So on my one laptop, I have an older version of the Firefox browser and instead of using www.google.com to look something up, I have been using, http://www.google.com/firefox because that completely eliminates any issues with insight. I don’t even have to change the settings. Problem solved, right? Well, not so much. On my other computer, I have the most recent Firefox browser and the google.com/firefox url redirects and reverts to the most recent google.com site. I panicked for a bit before finally finding another alternative: http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0  So there you have it. If you want to turn off google insight (or at least not have to worry about constantly changing the settings), use one of these urls instead.

Let’s take this argument and put it in a different context to make it clearer. Instead of religion, I’m going to use being on the road as the context, and I will break it down into drivers (religious believers), non-drivers (atheists), and drunk drivers (religious extremists). Keep in mind, this is not an actual argument about driving or not driving, but an example to show how the religious argument can be seen from a different context.

No one is going to argue that drunk driving is clearly reprehensible and those who do so and murder innocent people deserve to condemned for their actions. For the  most part, non-drunk drivers are more responsible, though occasional texting, putting on make-up, eating, etc, while driving is also dangerous and can cause serious accidents and even death. This cannot be discounted, and they still risk putting the lives of others in danger by getting behind the wheel and making poor choices. Non-drivers, however, cannot kill or risk anyone’s well-being on the road since they don’t drive at all.  This is not to say that all drivers are killers or that all drivers are dangerous, but all drivers have a potential to be dangerous and to effect the lives of other drivers and non-drivers alike by simply getting behind the wheel. (Again, this is all meant to be kept in the context of being on the road and is not to say that both drivers and non-drivers do not kill in other contexts or environments, but in those cases it has nothing to do with being a driver or a non-driver.)

Now let’s put each person’s argument into this new context. What O’Reilly is saying is that a drunk driver who kills multiple people on the road is not a driver because a driver would never drive while under the influence, even though the driver himself admitted to being completely drunk while driving. (The denial a statement like that involves is unprecedented.) What Hoover is saying is that non-drivers are responsible for more deaths on the road than drivers, including drunk drivers, but she is taking one side of her argument completely out of context (off the road) while keeping the other side in context (on the road) and that delegitimatizes her entire argument. (It’s like an argument about Red Delicious apples versus Granny Smith apples and she is brings up carrots.) Spitzer is saying, it’s not drivers as a whole who are irresponsible, but the drunk drivers. Finally, Maher is saying that all driving is the problem because even those who supposedly drive responsibly, also pose a risk to other drivers and non-drivers alike.

I agree with Maher. Religion as an institution is a problem because even those who are not extremists and who would never consider actually killing in the name of their religion, still pose a risk to society by imposing their beliefs on everyone else and limiting the choices and freedoms of others. They even pose a risk to themselves by advocating for things like abstinence-only sex education and ending abortion. By not giving teenagers the knowledge they need to make their own choices, they are putting them at risk for STDs and pregnancy. By limiting or ending abortion as a legal option, they are risking the lives of women who suffer complications in pregnancies and who might otherwise need an abortion to save themselves. The religious stifle scientific breakthroughs and cures by trying to limit things like stem-cell research and protesting against funding for scientific development. They risk our children’s education and understanding about the world we live in by advocating for mythological-based education standards and fighting against facts and science. They risk the lives of our youth by condemning homosexuality and calling gay people sinners and evil. They stifle truth and debate in this country by trying to hide facts they choose to ignore and dismiss and by promoting falsehoods and misinformation. They are making choices for others they have no business making and infiltrate policy and legislation in ways that effect everyone. Religious institutions do not pay taxes. They get a free pass on their hatred and bigotry by calling it “religion”. They preach about love and doing right, but hate others who do not believe as they do. Religion is dangerous. Not just Christianity, but all religion. People can believe whatever they want, but I don’t understand why they cannot keep it to themselves and apply it to their own lives and leave it at that.

