Hollywood’s elite gathered last night in Los Angeles, California to celebrate the 68th Primetime Emmy Awards, and the stars that hit the stage made it very clear that politics were on their minds.

The ceremony, hosted by Jimmy Kimmel in the Microsoft Theater, celebrated shows such as HBO’s political satire “Veep” and epic fantasy drama “Game of Thrones”–winning two and three awards respectively. Ryan Murphy’s crime anthology “The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story” scored big and won five awards, the most awards of the night.

Kimmel was quick to set the tone of the show during his opening number–a quick-witted video that showcased television’s favorite faces as the late-night host hitchhiked his way to the award ceremony. Kimmel eventually found himself in the presence of “Veep” President Selina Meyer’s motorcade, driven by former GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush.

The comedian stressed the importance of his arrival due to his hosting gig and nomination. Bush displayed excellent comedic timing and quipped, “If you run a positive campaign, the voters ultimately will make the right choice,” before telling a hopeful Kimmel that he was joking. The jab directed at Republican nominee Donald Trump, referenced his hostile tone and critical analysis of Bush’s energy.

Watch Kimmel’s Road to the Emmys below

Kimmel’s opening monologue proved to be successful. He garnered laughs from the crowd with jokes about diversity and the making of Donald Trump.

“If it weren’t for television, would Donald Trump be running for president? No,” Kimmel said. “He would be at home right now quietly rubbing up against his wife, Malaria, while she pretends to be asleep.”

Kimmel proclaimed the person who should be blamed for the Trump phenomenon was sitting in the audience–hidden amongst the sea of nominees.

“That’s right. That guy. Mark Burnett, the man who brought us ‘Celebrity Apprentice’,” Kimmel said. “Thanks to Mark Burnett, we don’t have to watch reality shows anymore, because we’re living in one. Thank you, Mark.”

The nominees who hit the stage only added to the fire.

“Veep” star Julia Louis-Dreyfus joked about life imitating art during her acceptance speech. On the topic of the current election she said:

I’d like to take this opportunity to personally apologize for the current political climate. I think “Veep” has torn down the wall between comedy and politics. Our show started out as political satire, but now feels more like a sobering documentary. So I certainly do promise to rebuild that wall and make Mexico pay for it.

Best comedy series writing winner Aziz Ansari also touched on politics during his acceptance speech, by declaring onstage “after careful consideration, I’m going with Trump!” He then went on to demand that they remove all Muslim and Hispanic nominees from the Emmy ceremony which he said would make things so much easier–“like the Oscars.”

“Transparent” star Jill Soloway took home Best Director of a Comedy Series. Soloway’s speech focused on the importance of LGBTQ+ issues and encouraged the toppling of the patriarchy.

Backstage she made bold statements about the current election cycle and drew upon the connection between Trump and Hitler. “It’s so incredibly timely, the notion of otherizing people to gain political power,” Soloway said. “Jews were otherized in Nazi Germany to gain political power, and right now Donald Trump is doing the same thing.” As an example, she said, “He calls women pigs if they don’t look like beauty-pageant contestants. He blames Muslims and Mexicans for our problems. He makes fun of disabled people. This is otherizing with a capital O. It has been used in our history before to start and win wars. “

Reactions from the public ranged. Users on Twitter were quick to praise the Emmys for celebrating diversity, as well as criticize the award show for the one-sided political storyline.

Last night’s wonderfully inclusive, diverse #Emmys was a rebuke of everything Trump stands for: https://t.co/sA03obd0VC

— Marlow Stern (@MarlowNYC) September 19, 2016

At #Emmys, @jillsoloway called Trump “an inheritor to Hitler.” No comment on HRC calling an aide, “f—g Jew bastard,” calling Jews greedy?

— Larry Elder (@larryelder) September 19, 2016

As we inch closer and closer to the upcoming election, we should expect to see more political rhetoric filtering into our entertainment.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emmy Awards Provide A Platform For Political Agendas appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, 167 million people watched a white Bronco carry his team to victory. Then on Tuesday, a few million people watched a white Bronco carry a fugitive along Interstate 405.

If you had asked me yesterday about O. J. Simpson’s breaking-news car chase in 1994, I could have probably told you that he drove down a Los Angeles highway in a white Ford Bronco, with officers in hot pursuit. I bet if you asked my parents to describe the same event, they’d paint a picture much closer to the events in episode two of “American Crime Story: The People v. O. J. Simpson.”

They’d mention how everyone was glued to their televisions, that the news networks all broke away from their scheduled programming for the live chase. They’d know that the chase was more of a motorcade, as the LAPD kowtowed to the demands of Simpson, who had a gun to his own head in the backseat of the car. They’d add that for six hours, the question of life or death for the actor and athlete was up in the air. Before watching “American Crime Story,” I knew none of these details, as many people my age fall into an O. J. knowledge gap that I mentioned when I covered the first episode of the series.

