Good morning everyone and welcome. This is Melissa Armell with the stock swush in here today to review the play of the day Which was JPM. It was a bullish golden gap Every once in a blue moon. I will do one of these it is comal kind of almost like the twilight zone It's interesting because we just this morning. It's Friday the 13th and I went long But you got to do the best gap when you see it you gotta do it Anyways, so I went long the stock it closed the night before in here 86-24 open 87 11. This is JPM had earnings gapped up boom fell went long rally Took a ticket ticket got out here had one more push After I got out I was already out here, but I thought that was the right thing to do target was 88 When it made one more move up 88 17 dropped fell and here now It's kind of sidelining kind of sidelining and waiting and waiting and waiting and I'm out I like to trade in the morning on a Friday. I think that's the best thing to do Could this go higher today? Yes, but the longer it takes to get going here at 10 47 You know the less chance it is to get going for a secondary move to to make it over the high But this still is looks great. So there were a lot of banks reporting today And this was the one that I decided to do nice move again I try to get 50 cents a dollar as much as I can get the push get the first quick move right into the open But you got to know what stock to watch and every time I do a pick It's based on what it's based on the stock gapping it's based on the Golden Gap rating and This was a good one if you'd like to learn my system you can email me at Melissa at the stocks wish.com I'm doing a twilight zone special the New Year's Eve special I decided to extend for today at the very last minute to help people to get in the room and do the options And make money with me this year today is a deadline though for this no more extensions You got a sign up by today Expires at midnight you get the trading room free for the year the options that are free for the year And you pay for the class this weekend and you learn Saturday and Sunday and then Tuesday Next week after the Martin Luther King holiday, we're gonna do live gap ratings and live training have a great great day Everyone email me at Melissa at the stocks wish.com earning season has begun and I'm very excited to make money with you Thanks everyone. Have a great day


From the SiliconANGLE Media Office in Boston, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE. Now, here's your host, Dave Vellante. Hello, everybody, and welcome to this week's episode of theCUBE Insights, powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis, we're going to go deep into AWS. In a couple of weeks, theCUBE is going to be at the eighth AWS re-invent, which will be our seventh year of having theCUBE at that show. You know, re-invent has really become the Super Bowl for enterprise tech innovation. And ahead of the event, what I want to do is talk about the revolution of cloud and the impact that it's having on the industry. And of course, I want to dig into some of the data using the ETR dataset. Before I do that, let me first say that cloud 2.0, which is a term that we've been using, is it's becoming a reality. This is something that John Furrier and I talk about a lot here at theCUBE and at Silicon Angle. The cloud is not about an incremental transition. It's really about transformation. We're talking here about the end-to-end modernization of the enterprise. The game is changing and the engine of innovation is really being driven by new architectures. And these architectures are built around a few items, data, machine intelligence, and of course, cloud for scale. We feel like what we're witnessing is the build-out of this massively scalable distributed system. And this system is transforming businesses and really enabling entire new companies and business models to emerge. The cloud is the underpinning of this digital revolution and virtually every industry is going to be disrupted. No industry is safe. All right, let's get right to it. So the key questions that I want to explore in this session, let's start with the spending patterns. We're going to look at the ETR survey data and what services are attracting the most action inside cloud and which vendors are winning. I then want to look at the market share data from a couple of angles. I'll look at ETR data and I'll talk about some other market data. Then we're going to drill into some of the services that are critical to innovation. I specifically want to look at databases, databases in a particular analytic data stores. And then I want to look at big data and analytic services, AI, machine intelligence. And then I want to look at the data around containers and functions like Lambda, which are very hot right now. Then we're going to share some data on how the cloud is impacting the so-called old guard. This is a pejorative term that Andy Jassy coined to refer to the legacy enterprise tech providers. Then I want to make some comments about the AWS ecosystem. It's getting a lot of chatter lately. And then I want to share some thoughts on what you can expect this year and reinvent and then I'll wrap. So the first data point that I want to show you here really draws on ETR's latest survey of 1,336 respondents. So what this chart does is it cuts the data and it's showing just the cloud sector ranked by net score. Now remember, net score is a measure of spending momentum. So you can see where the action is. So at the top, you see Azure functions and AWS Lambda popping right up. Look at their net scores. They got a net score of 74% and 71% respectively. You can see Azure overall. This is the overall Azure business that's right up there as well. And of course, AWS overall. So people who responded AWS is right there. Very, very high, but it's dropped a little bit below Azure. And we'll talk about that more in a moment. Then you can see VMware cloud on AWS. It's got strong momentum, which are real positive. You got Google Cloud functions. Again, functions very hot right now. OpenShift from Red Hat. GCP is up there. VMware cloud. And then you got Alibaba. Alibaba