HNTP (How Not to Photoshop)

Major kerfuffle lit up the blogosphere this week when a horrifically altered image of a model appeared in a Ralph Lauren ad. It gave rise to two key questions:
1. Had RL done the Photoshopping to make this woman look circus-freak thin or was it the work of a prankster? (RL ended the intrigue and offered a mea culpa today.)
2. Could RL, as copyright owner, demand that ISPs take down blog posts critical of the image under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A few blinked but others didn't.
Let's tackle both in discussion.
What are the social implications of digitally altering subjects' appearances? How much is too much? What factors prompt these kinds of manipulations? What are the ethical lines?
Do you infringe another person's copyright when you post an image for purposes of criticizing it? Should Blogger have taken down the image? Should Boing Boing's ISP have done the same?
What, if any, are the lasting implications for the RL brand?

Ethics crashes

This author thoughtfully details what he describes as "Ethics Crashes on the Digital Media Highway."
What forces does he cite as problems that can lead to weak ethical practice? Do you agree? What examples can you think of to illustrate any of his points? Contradict any of those points?

College media innovation

TA Melissa Tully adds this to our conversation. What is the future of student journalism? Are you working for the Herald or Cardinal? How do you get over the hurdles?

White House Site

With the transition of power in Washington came a digital transition, as well. Check out one evaluation of the new Obama Administration White House Web site.
Have you been to it? What do you think? Will you go back?

Keeping track of consumers online

Look at this story on how online behavior is monitored.
_______
A new analysis of online consumer data shows that large Web companies are learning more about people than ever from what they search for and do on the Internet, gathering clues about the tastes and preferences of a typical user several hundred times a month.

These companies use that information to predict what content and advertisements people most likely want to see. They can charge steep prices for carefully tailored ads because of their high response rates.

The analysis, conducted for The New York Times by the research firm comScore, provides what advertising executives say is the first broad estimate of the amount of consumer data that is transmitted to Internet companies.
_______
What are the ethics of this kind of monitoring? Government needs special clearance to peep on citizens (though this is far more arguable after the Patriot Act). Does it matter that it's industry watching your activities, not government? And if so, how? Does it matter that you leave a trail when you use, say, gmail?

Photo manipulation

Here's a terrific resource to expand on yesterday's lecture discussion of manipulation of images. Check it out.
But a student raised a great discussion topic via IM. Manipulation is supposedly verboten in news. What about strat comm? Swimsuit models don't really look like they appear to in ads. They've been retouched to look better. Is this OK? Do you think the average consumer understands this? Should that matter? What are the social implications of making people look better than they actually do? What are the gender implications.

Interactive and Advertising

OK, I'm putting this post up at my own risk, knowing that by the time you follow the link, the digital ad will likely have changed ... but here it goes.
Apple did a digital media buy on the front page of the NYT online today. It features a sidebar ad that interacts with a banner across the top below the masthead.
We all know I'm a cardinal among the Mac faithful, but I'd like to know what you think of this ad creatively and strategically. Does it make sense visually? Would you ever play it to get the interaction to work? Does it motivate you to buy? Do you think you're part of their target? Does digital make sense here? Does a buy with the Times make sense?
And I'll pull my soapbox out one final time this semester. If you're in strat comm and not thinking about digital, you are missing the biggest boat in the ocean right now.

Recording Industry Hits the Jackpot

Music file sharing took a massive hit yesterday when a federal jury awarded $222,000 to six record companies that sued a Minnesota woman for illegally sharing 24 songs. Yep, that's right ... 24 songs.
What's your reaction to this decision? Does peer-to-peer sharing violate copyright any more than burning a mix CD for your roommate? If you shared music in the past, do you worry that you'll be sued? Would you fight it or take the settlement? Do consumers have any recourse when the six biggest labels join forces to sue?