I was very skeptical when I heard that “American Crime Story” would weave real footage from the news into its dramatization. It could’ve been exploitative, dragging unsuspecting bystanders back into the fray, and might lend undue credibility to the drama’s version of the events. After watching two episodes, I’ll admit I was wrong. The footage is seamlessly integrated with the fiction, and I think it was the only way to give me some understanding of how it must have felt to watch the chase live.

Seeing Tom Brokaw and Bob Costas announcing the chase and read the news as their younger selves was also momentarily off-putting. It’s like seeing a young photo of Maggie Smith or Joe Biden–we understand that all older people were once young, but it’s still bracing to actually see their younger self. Being able to recognize the newscasters makes the viewing experience more immersive.

As for the part where we see the tiny Kardashian kids watching their father read an apparent suicide note on television; to me, the children chanting “Kar-da-shi-an!” breached the limits of the narrative–winking a bit too strongly at the modern audience, who might feel as though the television is constantly chanting “Kardashian” at them today.

Still, the Kardashian connection may become more meaningful if the show bridges their fame with the rise of 24-hour media and the dawn of reality TV. For months, The O. J. arrest, trial, and verdict dominated newspapers, magazines, and especially television. One character in “American Crime Story,” a television producer, said it best when he demanded that ABC’s feed change to the Bronco chase: “O. J. is news, entertainment, and sports.” This perfect storm of America’s obsessions: celebrity, race, crime, and politics set the fuse for the explosion of constantly breaking news and national television moments. Remember, this is well before “American Idol” capitalized on the unifying nature of live television.

And of course, the topic of race is discussed further in this second episode, as we meet Christopher Darden’s family and friends. They’ve got their television out by the pool, and they’re discussing the favorable treatment Simpson receives. “When he got rich, he became white” one character added. “The police are chasing him—he’s Black now!” another retorts. It’s curious to see the intersection of wealth and race in Simpson’s case, especially considering that most of the victims Black Lives Matter focuses on belong to a lower socioeconomic class.

Johnnie Cochran wastes no time in excusing Simpson’s actions by placing them in the context of race relations between the black community and the LAPD. Cochran evokes the story of Leonard Deadwyler, a black man who was shot while speeding his pregnant wife to the hospital. The series walks a fine line, as the defense’s claim of police racism is weakened by the fact that most Americans believe O. J. Simpson committed the 1994 murders. As the show moves into new territory, especially the specifics of the trial, we’ll see whether “American Crime Story” treats the defense’s case as a smokescreen or a real social injustice.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Crime Story” Episode Two: The Bronco Chase appeared first on Law Street.

On October 3, 1995, seven jurors announced to the world that they found Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of two counts of murder. The very next day, as the widely televised news was printed in the daily newspapers, I was born.

Being a newborn infant, I was painfully unaware of the media spectacle, racial tensions, cultural effects, and legal quagmires presented by this all-consuming trial. Even as I grew up, I barely knew that it had happened. Later in my life, I was able to experience my own equivalents of “the trial of the century,” when Michael Jackson went to court for child molestation, and later again when Casey Anthony was acquitted of the first-degree murder of her daughter. The fact remains that when it comes to the O.J. Simpson trial, I knew next to nothing. Up until I watched the first episode of “American Crime Story,” which aired on Tuesday night, I probably would have said that the most influential result of the trial was the rise of the Kardashians. That just might be the case for many people my age.

Creator Ryan Murphy, showing much-welcomed restraint in his handling of the material, knows very well that in addition to a public who was saturated with O.J. melodrama twenty years ago, he is courting a millennial audience. Along with his large production team, Murphy needed to make 1994 feel relatable to a host of young viewers. In a way, seeing the ’90s on screen is like watching another world. It’s almost unrecognizable for me to see a waiter approach Rob Shapiro, played by John Travolta, to let him know someone had called the restaurant to ask for him. I’m reminded of the Seinfeld generation gap, in which cultural touchstones once considered universal are lost on the next generation of consumers.

Still, the odd experience of watching a “period piece” set in the very recent past is offset by the themes inherent to the story–race, privilege, and fame–will never be relegated to a specific generation. The narrative is framed smartly around these issues, chock full of quips about institutional racism in the police department and the preferential treatment of the rich and famous. In the hands of the man behind “Glee,” these lines could have easily felt glib, but in today’s social atmosphere they only seem prescient.

The show opens with real footage of the Rodney King beating, verdict, and ensuing L.A. riots. I recognized the event after piecing together the soundbites playing alongside the footage. During this opening montage, I realized, embarrassed, that I had never seen the video before. I wouldn’t be surprised if that held true for many people my age, even those following the progress of Black Lives Matter and other movements.

