Get Rich or Die Tryin'

Gangsta rap is the most commercially lucrative subgenre of hip-hop.



If you listen to it, you’ll know it is populated with expletives, drug dealers turned emcees, the size of fly bling, rims, and booty in the strip club. The music seems to perpetuate a lifestyle denigrating women, homosexuals, whilst all the while advocating violence and self-destruction in pursuit of the almighty dollar bill.

Although, Snoop Dogg (and others) made a living from it since the 1980’s, it’s popularity really became commercially evident in the 1990’s, with the release of Dr. Dre's album, 'The Chronic' in 1992.

Criticism has come from both right wing and left wing commentators, religious leaders and black activists alike. In August 2006, civil rights activist -- the Rev. Al Sharpton warned of the dangers of doing nothing about the glorification of the gangster lifestyle.

Many people strongly believe, that Gangsta rap fosters criminal behavior amongst our ‘impressionable’ youth. Many have tried to quantify this tangible effect and though there have been varying results -- the majority lean with the argument that music (more so than television) has an effect on social behavior. (David Gordon, 2006)

There are many ethical issues at stake here. For instance, many Gangsta rappers often defend themselves by claiming they are only describing their reality of inner-city life, which leads me to question how they can justify making such vast amounts of personal profit from this exploitation. To what measure is it ethical and acceptable to profit from the plight of poor black conditions? The quandary deepens should it be proven that this behavior also inspires new and more illicit activity as well.


The rivalries between East and West Coast rap artists have led to countless deaths already. Two high profile rappers 2Pac Shakur and Biggie Smalls have already succumbed to their end in high profile drive by shootings. Record companies capitalized on the glorification of gang violence in rap music. These are people who can’t even defend themselves with the argument they are ‘describing the reality of their lives’.

The other day, we watched a snippet from “Born into Brothels’. We agreed it’s film-makers probably profited in some way or another, but at the end of the day there was not one person who accused it of encouraging inner-city depravation as we suspect Gangsta rap does.

Put that next to 'Get Rich or Die Tryin'; another film depicting inner city life loosely based on rapper 50 Cent’s gangland reality and violent experiences and you hear outrage.

To begin with, its movie poster shows 50 Cent (real name Curtis Jackson) with his arms outstretched, a microphone in one hand and a gun in the other. The poster was later ammended to calm criticism:


Later on, the DVD box looked like this:

Nevertheless, Jim Sheridan, who directed the film is an aclaimed director of ‘My Left Foot’ fame. Surely, he felt the project was worthwile.
In the movie, Jackson plays Marcus, a low level drug dealer turned rapper on the mean streets of New York. Tough is a big understatement when your father isn't around and your mom's busy pushing drugs. His rap dreams aren't solely based on fleeing his past.

It is a new perspective on Gangsta rap. In the movie, Marcus is given the opportunity and could use violence against those who want to mortally harm him, but instead opts for a more dangerous road; one that inolves using lyrics as verbal bullets to humiliate his foes. He famously walks on stage with a bullet proof vest. He's saying that if you live in the same conditions as he did, then you have braver more nobel means than violence at your disposal. It is the gangland's alternative to 'Kids with Camera's' solution.
In one scene, 50 Cent is shot nine times. He was shot nine times in real life too. Some say his album by the same name, ‘Get Rich or Die Tryin’, reveals the emotion that makes 50 Cent a powerful musical artist. The album was a huge commercial success, making him one our richest rappers!

However, When you choose to entertain with violent and sexist images, you run the risk of numbing kids (and adults too) to its effects. People consume this material very differently. An individual’s psyche may respond negatively to this type of stimulation. We can’t prevent kids from seeing this stuff and ‘misunderstanding’ its meaning and growing up to think it’s just ok to behave the same way. In the movie, Marcus himself comments that “Parents think you see nothing, but the truth is you see everything."
___________________________________________________

www.wl.k12.in.us/hs/clubs/scarlette/ jan27-06%5Cpage3Scarlette012706.pdf

Gordon, D. W. (2006, Nov) The Effect of Gangsta-Rap Radio on Urban Homicide Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology (ASC), Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles, CA . 2006-10-05 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p127575_index.html

Film: Get Rich or Die Tryin’ (2005)

Reason Meets Desire

A lot of people question the ethics of selling consumers things they don't need. But what of our ethics in selling products known to be harmful too?