The argument that atheism is its own religion and that atheists try to force their beliefs on others or try to convert the religious into being non-believers is unfounded and absurd. Atheists don’t have an agenda or a system of beliefs to force on anyone! You can’t force a non-belief on anyone. Atheists also couldn’t care less what the religious believe, but we don’t want to hear about it and we definitely don’t want the religious to impose their beliefs on us in a way that limits our choices or forces us to bend to their beliefs. The only time atheists get worked up and will get involved and make a stand is in order to defend our rights against the religious. We don’t go door-to-door or hand out pamphlets or have a special book or oath we use to distinguish ourselves. We have no church or building or standing to request government funding. We have no rituals or exclusion or inclusion criteria or secret handshake or politics. We are individuals who simply do not believe in religion or a god or gods or magic underwear or talking snakes or heaven or hell or miracles or prayer or any other idea that comes out of religion. I can’t say what “we” believe in because we are individuals and we each have our own ideas about the world, so none of us can speak for each other. Our only shared commonality is that we do not believe in religion or god(s).

In my old apartment, I accessed the internet wirelessly for two years for free. My computer must have jumped on to someone else’s wireless connection. I honestly never thought about it much until construction started in the neighborhood and as more buildings went up, my computer had more and more trouble finding a signal. This was a major problem since having the internet is like having electricity or hot water- it’s a necessity. I did NOT want to have a land-line installed just for the internet- and even wireless routers require either a cable or phone line so I was desperate. Sprint hooked me up with mobile broadband and I got their unlimited data plan for $60/month and all was well and good until my USB modem thingy fizzled out this past September. Luckily, I was eligible for a free upgrade anyway so I got the new 3G/4G cool-looking Sierra Wireless USB thingy. I won’t get into the hours- literally HOURS- it took to try and configure and the multiple lengthy phone calls with technical support that installing and setting up the new device entailed, but let’s just say the process threatened my sanity and nearly cost me a trip to the loony bin…

I finally got the damn thing working (by NOT using Sprint’s software to connect) but about a month later, I ended up moving and my new apartment has great internet and is 1/4 the price, triple the speed and requires NO device to connect! Alas, by choosing and utilizing my “upgraded device” I had just renewed my contract for another two years. I also had not realized until several weeks after moving in that connecting through my device on Sprint’s 3G/”4G” network was ridiculously sloooooow and the connection would randomly disconnect and take FOREVER to reconnect. I have yet to ever connect to 4G. I suspect it’s not even real.

Anyway, so now I’m stuck trying to figure out a way out of my contract without paying the stupid $200 termination fee. Today I signed up on cellswapper.com, but I have no idea what to think of that site or what to expect just yet.  I opted for cellswapper because trying to get on the Sprint website is an entirely different exercise in patience and sanity-testing and I have neither the time nor the patience nor a surplus of sanity from which to draw in order to wait the required amount of time it takes to get all the necessary information I would have to acquire from the Sprint website. The website is by far the slowest, most horribly designed, frustrating site I have ever been on. Ever! It may be the slowest in internet history. Nothing can be done on it. Every single click means the page takes a full minute OR MORE to load- forget searching, forums, or ever hitting your back button on the browser! Ugh. The only rationale I can find for Sprint being so doltish about their website is that they want customers to get so frustrated, they either end up paying the $200 termination fee (for whatever reason) or they just stick with their contract because trying to do anything via their website is too much damn work.

For a company that touts itself as having the fastest speeds, you’d think they would improve the quality and, uh, SPEED of their website… I mean, if it wasn’t so enraging, it would be amusing. I honestly cannot think of one site out there that is slower than the Sprint website. If anyone knows of one, let me know because I’d love to see how it compares.

(sigh)

So in the mean time, I’ll see what happens with cellswapper…

I will do something nice for someone at least once a week. *

*Rules are as follows: It cannot be something so basic and obvious that any normal person would be compelled to do it- for example, holding the door open for an old man or giving up my seat on the subway for a pregnant woman. It cannot be done with an expectation of a return favor or the like. In other words, I can’t do it and expect something in return. I can’t do it begrudgingly. I will make an effort to document each week not so I can feel proud of myself, but so I can remember each instance and reflect on ways to expand each effort. (This last one is not mandatory or even important. It’s just my way of forcing myself to try and write something each week.