I’m led to believe that there’s a gap in your understanding of history during the period right before you’re born. You’re able to take stock of what’s happening in the world around you, feeling the aftershocks of a cultural phenomenon, but everything you’re taught in school is from well before. The phenomenon of textbooks and teachers waiting for the dust to settle before teaching about something that happened only a few years ago leaves many students unaware of the immediate past. Although I never thought I’d say this about yet another true crime drama, it’s refreshing for people my age to take our time understanding this case. In a world as rapidly-paced as ours has become, we rarely take the time to look back on the past, in fear that we might miss something that’s happening now.

So I’ll continue tuning in, assuming the show won’t fall prey to Murphy’s tendency to overblow plot arcs and schmaltz-soak finales (advance reviews seem to paint a positive picture of the direction of the show). I’m interested in watching the modern-day parallels develop, reading about what the dramatization gets wrong, and maybe, finally have a sense of what I missed out on just before I was born.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Crime Story” Teaches Millennials A Much-Needed Lesson appeared first on Law Street.

“Bob’s Burgers” is a show that boasts positive female role models with the “strong, smart, sensual” Tina, driven, witty, entrepreneurial  Louise, and determined, bright Linda. But, despite its feminist females, the show sometimes includes passing jokes alluding to sexual assault. The problem is that jokes like these encourage lax attitudes about sexual assault in a society that already ignores victims too often.

When a popular show goes on its winter hiatus, it’s time to fill the void by binge watching old episodes on Netflix. Revisiting past episodes reveals that the mostly feminist-friendly “Bob’s Burgers” has some sexist hiccups, which are alarming for such a progressive show. Season 2, episode 8 deals with Bob’s new found love for pat-a-cake. He convinces his friend, Teddy, to “cake,” and almost immediately Teddy begins to protest. He shouts that the hand game hurts him and he doesn’t want to do it anymore. But Bob continues slapping Teddy’s hands and yelling at him to keep his hands up.

The scene’s humor makes Teddy, a large, grizzly man, play the vulnerable role. The joke is that the dialogue (which would normally be spoken by a man and the woman he is sexually assaulting) comes from two men, who are friends, in a non-sexual situation.

Teddy’s line, “I don’t like it! I don’t like it! Stop!” and Bob’s aggressive behavior are meant to spoof an abusive relationship. But, what’s so funny about sexual assault?

The scene is fundamentally not politically correct, a concern that gained strength during last year’s discourse on trigger warnings. The New York Times and The Atlantic weighed in on collegiate trigger warnings this past fall to examine whether they encourage “coddling” or respect–and that debate will probably be continued in 2016.

But, trigger warnings and PC standards leave comics with a dilemma because jokes are designed to not be safe or appropriate. Should there be a line comedy can’t cross or does that ruin the art form? Jokes will push that PC line as far as an audience will allow. For example, comedy has evolved from eventual audience rejection of offensive practices like black face. In this case, the show has plenty of funny material so why can’t it evolve away from jokes like this one? For a show like “Bob’s Burgers” that is often heralded for its feminism, it may be time to consider that evolution.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Political Correctness and Comedy in “Bob’s Burgers”: Where’s the Line? appeared first on Law Street.

Season four of “The Mindy Project” featured Mindy Lahiri battling her traditional fiancé (Danny Castellano) to continue working as an OBGYN rather than becoming a stay at home mother. In the United States, stay at home mothers are still far more common than stay at home fathers–so the couples’ fight, although fictional, reflected our national gender expectations.

In the second-to-last episode Mindy finally says the things to Danny that had probably come to the wealthy, New York doctor’s mind the minute she had first heard of his desire for her to give up her career and her new fertility clinic.

Here is an excerpt from the climactic argument:

Danny: Oh, yeah, right, right, your career.  You’re too busy getting half of Manhattan knocked up, and Leo, he’s just out there by himself alone, playing pat-a-cake against a wall while his Mom’s working?…
Mindy: Every time that you disagree with something that I do, it’s a referendum on my character. If I want to go to work, it means I’m a bad mother. If I want to have a second glass of wine, it means I’m out of control.…In your eyes every single thing I do is more evidence that I’m a bad person.
Danny: You’re not a bad person. You want me to help you make good decisions, don’t you?
Mindy: Yeah, I thought I made good decisions, and now you’re just making all the decisions for me.
Danny: So what, if it’s the right decision?…You are an amazing mom…Why not do it again?
Mindy: I’m also a good doctor. I don’t want to have to give up any more to have more kids.
Danny: That’s selfish.

And don’t worry, the fight does not end there. Mindy makes clear, in no uncertain terms, that her desire to keep her career, which she has invested at least 11 years of her life just to be trained in, does not make her selfish. At last she stands up for herself. After Danny’s season-long agonizingly belittling utterances, to the mother of his child, Mindy’s rational, valid points are more than welcome. She even throws in some impressive diction (i.e. “referendum”). But the one thing Mindy doesn’t say to her partner is: Why don’t you be the stay at home parent?