In 1996, the alcohol beverage industries self-imposed ban on broadcast advertisements by the major hard liquor distillers came to an end. Some federally licensed broadcast outlets chose to accept and air the ensuing advertisements for distilled liquor products but others refused preferring to only accept fermented alcohol products such as beer and wine.

The fact we even make a distinction between fermented beverage and distilled beverage is irrational. Beer is the drink of choice in most cases of heavy drinking, binge drinking, drunk driving and underage drinking. (Rogers and Greenfield, 1999). Nearly two out of every five Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic crash in their lifetime. (Loyola University Chicago Health System: http://www.luhs.org/depts/injprev/Transprt/tran1-06.htm). So, if The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) don’t make this distinction, why are advertisers thinking it fit to do so?

Given the knowledge of alcohol consumption and its negative relationship upon overall health, shouldn’t alcohol (along with tobacco) advertising be barred from our airwaves? The fact remains that the scope and wide spectrum of alcohol use and abuse are so far ranging and complicated to categorize that the majority of reported alcohol-related DUI’s aren’t even perpetrated by alcohol abusers. (http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1789,00.html) The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) would not see the difference.

Yet to achieve their sales agenda, alcohol marketers push positive messages about drinking and downplay and/or ignore negative consequences.

It is no doubt, a highly complicated ethical matter. A ban on the promotion of alcohol would be portrayed as forerunner to wider civil restrictions. Any state intervention in the communications between individuals and organizations will harm and raise questions over our civil liberties.

A spokesperson for the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States claimed that friends and family have more effect on a young person's decision to drink than advertisement.

Yet, what hope does a non-drinker have when all those around him are being seduced to buy and consume alcohol? It is clear the promotion of drinking to individuals will have an effect on others, so we cannot ignore the fact that the promotion through direct marketing will affect non-drinkers too.

As it stands, alcohol advertising should not be designed to appeal to people under the age of 21, for example, using cartoon characters as spokespeople is discouraged. Advertising cannot promote brands based on alcohol content or its effects. Advertising must not encourage irresponsible drinking.
The industry will use a reductio ad absurdum argument:

Father- Why were you drinking?
Son – Because all my friends were doing it.
Father- You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too?

The alcohol industry has traditionally argued that drinking is a private pastime, in which people knowingly assume risks in return for pleasure. They say, that the purpose of advertising is to "encourage existing consumers to switch brands" and to "drink in moderation," From their point of view, even, this would not make good business sense. The alcohol industry needs replacement drinkers. It is obvious marketing seeks to retain drinkers and consolidate the market by promoting the pleasure to new drinkers coming of age.

Young people view nearly 2,000 are for beer and wine. For each anti-alcohol public service announcement teenagers are seeing twenty-five more advertisements enticing them to drink.
Whether or not the advertisements have any direct impact, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism there are:
• 1,400 deaths per year
• 500,000 injuries
• 600,000 assaults
• 70,000 sexual assaults
• Over 2 million drove a car in 2001 while under the influence


Conservatives such as Margret Thatcher have famously argued "there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families". But individuals and families constitute society. Every drinker has an impact on those around him.

Fortunately, alcohol advertising is one of the most highly regulated forms of marketing. So for instance, there are hundreds of beer commercials on air, but not one of them shows somebody actually drinking the beer.

In the United States, this sort of ‘restraint’ comes in the form self-regulatory bodies that make these "ethical" choices themselves, presumably to avoid federal government intrusion and regulation into their affairs that may lead to permanent legislation governing their advertising.