I remember doing this last year and I did a few things that made me feel really good and I hope it made a difference to the people involved. Some things were pretty involved and took a lot of time- (I helped my neighbors fix their computer.) Other things were just spur-of-the-moment decisions- (One day I arrived at work and was just about to go inside when I turned around and saw a woman walking down the street with a broken umbrella getting soaked in the rain, so I ran out to her and just gave her my umbrella.) Doing these things helps me feel more connected to people, which I really feel I need to do more and more lately because I have been feeling more and more disconnected. So we’ll see, I guess…

Advertisers have such potential to be creative and engage people, but so often they make the absolute wrong choices and turn people away. I feel like they should be held accountable. When companies spend thousands- sometimes millions- of dollars on advertising, you would think that money should be well-spent in luring people in and creating positive brand recognition. We are forced to get through the ads before we can continue viewing our chosen program and with all the changes in technology, advertisers should be forced to adapt and change because the viewer has more control today than ever before.  When a company makes a great commercial, people remember it and actually seek it out online. There are tons of youtube videos with millions of hits that are commercials! Why don’t ALL advertisers tap into that? Why wouldn’t they want to make viewing a commercial an enjoyable, memorable experience for the viewer?

I don’t have cable or satellite or any fancy TV options but who needs that anymore anyway? I can watch anything I want, any time I want WITHOUT ads online for free and advertisers are going to have to come up with better ways to market themselves. For the times I don’t feel like searching or going to my *special* sites to find what I want to watch without commercials or just when I’m watching a short clip online or when have my TV on, I don’t want to have to fiddle with the volume every time a blasting commercial comes on. I can live with commercials, but this volume thing makes it unbearable and it is so invasive. So let’s begin the list of the worst-offending loud commercials (either on TV or online) and as they come up (and I remember to do it) I will continue to add to the list.

Worst-Offenders for LOUD Commercials

• Capital One – Venture Card (by far, the WORST offender!)

• Delta Airlines

• Windows Live – Microsoft Windows 7

• Citi – thankyou points/rewards

• Cover Girl – Outlast Lipstain

• Verizon

• Listerine

(to be continued…)

Manipulation of Research Data: Turner Broadcasting Sales

Alyson Cozzolina

New York University

Media in America

Professor Carl Hausman

September 30, 1996

Turner Broadcasting is a media company founded by Ted Turner, who also created cable’s first superstation in the late seventies. Turner’s major resources include CNN, TNT, TBS, Headline News, Cartoon Network, Turner Classic Movies, Castle Rock Entertainment, CNN Airport Network, the Atlanta Braves and many others. Turner is still growing and has recently merged with Time Warner.

This past summer, I interned at Turner Broadcasting Sales in New York City. I was an international sales assistant for the Latin American division. I gained an incredible wealth of knowledge about the media business throughout this experience. One especially important aspect of the company I learned about was manipulation. I came across various instances in which numbers did not add up or make complete sense. When I asked about this, people were very eager to explain to me that through the manipulation of numbers, statistics, and percentages, Turner can almost always come out on top. It is this manipulation that will be the focal point of this paper. Of course, I also want to add that Turner is by far not the only network that participates in this manipulation. In fact, I am sure it would be difficult to discover a network that did not manipulate its data. I want to make clear that Turner makes no effort to cover anything up, nor do they publish intentional fallacies. This type of manipulation is something that can be observed by anyone if they know what to look for and how to go about uncovering it. Turner, like any other media network, wants to do as best as they can for the company.