The season finale takes viewers back to Mindy and Danny’s introduction. Mindy is able to perform a difficult delivery that Danny had scheduled as a C-section. The plot suggests Mindy is the better doctor because she performed a difficult maneuver so the patient could have her preferred natural birth plan, instead of Danny’s preferred C-section plan. So, from a logistical stand point, why should the better doctor stop working just because she is a mother?

Working moms are nothing new to American television or American reality. In 2012, 29 percent of mothers, with underage children, stayed at home and did not work. Meaning that, in the United States, working mothers are the norm. But despite the power of those numbers, 51 percent of participants in a 2013 Pew Research Center survey said children were better off if they had mothers who stayed at home rather than worked, while only 8 percent said the same about fathers.

So, in 2015, is it too radical to suggest, on television or in reality, that the man occupy the domestic sphere? Too radical for even Mindy to utter? Apparently so.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What’s Wrong With a Mr. Mom? “The Mindy Project” Explores the Working Mom’s Conundrum appeared first on Law Street.

About a year ago, MTV started “Look Different,” an online and on-air campaign with the goal of erasing the hidden racial, gender, and anti-LGBT bias that remains in our society. A new ad that is a part of Look Different was just launched this week and has left many people feeling uncomfortable. The campaign posted a faux advertisement called “White Squad” Wednesday evening on YouTube where it has well over 100,000 views so far. The ad aims to lessen racial prejudices but may be creating more controversy than conversation.

The commercial acknowledges the fact that white privilege exists and tries to make it comical by encouraging minorities to call the “White Squad” to help them in situations where they are often treated unfairly–like to win court cases, buy better homes, and receive scholarships. The ad says White Squad will “give the full benefits of being white in the legal system.” Although this was a satirical ad, most first time viewers had no clue it was fake and couldn’t believe what they were seeing. The campaign even went so far as to make a fake website for White Squad which links to the Look Different online site.

As expected, Twitter has had a field day with the commercial. There was a pretty broad range of reactions:

I’d literally forgotten ALL about MTV til #WhiteSquad. Of ALL the desperate promo attempts I’ve seen, when ALL else fails, use Black People.

— Black Reign (@KockTailz) July 16, 2015

Bruh I’d call White Squad YESTERDAY.

— Jer’Maine Montiel (@JerMaineMontiel) July 16, 2015

White Squad…. How yall feel about this? I think it’s great because you see what people of color go through on a daily basis.

— Fonzio (@alphcee) July 16, 2015

You don’t CHALLENGE #WhitePrivilege by making a joke of it. Nothing is funny about being discriminated against. #EpicFail#WhiteSquad

— Black Reign (@KockTailz) July 16, 2015

Yes, the ad does shine a light on issues that people of color have to face. But, people are offended and uncomfortable because they feel that the commercial is making fun of real life struggles minorities deal with every day–struggles that can’t just easily be fixed by calling someone who is white to come out and help. For decades people have known that racial privileges exists, but simply showing a commercial will not make it go away. MTV acknowledging that white privilege exists was a very small step toward working to solve this huge problem.

This isn’t the only example of MTV addressing racial issues head on in a controversial manner. MTV is planning to air a documentary called “White People” which shows how it feels “to be young and white.” Network executives say the show’s aim is to “challenge ‘whiteness’ and help ‘address racial bias through honest, judgment-free dialogue.'”

This documentary promises to elicit some interesting reactions as well–I for one am looking forward to hearing everyone’s opinions on the topic. With MTV’s decrease in ratings over the past few years, people are questioning if it has started talking about racial discrimination to draw attention back to the network. While that may or may not be the case, MTV’s attempts to spark social conversations promises to be an interesting (and controversial) move to watch.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post MTV’s “White Squad”: Funny or Offensive? appeared first on Law Street.

I am wearing all black as I write this because it might as well be a funeral.

Sadly, Aereo is dead. The startup–which I had once believed to be a potential comeback kid has reached the end of its long and arduous battle; however, in a desperate attempt to retain hope, I am consoled by the revolutionary impact the small company seems to have made on the television industry. Aereo, a service provider that utilized small antennas to transmit broadcast signals to individual subscribers, filed for bankruptcy protection last week. Founder and CEO Chet Kanojia wrote in a letter to consumers:

We have traveled a long and challenging road. We stayed true to our mission and we believe that we have played a significant part in pushing the conversation forward, helping force positive change in the industry for consumers.

Despite valiant efforts, Aereo just could not overcome the legal and regulatory opposition that came after the Supreme Court decided Aereo’s business model was illegally violating copyright.