As if to add insult to injury; All but one complaint from the fourteen lodged by a panel of experts, were dismissed by advertising regulators nevertheless. Seven of those complaints never made it because this self-regulating body doesn’t count one-off promotions. (www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1656790.htm). Which leads us to question whether ethical responsibility are being met.

Facebook; More Questions than Answers

"I know your hobbies, your political affiliations, your phone number, your weakness, and where you’ll be getting drunk."

It might sound like psycho babel but it's common knowledge on Facebook.

Since it’s inception in 2004, 80 percent of our undergraduate's have signed up. The Internet's always been an inherent surveillance system but what differentiates Facebook is the level of surveillance at the disposal of the average user.

The danger doesn’t end with stalkers; So long as you’re over 13, Facebook’s Terms of Service (2005) states it can “collect information about you from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and other users of the Facebook service, regardless of your use of the Web Site."

The Facebook pulse feature shows how Governments and corporations are collecting unprecedented amounts of information, such as who’s reading, 'Catcher & the Rye' and how many women are voting, 'Democrat'. Facebook admits to reserving the right “to share your information with third parties, including responsible companies with whom they have a relationship."

Exactly who are these third parties?


According to Vishal Agarwala (2006), some $12.7 million Facebook’s funding, came from Breyer; former chair of the National Venture Capital Association (NVAC). Their dealings include "nurturing data mining technologies." On the same board was Gilman Louie, who’s now CEO of In-Q-Tel; a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Is it any wonder why many countries; in the Middle East and Far East Asia, have Facebook banned and firewalled off? We forget that whilst our networked public space can serve the needs of a democracy, it also has the potential to devolve into a vehicle-more-sinister. Iran for instance has argued it is 'protecting' its citizens not suppressing their liberty.

Even if Facebook isn’t already selling user content to marketing firms and Governments, with all this hefty investment, someone somewhere has to profit. By its Terms of Service, it is (at the very least), permitting (in theory) the free-up of future use of data, no doubt keeping themselves attractive for potential acquisition.

Facebook’s terms of service tells us that “By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.”

This means you're giving Facebook the rights to your photographs, poems and blogs. Creators cannot claim ownership of their own work and so-called user-generated content is an idealist's fantasy. The fact of the matter remains, your act of personal expression is not treated as such on Facebook. Clearly, there is a distinction between private information and intellectual property and private property is 'apparently' cheap. It's strikingly unfair when you consider how Facebook Band pages' need not worry because their pictures and music are protected by copyright laws.

It’s worrying how we're so naïve. Our identity is a commodity and we're giving that, and our privacy away for free and with ease. Kids trust these sites or maybe because they're removed from face-to-face contact, 'certain' users’ inhibitions ratchet down. Either way, kids are bragging about their underage drinking, marijuana smoking, debauchery and disclosing those of their friends’ antics too. Facebookers can involve non-Facebookers by simply ‘tagging’ them; creating a sort of non-consentor temporary profile, all of which may be used against them in court, since it is after all, to common knowledge, a quasi-public domain.

The level of transparency may be exciting to some but to others it can be really frightening. Recent episodes of Law and Order and NCIS show detectives tapping into Facebook equivalents to draw personality profiles, check alibis and catch their young perps.

This is not to say that beyond the feeding frenzy, Facebook can’t be a catalyst for positive action. In fact, the positives are brought to light more often than the negatives.


Starting next month, political candidates will be able to advertise on the site. Politicians have gravitated towards the site for its nine million registered users and most major candidates already have a Facebook account rallying for their nomination battle.

Some say Facebook is an excellent way to reach out to young voters. Certainly, it has become Facebook fashionable to post political affiliations and join Candidates' 'groups' but it remains to be seen how many will vote.

http://www.Facebook.com
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E6DA173CF930A15751C1A9649C8B63
http://www.albumoftheday.com/facebook

Ethical Reporting; Humanity or Detachment?

