Google in YouTube talks with News Corp Mark SweneyThursday October 12, 2006MediaGuardian.co.uk

Google's top brass are to meet News Corporation executives this week to smooth over any concerns about the YouTube deal and expand the relationship MySpace.com has with the search engine giant.

The Google chief executive, Eric Schmidt, is leading the Google team heading to Los Angeles to meet Rupert Murdoch among other executives.
One possibility that is likely to be discussed is an expansion of the recent $900m advertising deal the two companies struck to include video advertising.

Google's $1.65bn deal with YouTube has significantly boosted Google's presence in the booming video sharing market - its own Google Video service is tiny by comparison. However, MySpace regards YouTube as a direct competitor.
YouTube gets a substantial share of its audience from MySpace users who link to the video site from their profile pages.

YouTube claims that fewer than 20% of video views on its site come from MySpace; however, the News Corp chief operating officer, Peter Chernin, told investors recently that 60-70% of YouTube traffic comes from MySpace.
MySpace has reportedly considered cutting links to YouTube.

While YouTube has been striking a slew of deals with major media partners - to try to stem the possibility of legal action over copyrighted material being used and downloaded illegally - News Corporation's Fox division has not yet signed any deal.
Warner Bros, Universal Music - which was threatening YouTube with legal action - Sony BMG and CBS have all signed agreements recently.

According to internet ratings body HitWise, YouTube has a 47% share of visitors to online video sites, although MySpace Videos, at 22%, is shown to be closing the gap.
However, research firm ComScore, which measured the number of videos streamed, said that, in the US in July, Google served 60m streams - or 1% or all video streams - with YouTube serving 649m and MySpace 1.4bn.

Responding to claims that Google overpaid for a legal copyright timebomb, Suranga Chandratillake, founder of US video search firm Blinkx, said: "Google's getting a bargain - it's almost certainly cheaper to buy YouTube at $1.65bn than it is to watch it get bought by a media company, and then have to do a deal similar to the one they were forced into with News Corp for MySpace.

"It's a great acquisition in terms of traffic, but also because they'll now have the social networking element of YouTube - something that's previously eluded Google.
"The copyright issue has been overblown - these things take a long time to fight and, with the combined traffic and momentum of GooTube, they could build a legitimate business while things were sorted out in the courts.

SUMMARY...
This article is basically talking about Google and how it is thinking of building a parnership with U Tube. With the huge success of U tube, Google is certain that they can create a huge partnership and have make a huge profit. They are in talks and are deciding to change the name to GooTube.

GLOBALISATION
Globalisation is when the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services, free international capital flows, and more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology.

CULTURAL HOMOGENISATION
This is when our cultural perceptions are primarily constructed by the media- so we receive the values and ideologies they establish.

CUTURAL IMPERIALISM
Critics of this dominance refer to it as cultural imperialism. Today's critics argue that the current US media domination amounts to cultural imperialism because it forces US culture on us through our media consumption.
Michael Moore explores this in his films.

"Television has become our eyes, the telephone our mouths and ears; our brains are the interchange for a nervous system that stretches across the whole world"

GLOBAL VILLAGE
This is when the audience are able to view events live as they happen. Critics argue that the media producers construct our views of all these global events and therefore construct our values and ideologies.

We've had fun watching British brats battling with earnest American do-gooders. Now we get to see their parents, too Sam Wollaston Monday 12th March 2006The Guardian

Of all the shows that take stroppy teenagers and try to beat some manners into them, Brat Camp has always been the finest. It consistently found the stroppiest, lippiest little gobshites in Britain (remember Fran? And Rachel? God, I loved Fran and Rachel). Then it tore them away from their cosy little lives of smoking super-strength skunk and hurling abuse (and vodka bottles) at their parents, and sent them to hell in a handcart - almost literally, except that they weren't allowed in the handcart, they had to push it around the empty wilds of hell (Utah) for weeks on end, living like medieval Mennonites.