Shortly after the decision was released, Aereofiled for a cable license necessary for continued operation; however, the “Plan B” approach did not prove to be lucrative as the recent bankruptcy decision is Aereo’s best hope for maximizing its remaining value. With the filing for Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings, Aereo can put its legal woes behind it and sell any remaining assets that exist in the company. Lawton Bloom of Argus was appointed to serve as Chief Restructuring Officer.

William Baldiga, Aereo’s lawyer, announced that an auction of assets should occur on February 17, 2015, pending an approval hearing. “The company is now highly focused on devoting all its energy and limited resources to a transaction that will produce the highest and best return for our creditors and shareholders.”

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane granted various requests submitted by Aereo to allow what is left of the company to remain active during the liquidation period. Aereo has fired 75 of its 88 employees and greatly decreased remaining employee pay. Kanojia’s salary was cut in half.

While Aereo barely gained footing before its huge legal battle, the service forced major broadcasters to play offense instead of defense, recognizing a definitive hole in the cable market. Cord-cutters need programming too and Aereo may be the catalyst for a new business trend. Current broadcsting companies have already begun recognizing the internet television demand. CBS recently announced CBS All Access, a streaming service available by subscription for a $5.99 monthly fee. HBO also recently announced a streaming service independent of a cable subscription.

Although only existing content companies are dominating internet television by way of new services, it’s only a matter of time before new startups, supported by cloud technology, appear. The FCC is bracing itself for such an occurance. Last month, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler proposed a new rule that would allow internet television providers to license programming in an identical way to current cable and satellite companies. In an official FCC Blog post, Wheeler wrote:

Aereo recently visited the Commission to make exactly this point – that updating the definition of an MVPD [multichannel video programming distributor] will provide consumers with new choices. And perhaps consumers will not be forced to pay for channels they never watch.

So, although we are in a state of bereavement, heartbroken to see Aereo go, it will forever be the internet TV martyr that paved the way for the future of subscription streaming services.

Thank you, Aereo, for such innovation. You will be missed.

The post Aereo: The Martyr Files for Bankruptcy appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: October 25, 2014

Well, that was quick. As of today TLC has pulled the plug on its uber successful reality show “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.” The announcement comes after weeks of speculation and reports asserting that Mama June, Honey Boo Boo’s mother, has been dating a convicted sex offender since splitting with her long-time partner Sugar Bear.

Here is the family’s response to the news, posted to their Facebook fan page earlier today:

According to Mama June in the video, she is not dating Mike McDaniel, who was convicted of aggravated child molestation in 2004.

“The statement of me dating a sex offender is totally untrue. Pumpkin (June’s daughter) has openly said that I’m not dating him … I would never, ever, ever, ever put my kids in danger.”

TLC, unsurprisingly, has been cautious when addressing this situation. “TLC has cancelled the series ‘Here Comes Honey Boo Boo’ and ended all activities around the series, effective immediately. Supporting the health and welfare of these remarkable children is our only priority. TLC is faithfully committed to the children’s ongoing comfort and well-being.”

No word yet from Sugar Bear on this controversy. It remains to be seen if the Shannon-Thompson family’s fans are as loyal as those of another major cable network’s reality family: the Robertsons of “Duck Dynasty” on A&E. A&E briefly barred the Robertson family patriarch from filming when he likened homosexuality to bestiality in a GQ interview. The whole family threatened to walk and many viewers revolted against the network, which later walked back the suspension.

Read our prior coverage on Mama June and Sugar Bear’s split, which kicked off speculation over the show’s future, here.

UPDATE October 25, 2014: Anna Shannon Cardwell, the oldest daughter of Mama June Shannon, reportedly was the eight-year-old child who McDaniel molested between 2002 – 2003. Cardwell defended her mother against reports that she was dating the man who spent ten years in jail for her molestation, until yesterday when she received more information about her mother’s relationship. Cardwell reportedly came forward with this information about her experience because of the nature of what she sees as her mother’s betrayal.

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Horatio Agostini via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post TLC Cancels Honey Boo Boo, Possible Sex Offender Connection appeared first on Law Street.

A close friend of mine passed away last weekend. My dear friend, Saturday Morning Cartoons, whom I will never forget, was murdered by a group of assassins headed up by cable and streaming video. Perhaps I should have seen it coming. The final life support system of Saturday Morning Cartoons, the CW television station, was finally terminated. The CW decided to invest elsewhere, replacing Saturday Morning Cartoons with a program called “One Magnificent Morning.” Not such a magnificent morning, I think.

So good job, television, you have officially killed childhood. Yes, I concede that kids still have options to get their fix. With Hulu, Netflix, and other methods of streaming shows, it could be argued that they have even MORE options. Some might say that cartoon viewing is only ENHANCED by the ability of children to choose what they want to watch on Sunday morning. I still feel strongly, however, that ending the block of programming we knew and loved known as “Saturday Morning Cartoons” signifies the end of an era.