In recent years, subjectivity and partisanship in reporting have come under sharp attack—most vigorously from opponents of either Fox News or AL-Jazeera. News hounds moan there isn’t even a pretence to objectivity anymore. They argue that in order for media outlets to rebuild public trust and bring confidence back, journalists must keep impartiality, actively remaining objective at all times.

However, there is a grey line to this too. When Hurricane Katrina happened, the initial hysteria and coverage originated with reporters. They were present before FIMA. They were the first to assess and transmit the extent of misery and desperation taking hold on the ground. Who can forget images of residents forced onto rooftops to seek help from passing helicopters? And who were those poor people frantically waving to? (Especially in those early days when Government help still appeared to be absent)? Did people expect the news crew to remain idle even still? or would they have preferred reporters participate and immerse themselves in the story by helping to airlift people out of there?

Here lies the quandary. In an age where media resources and technologies match that of the Government’s, when is it appropriate for a journalist to offer victims of crisis, aid whilst reporting their story? Does it matter that Katrina took place in the form of a domestic tragedy instead of one taking place abroad? Would for instance, a show of humanity still take priority in Iraq?

This is a heated topic amongst professionals as well. Those opposed to any form of involvement argue it compromises their objectivity, undeniably, a chief journalistic ethic. As a result, a pious journalist may feel compelled that in order to remain objective, he must, at all times remain detached, disinterested in outcome and dedicated wholeheartedly to documenting and relaying the truth. His dilemma appears to be that if he helps someone to safety, even by offering them a drink of water, he is altering the course of the news; the facts as he knows them. Ultimately, any form of intervention alters outcome, so whether a journalist likes it or not, their craft will affect public policy and life too.

No reporter wants to appear amidst a conflict of interest, nor should objectivity be painted with such black, white ardor. For starters, one is wrongly assuming objectivity to be an available human trait. To take such a view clouts a journalist with terrible and repeated moral dilemmas. Besides, should the absence of detachment necessarily mean the presence of improper attachment? Just because an Italian journalist lends his cell phone to an American soldier pleading to borrow it for just one moment to call his family, does not mean the reporter helping him is siding with U.S. policy or liable to give us biased coverage. Such a reporter can be as noble as any other. It is just that he is taking a humanistic approach. Consider the alternative, choosing to deny the US soldier of a cellphone shows such dispassion and contempt for human suffering, that such a reporter could definitely be warranted with loathing towards US troops and US involvement in Iraq. Arguably it is such a reporter, whose journalistic endeavor should be watched closely and with greater suspicion.

A reporter's show of hummanity and comapssion should not decredit from his work and render him less objective for its own sake. In fact, let us look at Hurricane Katrina, where disregarding the community's needs and tragic circumstances would have definitely made a journalist appear animus of the very people he was trying to cover. It would have been uncalled for, dehumanizing the account. To my mind, an announced bias is readily more realistic, palatable and constructive to public information than some highly unrealistic declaration to no bias at all.

Ultimately, the role of a journalistic endeavor should be catered to public interest. Encouraging participation in community politics and engaging people to claim their stake in public life. This all requires reporting to be clear-eyed about the facts yet at the same detached enough to show concern for the outcome of events taking place too.

As it happens, during Hurricane Katrina, journalists who came to the aid of ailing victims were heralded as heroes. They weren’t frowned upon. Perhaps, it would be a different matter had it not been a domestic/patriotic issue. News organizations are unforgiving of un-met deadlines. Failures are costly. In another circumstance, a journalist might risk losing his own livelihood should he/she appear ‘confused’ about professional priorities.
As if to add insult to injury, assistance given is therefore more often than not, entrepreneurially grandstanded and sold to the Public’; as if to satisfy shareholders, not to establish the reporter has demonstrated and adopted a subjective stance towards the matter at hand.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/simpson.html
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3999
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=5594
http://www.peacecenter.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/simpson.html