Turner has networks in Latin America, Europe, Asia as well as here in America. I went and spoke to several employees within the international sales department at Turner Broadcasting, and I asked the question, “Are Turner’s research results manipulated or in any way misleading, and if so, how?” R.C., an account executive, and R.E., a sales planner, both answered “yes” to my inquiry, but directed me to B.K., the international research manager, for details. B.K. showed me a study that had just been done by Opinion Research Corporation called Brand Perceptions 1996. The study was conducted throughout Europe of 1.787 men and women on their perceptions of networks. The question asked was, “Have you ever watched CNN?” The base that they used was actually those who have heard of the company instead of the total number of participants in the study. It all depends on how one counts the distribution. This makes a marketable difference in the published results. I made a graph (see Sheets A and B) of the published results with the baseline of total number of people that are aware of the company. In the graph I also showed the unpublished results using the total number of people in the study as the baseline. The difference is obvious. Turner research teams use this type of manipulation of data in order to have Turner come out more favorably. It is these results that the sales executives show clients for advertising agencies in order to get them to buy spots, commercial air time, on Turner networks.

Sheet A

Sheet B

This is similar to Carl Hausman’s definition of card stacking. It is what I would consider “selective factuality” (Carl Hausman, lecture. Sept. 18, 1996.) They are giving facts, but not all of the facts, like the differences that occur when you count the distribution differently. This is all a conglomeration of data that benefits Turner’s cause: to sell.

B.K. also explained that international studies tend to be easier manipulated than domestic studies. Domestic studies are done by Neilson Media Research teams, and are more accurate because the television sets have Neilson boxes to monitor audience viewing habits more efficiently. However, I also spoke with other employees in the international department who informed me about domestic manipulation. G.D., sales coordinator, R.C., account executive, and R.E., sales planner, all explained that sometimes in Neilson studies, double counting takes place. This is when they are counting the number of households that watch CNN, for example, and they count the homes twice because they have a satellite dish and cable. This makes it appear that CNN has more viewers.

Each company that participates in the study counts the viewing differently as well. For instance, Turner counts a viewer even if the program was on for only one minute. Other companies use two minutes, and others use thirty seconds. Neilson counts a view as seven seconds. Essentially you can be counted as having viewed a certain program even if you were just flipping through channels.

An important study was conducted in Latin America by Audits and Surveys Research called Los Medios Mercados de Latinoamerica (MMPS), which was Latin America’s first pan-regional multimedia planning study. The study was conducted in eight Latin American countries and Puerto Rico among men and women aged 12-64 living in both multichannel and nonmultichannel homes. There was a total of 5,767 in-person interviews achieved. “The objective of the MMPS was to provide a greater understanding of pan-regional television audiences, to measure awareness and usage of pan-regional cable networks, to highlight differences between multi and nonmultichannel homes, and to contribute to the development of market by providing a common database of information to networks, ad agencies, press, etc.” (Latin American TV Media Analysis. Groeger, Rikki. May 1995.)

This study can be manipulated in that Turner can add all of its networks together to make a greater impression without adding the other networks as well. In some cases, Turner’s breakdown of networks is not higher than some of the other networks. For example, if you eliminated the Turner Networks sum in the category of Latin Americans who own 2+ television sets per household, and just looked at the breakdown, it is not very impressive. Also, one third of the networks surpasses Turner in reaching Latin Americans who own 2+ television sets (see Sheet C.)

Sheet C

“It is very important to look at the numbers behind the numbers in order to use research pieces more effectively,” (G.D.). In another Neilson study, the results showed that TBS was only up 19% for VPVH (viewer per viewing household), while FAM was up 33% for VPVH from 1995 to 1996. The FAM network could then state that they have risen 14% more than TBS in the past year. G.D. demonstrated that if you look at the raw numbers (see Sheet D) you can see that TBS has 631 thousand VPVH, and FAM has 174 thousand VPVH. There is a significant difference between the two and the fact that FAM has increased 14% more than TBS is rather insignificant. This is something that sales people look for in order to use research data more effectively.

Sheet D

In conclusion, I believe the manipulation of data research is so prevalent that it is becoming somewhat difficult to hide. More and more business dealers and consumers are aware of the occurrence, know what to look for, and pick out the accurate data results. The media is extremely influential today, and those behind the influence should be responsible and mindful in what and how they express. Although it is impossible to examine every piece of media information closely, it is important for more people to be aware of skewed data and be able to sift out the meaningless information. However, there are still many people who read or hear something in the media and accept it without careful examination. I, personally, believe that this is the true problem; too many people do not engage in thoughtful skepticism when it comes to the media.