Before being able to watch whatever we want whenever we want to, there was a little bit more patience and excitement involved. Perhaps this is a stretch, but Saturday Morning Cartoons taught some pertinent life lessons. Because they can decide not just which show they want to watch but which specific episode of that show, kids will no longer learn to expect the unexpected. Life is not always under our control. We cannot determine our lives with the touch of a button on a remote. Saturday morning cartoons kept alive the beautiful air of mystery that is present in real life. What shenanigans are Scooby and the gang going to get into this Saturday? I don’t know. Let’s grab a bowl of Reese’s Puffs and park it in front of the TV to find out. What adventures are Patrick and Spongebob going to have tomorrow morning? Who knows! Let’s enjoy the first part of our weekend by finding out.

No, now things will be quite a bit different. What do we want Tom and Jerry to fight about tomorrow? Let’s browse through the collection of episodes on the Internet and decide. Let’s watch the same episode of Dexter’s Laboratory that we watch EVERY TIME instead of venturing outside of our comfort zones to try something new.

Honestly, kids these days don’t have to learn to deal with anything. As annoying as they were, commercials were a given part of the Saturday morning cartoon-watching ritual. Now, that ritual is a dead and beaten horse. Saturday morning cartoons were not just for the children but for their parents as well. That block of programming specifically set aside for cartoons allowed the perfect time for families to bond. Commercials simply provided a little break for kids and their parents to reflect on the crazy capers that their favorite cartoon characters have gotten into. Now, they can just fast forward and sit in silence the entire episode. How depressing.

So, Saturday Morning Cartoons, you will be gravely missed by me, by children everywhere, by their nostalgic parents, and many others. I am sure I am not alone in saying that I hope you rest in peace. May Scooby, Sonic, Garfield, all the Looney Tunes, and any other cartoon I have failed to mention forever remain in our hearts. Now, please join me in the reception hall for a photo montage of Saturday Morning Cartoon’s long and beautiful life. Refreshments will be served. Thank you.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RIP Saturday Morning Cartoons and Your Childhood appeared first on Law Street.

Introducing first, in one corner, weighing the equivalent of nine justices, hailing from Washington D.C., backed by broadcasters, the well educated, ever respected SUPREEEEME COURT!

In the other corner, less than one pound and the size of a dime, young and feisty, hailing from New York, the crowd favorite, the underdog, the AEREO ANTENNAAAA!

Well, folks… we all know how this fight ended. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, beat Aereo’s butt on the grounds of copyright infringement.

Nobody thought that Aereo, bruised and beaten from being on the ropes, would ever return to the ring. But have we found our comeback kid? It seems Aereo wants to brawl after broadcasters requested that a New York court order Aereo to cease business across the country. In new court papers, Aereo demands another chance. The Internet television provider insists it be given the necessary cable license for operation, legally allowing it to transmit broadcast TV shows.

“It would be illogical and fundamentally unfair to find that Aereo’s ‘Watch Now’ functionality is a ‘cable system’ …for the public performance analysis, but is not entitled to a compulsory license under the same,” Aereo asserts.

Odds are up in the air for this aggressive little company. A competitor of similar build, ivi TV was recently shot down after also requesting the same compulsory license in New York. So, why is the crowd still cheering for Aereo? Its individual attention to its fans! ivi TV’s transmissions were nationwide while Aereo only offered shows to those who subscribed to its service. This slight difference in technique can be just enough to bring victory to Aereo in this rematch with the judicial system.

Aereo enters this match insisting it’s a clean fighter, reminding the courts that it has “failed to show any imminent irreparable harm.” The company asks, “What better proof could there be that claimed harms are not imminent…than what actually happened when the complained-of actions went on for years?” Hope for this underdog comes from statements like that of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer who has said that there are no “behind the scenes technological differences” that discern Aereo from actual cable companies.

Meanwhile, more fighters are gearing up to enter the competition. In an attempt to fill the Aereo void, TiVo has come forward with its new ‘OTA’ device, and Roku has plans for smart televisions with Aereo-like technology already integrated into the devices.

Let’s not forget about the common theme in all of this, however: that damn cloud. Problems surrounding Cloud service have not specifically been addressed, even in the Supreme Court opinion of Aereo’s ruling. Not wanting to overreach, the Justices cited that they could not “answer more precisely how the Transmit Clause or other provisions of the Copyright Act will apply to technologies not before us… Questions involving cloud computing (remote storage) DVRs and other novel issues not before the Court… should await a case in which they are squarely presented.”

So, much like a cloud, the fate of this new technology is still up in the air. For now, all we can do is follow the IP scuffles that occur on the ground and in the courtroom.

—

Alexandra Badalamenti (@AlexBadalamenti) is a Jersey girl and soon-to-be graduate of Fordham University in Lincoln Center. She plans to enroll in law school next year to study Entertainment Law. On any given day, you’ll find her with big blonde hair, high heels, tall Nashville dreams, and holding a newspaper or venti latte.