It was always the interaction, and the total lack of understanding, between these Brit brats and their American hosts - earnest, healthy, abstinent, slightly evangelical do-gooders, with names like Brown Bear and Mountain Lion - that was so special. Never have I felt more fiercely patriotic and proud than during an episode of Brat Camp.

Now it's back for a third series, but with a difference. For a start, we're in the forgotten wastes of Idaho, though it looks just as hellish as Utah. And this time it's Family Brat Camp (Channel 4). So it's not only the kids who are having their attitude ground slowly and painfully out of them - their mums and dads are there, too, being punished for being crap parents.
The cast shows promise. Clare is a moody little cow whose entire body language seems to be shouting: "Wo'effar!". Rebecca has so much THC coursing through her veins and clogging up her head she can hardly speak, let alone shout. Spoilt Amanda has splendid and spectacular shrieking tantrums whenever she doesn't get what she wants, and is almost exactly the same person as Nikki off Big Brother.

Again, it's the girls who stand out - they are capable of so much more evil than boys. Hooded Ben does his best not to let down his sex, smashing a camera lens with a stone, for which he's sent to his own private (bit of) Idaho. But he looks bolshy rather than truly wicked, a pushover compared with the girls.
So far the stand-out parents are the super-rich Kennys, responsible for spoilt Amanda ("She gets everything she wants," says Pa Kenny, mystified that he's spawned a monster). And the Paramors, who shake their liberal heads in despair: you get the impression they've allowed darling Rebecca to do exactly what she wants, but the only thing she's shown any real enthusiasm for is drugs.

These are still early days: it hasn't gone nuclear yet, UK-US relations have only just started to break down, the handcarts haven't even come out yet. But we've reached the gates of hell, and the signs are looking promising for a bumpy ride ahead.

That Nirpal Singh Dhaliwal is a cocky little cock. I like him. He used to be known only for being bonkers Liz Jones's inappropriately young and slobby husband. Then he wrote his own book, with a picture of a nipple on the cover, and now he's rent-a-gob. Here he is in Playing the Race Card (More4).
Oh, I see. Britain is not a racist country like it used to be, even in the countryside. Where once doors would have closed, now they open. Right now, it's brilliant to be black. So guilty do white people feel, so terrified are they of being called racists, they're there for the taking. If you're not white, they'll fall over backwards to throw money at you, jump into bed with you, hand out book deals, and TV shows to present on More4.
I think a lot of what Nirpal says makes sense, though perhaps he's talking more about metropolitan media Britain than the rest of it. It's certainly refreshing to see someone with the cajones to have a pop at diversity training.

As he says, an open door is only a start, and you have to be able to cut it to carry on. Not lacking in confidence himself, he has no doubts that he can cut it - as a writer, a money-maker, a lover and a TV producer. I've never experienced him as a lover, so I don't know about that. His book, I thought, showed promise, but was a long way from being the real deal. He seems to have a good nose for business - he had no trouble igniting interest in his Pop-a-dom condom idea on the programme. And on the telly I think he's brilliant - fresh, bold, honest and funny. Give him a regular gig, quickly. But then ... maybe the only reason I'm being nice about him is that I have no choice - I'm white, and he isn't. That's what he'd probably say - not that he'd mind, though.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/comment/0,,1887977,00.html

SUMMARY....
This article basically talks about the programe that was broadcast on Channel 4 last night. It was about teenagers who were very aggressive towards their parents and were sent to a camp in America, to sort themselves out. It was argued that the programme did not represent everyone equally due to the presentation of their parents. The parents are being blamed for the attitudes of their children as their children are influenced by them. It is also criticised for its racial representation as all the families shown were white. This created a dispute between them as it was stated that it caused a negative representation of them.

MY VIEW...
My view on this would be that the teenagers should not be blamed for their behaviour as their parents are also involved. It is not entirely the childs fault as the child is either influenced or brought up negatively around their environment. I think that there were certain people who were mis represented as the teenagers were looked upon as very aggressive people towards their parents, and very disrespectful. It also gives a bad impression towards white teenage girls and boys.