Sources:

Groeger, R. (May 1995). Latin America TV media analysis. New York, NY: Turner Entertainment.

Dick, G. (April 1996). The prototype planner. New York, NY: Turner Entertainment.

Von Rein, K. (Jan. 1995). Turner entertainment networks: a history. New York, NY: Turner Entertainment.

Audits & Surveys Worldwide (1995-1996). Los medios y mercados de Latinoamerica: Turner entertainment. New York, NY: Audits & Surveys Worldwide.

Neilson Media Research (1995). 1995 audience survey summary: Turner entertainment. New York, NY: Neilson Media Research.

Cozzolina, A. (1996, September 27). conversation {in-person interviews with G.D., R.C., R.E., and B.K.}. New York, NY.

(6/18/2010) I wasn’t home for the delivery and usually the FedEx guy calls me and we coordinate, or if for some reason he can’t reach me, he leaves it at my door or he knows my downstairs neighbors will take it. Maybe it was a different guy today, but I NEED the package and they say the next delivery date is for Mon, which, besides being too late, will result in going through this all over again since I won’t be home. Sooo, I thought, OK, I’ll go pick it up at the Bronx location. I don’t know my way around the Bronx, but how bad can it be since it’s a FedEx World Service Center? First I tried hopstop to get directions. Their first direction after exiting the subway is to turn right on “unknown street”. Wtf is that?! So I decided to try google. I kept thinking there was a problem with the map loading because there were no streets listed, but obviously it’s not a technical glitch. So after reading all of these horror stories, I do not know what to do! I need my package, but as a petite, innocent-looking female, I don’t want to risk my life going to a sketchy neighborhood in the Bronx! Plus, I get lost really, really easily. I don’t really have a choice but to go, so when (if) I return later tonight, I will write another review and tell you what happened. If I don’t write again, you know I never made it back…. We’ll see…

UPDATE: OK, so I did go and I took photos too so I am going to try and find a way to post them so people can know what to expect. First of all, it wasn’t as difficult to find as I had anticipated, but that is only because I finally got decent directions by combing directions from FedEx and studying the map before I went. Prepare for a strange, long walk though. It IS in the middle of an empty field and it’s definitely in the middle of nowhere. But here are the directions from the subway that worked for me.

Directions:
1. Take the 6 train to BROOK AVENUE (& E 138 St.)
2. When you exit the subway station, walk South on Brook Ave towards E 137 St.
3. Keep walking south several blocks until you get to BRUCKNER BLVD.
4. Make a LEFT onto BRUCKNER Blvd and you will hit ST. ANN’S AVENUE (which runs parallel to Brook Ave.)
5. At St. Ann’s, cross Bruckner Blvd and continue going South until you get to the next block (which I think is E 132 St.)
6. You will see a little red guard booth in front of what looks like the entrance to a parking lot or the back entrance to a building. Walk towards the guard booth.
7. You can ask the guard to point you in the right direction or just walk past him as if you were a car driving into the “lot” and turn LEFT following the road (there is only one way to turn anyway). Just follow the road.
8. When you turn the corner, you will see a bridge, a field, old train tracks and a couple of old train cars and pretty much nothing. Just follow the road to nowhere until you get to the bridge area and by then you’ll see the FedEx building on your RIGHT. Just walk along the edge of the road and it will lead you there. It does feel really strange walking in the middle of nowhere. There aren’t many cars, but a few FedEx trucks passed by.

Like I said, it’s strange, but I felt pretty safe and I’m a young, petite female and I was by myself. I wouldn’t go when it was dark out, but as I was leaving it was starting to get dark and it was fine. Anyway, I hope this helps! Good luck and tell FedEx they are insane for putting this “World Service Center” out in the middle of nowhere!

Road to FedEx

Keep walking...

There it is!