Featured image courtesy of [Kristin Wall via Flickr]

The post Aereo: The Comeback Kid? appeared first on Law Street.

It was the event that no one could stop talking about between 1994 and 1995. Everyone around the country was glued to the television to see what would happen to O.J. Simpson, once-beloved celebrity and accused murderer. Before O.J., there were televised trials of Ted Bundy, the Menendez Brothers, and Jeffrey Dahmer, among others. And since O.J., we’ve televised quite a few high profile trials. For celebrity buffs, Lindsey Lohan’s streamed on TMZ. There was, of course, the horrifying Casey Anthony case that captured national attention during the summer of 2011. Most recently, spectators were able to watch the Jodi Arias and George Zimmerman proceedings from their homes.

In fact, media streams of famous court cases have become rather ubiquitous in American culture. But should they be? We’ve turned everything from Congressional debate to young children in beauty pageants into must-see TV. Should trials be the same way? Read on to learn about the debate over televising trials, and the arguments for and against allowing cameras into courtrooms.

 What are the rules about filming trials?

In the United States, the general rule is that photography and broadcasting of criminal trials in federal courts is banned but can be overridden by a law or another court rule. Many judges decided to ban broadcasting and photography from courtrooms after the O.J. Simpson trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that televising trials is not a violation of constitutional due process.  In certain cases, jury deliberations are publicly broadcasted. The broadcasting of criminal trials is very controversial and even the Senate Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Supreme Court have differing views about its propriety.

 What’s the argument for putting criminal trials on TV?

Proponents of televising criminal trials assert various arguments, including that since many Americans have no personal experience with the criminal justice system and many learn about current events entirely from television, televising criminal trials is vital to individuals’ understanding of the legal system.  U.S. Senator Charles Schumer stated that:

Courts are an important part of our government, and the more our government institutions are shown to the public, the more dignified they become, and the more the public comes to understand them. Allowing cameras into our courtrooms will help demystify them and let the public evaluate how well the system works.

Furthermore, a Colorado Supreme Court Justice argued that religious worship and ceremonies are televised and there is no public consensus that religious practices are denigrated when broadcast so there is no reason to assume that the legal process will be.

Even if being televised can make witnesses nervous, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Nervousness makes potential discrepancies and inaccuracies easier to notice and reluctant witnesses can be persuaded by the legal action that brings them to court e.g. police escort and subpoenas. Finally, though there is an ongoing study, there is no evidence that televising criminal cases has more impact on a criminal trial than the presence of an audience, which is generally permitted.

What’s the argument against televising trials?

Opponents of televising criminal trials argue that it creates numerous procedural difficulties that waste the court’s time and may prejudice the defendant. These include the necessity of judges monitoring the manner of the broadcasting. It is also difficult to sequester juries to prevent them from watching the trial on TV. Broadcasting trials makes it more difficult to impanel an impartial jury if a second trial is necessary. There is an increased need for marshals and being broadcast has a significant mental effect on witnesses, jurors, and court officers.

If criminal trials are televised then they become spectacles for the public and the solemnity and dignity of the judiciary will be compromised for the sake of entertainment. For example, after an expert witness testified in Jodi Arias’ case, she was attacked online and the media coverage could have possibly swayed what weight was given to her testimony.

Televising the conduct of judges and lawyers creates a virtually universal conflict of interest within the court system. The Court’s officers will be tempted to consider their television appearance in addition to the needs of their client. It is even possible that a lawyer could weigh his interest in having an attractive TV appearance higher than his duty to his client. Lawyers may try risky strategies in order to impress a potential television market, and judges may behave in ways that are most conducive to their political aspirations even if they are not warranted by the law. If a highly controversial criminal trial (e.g. the George Zimmerman trial) is televised and the verdict is not popular with a significant portion of the public, then an officer of the court or juror could be a target of disgruntled viewers.

Conclusion

We now have the ability to broadcast basically whatever we want. Trials are public for the most part–family, friends, and others who know or do not know the parties are often able to go and observe the proceedings. Televising trials allows everyone to have that access to the justice system, and promotes transparency and understanding. That being said, broadcasting trials and the resulting media coverage and analysis could have potential to affect the trial itself. While justice may very well be blind–should our knowledge of court cases be? It’s not an easy question or an easy answer, but one that will have to be answered very soon.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Constitution: Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

Second Circuit Court of Appeals: Westmoreland v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

United States Courts: Cameras in Courts

Maryland Courts: Report of the Committee to Study Extended Media Coverage of Criminal Trial Proceedings in Maryland

Supreme Court: Chandler v. Florida

Additional

RTDNA: Cameras in the Court: A State-by-State Guide

WJBO: Televise Criminal Trials? Of Course?

