the rise of digital media.

New and digital media has considerably changed the way that we consume the news. Online news means that the news is more accessible as audiences can read about it whenever they want. Not only is this convenient for audiences as they can decide when and how to consume the news, but it is also free, so new and digital media benefits audiences as the news is more accessible. Rupert Murdoch has recently released a new newspaper that is only available on an iPad, called The Daily. Also, audiences are able to read the news on a smart phone, which adds to the convenience as they can carry the news around with them. Social networking has also changed the way that audiences consume the news as people now rely on finding out about the news through social networking websites such as Facebook. The impact of new and digital media on the news benefits audiences as it makes accessing the news more convenient for them. However, it can be seen as a moral panic that people rely on technology for anything, even receiving the news.

New and digital media has also had an impact of the producers of the news. Free online news, as well as the competition created by the plurality of more news sources, has led to a decline in newspapers, so producers have had to think of new ways to gain audiences. Newspapers such as The Times have tried to make newspapers more convenient for audience by publishing in tabloid format so they are easier to read. Some newspapers also have a lot of content, as The Sunday Times includes many newspapers and magazines in one. Some news websites have had to introduce paywalls as a way of charging for news now that less people are prepared to pay for newspapers. However, citizen journalists are competition for online news as the user-generated content is more reliable as they will publish news that big companies may not want to publish, such as controversial news stories. Therefore, new and digital media has had a mainly negative impact of the producers of the news. However, producers of other media, such as smart phones, have benefited as they now provide audiences with free news, making their services more sought after.

TV broadcasting has also been affected by new and digital media. New technology, such as 3D TV and HD TV, has made TV viewing a more cinematic experience for audiences as the content is now of a higher quality. TV broadcasting now also offers more plurality as audiences don't have to pay as much attention to scheduling. Catch-up services, such as BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4oD and Demand 5 allow audiences to watch TV in their own time, as well as timeshifting, such as Channel 4+1. Also, with technology such as Sky +, audiences can record TV, so scheduling is no longer as important. The amount of channels that digital TV offers is also pluralistic as there are more channels to choose rather than just five terrestrial channels. Like the news, new and digital media has made TV broadcasting more convenient for audiences today.

Producers of TV broadcasting have to adapt to keep up with the changing media landscape. To compete with other companies, such as News Corp, most digital TV companies now offer audiences the opportunity to record TV. However, new and digital media has had a negative impact on producers as they can no longer target the right audiences through scheduling as less people watch TV at the scheduled time. Also, online TV cannot be regulated, so audiences may be watching content that is not suitable for them as there is no watershed and post-watershed.

Overall, new and digital media has had a large impact on the way that media products are consumed. Society has become more immediate, and this is reflected in both the news and TV broadcasting. Both are now more convenient for audiences as audiences can decide when, where and how to consume them. The plurality has given audiences more power, meaning that new and digital media has had a positive impact on audiences in relation to the news and TV broadcasting. However, producers of these products have been disadvantaged as they can no longer target the right audience. With TV broadcasting, scheduling is no longer important to audience as new technology allows them to choose their own viewing times, so producers cannot target the right audiences. Also, advertisers can no longer make sure that the right people are watching their adverts as audience watch at different times. Producers of the news are also at a disadvantage as free news means that audiences are less likely to pay as much for newspapers. Also, citizen journalists can be considered to be more reliable than big institutions, so journalists have less of a job.

Are We Obsessed with Facebook?

500 000 000 active Facebook users - 1/13 people on earth
84% of 18-34 year olds check Facebook when they wake up
35+ represents more that 30% of Facebook users
71.2% of USA web users are on Faebook
57% of people talk more online than in person
48% of young Americans find out about news through Facebook

The world is OBSESSED with Facebook!