Guardian: Televising the Courts: the Time Has Come

Voice of America: Chinese Courts Put More Criminal Trials Online

Townhall: Say No to Televised Trial

CJ Online: Time to Tune Out Televised Trials

Debate: Should Criminal Trials be Televised?

DebateWise: Cameras in Courtrooms

Examiner: Zimmerman Case Coverage Highlights Flaws in Media

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Criminal Trials on TV: What’s the Verdict? appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday, Aereo requested that a federal court in Manhattan rule that its business offers legal services. The gist of Aereo, founded in New York, is to transmit local TV broadcasting to pai subscribers of the service over the internet. As a Comcast customer who’s consistently unsatisfied with my service features to monthly payment ratio, I can envision the untapped market that Aereo is attempting to reach. Consumers still want their daily intake of local news, and occasionally some Grey’s Anatomy and Scandal, but don’t want to be obligated to pay $80 a month for additional channels that their schedule doesn’t permit them to enjoy.

The service is $8 per month and enables customers who don’t want to pay ridiculous amounts for cable television to access local broadcasting.  Broadcasters have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to chime in and voice their perspective on Aereo’s services. This is long overdue as Aereo has already been subjected to suits in New York, Boston, and now Utah by major broadcasters such as ABC, NBC, and CBS. Broadcasters argue that their copyrights are being violated because Aereo is taking their signals without their permission and showcasing them to online viewers. Conversely, Aereo points out that it is already legal for viewers to use their own antennas and pick up local tv broadcasts. Additionally, viewers can legally record these broadcasts and replay them at a later time. The Aereo method is to rent out tiny antennas, capture free content in the public airwaves, and stream the content to your internet-enabled devices. So essentially, Aereo only utilizes tools that are legal, making broadcasters throughout the nation cause an uproar in our judicial system because the service has found a way to circumvent their licensing fees.

Federal courts in New York and Boston have allowed Aereo to continue to operate throughout the pending lawsuits, noting that broadcasters have not shown a high probability of winning their cases to warrant an injunction. The service launched a year ago, and there are already (approximately) 90,000-135,000 subscribers of the Aereo service in New York alone.

There is no copyright infringement here, ABC. That’s why injunctions have been denied, and the service has been upheld in different locales for over a year now. The real reason that the broadcasters are experiencing mood-changing-panty-bunching is because Aereo is threatening to interrupt the television system that brings them billions of dollars each year. Cable companies, such as Comcast  (I HATE YOU, COMCAST!), charge us a shit-ton to view local broadcasting, such as NBC and ABC, because they pay these broadcasters billions in retransmission fees to include their shows in subscriptions. And what does Aereo pay? Nothing.

Perhaps this is why Comcast was so eager to haggle with me when I threatened to cancel my service a few weeks ago. Makes sense.  If cable companies don’t begin offering better prices, sooner rather than later Netflix, Apple TV, and now Aereo will replace them faster than DVD players won over VCR owners. And I’ll be the first to go.

I either need to cancel my service, get a hanger and try to reel in some news stations for myself or practice what I preach and join Aereo when it arrives in D.C.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Pablo Menezo via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kicking Broadcast and Taking Names: The Aereo Method appeared first on Law Street.

Mayor Bloomberg has caught a lot of heat in the past few months with his efforts regarding the large soda ban, which ultimately failed. However, he has risen from the ashes as techie superhero.

In addition to introducing free Wi-Fi hotspots around New York City, the mayor of this great city announced his plan to keep the Big Apple ahead of the curve and establish its supremacy as an innovative tech hub.

With the infamous drummer of the roots, Questlove, by his side, Mayor Bloomberg announced his plans for the Made in NY Media Center, a space where “storytellers, creative professionals and entrepreneurs across multiple disciplines…can gather and create,” pretty much whatever they want as long as it bolsters NY’s image as an innovative techie paradise.

New York has been called the “business capital of the world“, the “fashion capital of the world“, and now Mayor Bloomberg hopes it will become the “global media capital of the digital age.” Made in NY will be creating over 3,000 jobs and will be an innovative hub where ideas come to life. See for yourself.

With Questlove as Made in NY’s first “Artist in Residence”, Made in NY looks like it will begin to thrive down on 30 John Street in DUMBO. NYC is currently the second-most funded tech hub next to Silicon Valley, however NYC is a place where the possibilities are endless. With techie start-ups for new media, mobile gaming and other forward-thinking companies popping up out of the woodworks to make a name for themselves in NY, this city is becoming the place to go to turn an idea into a reality.

Made in NY promotes the film and television industries that provided much needed revenue to New York City for years, bringing in over $400 million in tax revenue. It is definitely an exciting time to be in NYC and it should be interesting to watch as the Made in NY Media Center grows and evolves.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Scott Beale via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Made In NY” – A Techie’s Paradise appeared first on Law Street.