has only got 18 mentions, whereas the others have much higher shared ends. So I'm not going to really put too much weight on that. And you can see the other folks as well on that chart. But also you can point out the functions and Azure functions and services like Lambda Lambda are gaining really a lot of momentum in the marketplace. I think point to a new mode of compute. What I want to do now is I want to isolate in this chart the big three in cloud and put them into context with a legacy player, namely IBM. I'm not trying to pick on the legacy guys, but I think it's good for context. So as you can see here, Azure and AWS, they've been like neck and neck battling it out in the last 10 surveys or so. And you can see even Google, somewhat behind, but it's still got pretty strong spending momentum. Now, these figures overall are trending down relative to the expectations early in the year. This is something that we've talked about that spending is reverting back to pre-18 levels, not falling off the cliff. It's still solid in the grand scheme of things. So you can see, you know, net scores here are well above 50% for AWS and Azure. Now take a look at IBM. The ETR data shows them in the red zone where the net score is 16%. This is not a surprise that they're behind the big three. And I, but I've said many, many times, here's the thing. IBM and Oracle, I'm not showing Oracle here, they're at least in the cloud game. Think about it. HP had the public cloud, they had to tap out. Cisco, they don't have a public cloud. Dell EMC, even VMware, they don't have a public cloud. So at least IBM and Oracle have a cloud play where they can take their SaaS business and run it and get some vertically integrated and some operating leverage. Okay. I'm going to switch now gears a little bit and talk about market share. And we want to focus here in the battle between Azure and AWS. We all know Microsoft is growing faster, but AWS is much larger. And this is something that AWS's CEO, Andy Jassy, he takes a lot of time to explain to the analysts and to the crowd at re-invent. Let's take a look at what Jassy said last year at re-invent on this topic and then we'll come back. So if you look at the provider, who most people think is the second place provider in this space, in their last financials, they grew 76% year over year. And you can look at that and say, oh, 76% is more than 46%. But if you look at it in reality, that 76% represents about a billion dollars of growth year over year. If you look at the 46% growth of AWS on that much larger base, that represents $2.1 billion of growth year over year. So more than double that. So AWS not only has a significant market segment leadership position in share, but also on an absolute revenue basis is growing meaningfully faster than anybody else. Okay, so think about what Jassy said. He was using Q3 data and he said that AWS had a $27 billion run rate business. And if you look at those charts that I showed or he showed, it looked like the yellow bar, which was Microsoft, even though they didn't say, the company that shall not be named, it was about one third the size of AWS. So where would that put Microsoft? That somewhere around 9 billion last year and kind of an apples to apples run rate basis using those extrapolated market data that Jassy showed. By the way, ironically, this is about what AWS did last quarter, which you can see here on this chart that I'm showing. You might remember I showed you this chart in a previous episode of Breaking Analysis. And what it shows is AWS's quarterly revenue on the blue bars and the growth rate on the right hand access, that's the red line. And you can see Jassy talked about 46% growth. And you can see that in Q3 last year. And then look how it's moderated. It's 35% in Q3 this in 2019, the last quarter that they announced. So Jassy's right, AWS is growing slower than Microsoft last year, which was growing in the mid-70s, but Microsoft was 59% last quarter, so that trend's continued. That's if you believe Microsoft numbers, which are really not clean. It's hard to say sometimes all the SaaS in there and Office 365, LinkedIn, what else is in there, but we try to parse that out. Regardless, Jassy's point that size matters is still correct, but Microsoft is closing the gap. I talked to the Wikibon team recently and they think that AWS is going to come in at $35 billion in revenue this year. And they have Microsoft's IS business at around 15 billion. So that's 43% of AWS's business, versus 33% at this time last year. So you can see that Microsoft is closing that gap. AWS is still adding $8 billion a year in growth, but Microsoft is definitely catching up. So what is the spending data show? Let's take a look here at the ETR data and see what they say about market share. Now remember, in the ETR parlance, market share is a measure of how pervasive a vendor is within the dataset. And as you can see here, it maps pretty well to the market estimates that I was just talking about. Although it actually appears that in these lines that AWS is widening that lead, you can see in the net scores, by the way, this is net scores across all sectors, not just cloud computing, so it pulls in the other segments. But nonetheless, you can see Azure has a somewhat higher net score, which indicates stronger spending intentions. So that pretty much fits what we see in the market for the most part. Now it's not all rosy from Microsoft. They are super strong in the ETR dataset across the board, but specifically in cloud. So that's important. I don't want to lose sight of that, but I want to share something that Gartner said recently in its 2019 Magic Quadrant on cloud computing. Microsoft Azure's reliability issues continue to be a challenge for customers, largely as a result of Azure's growing pains. Since September of 2018, Azure has had multiple service impacting incidents, including significant outages involving Azure Active Directory. The nature of many of these outages is such that customers had no controls in order to mitigate the downtime. So caution is what Gartner said. So despite the great numbers and the fact that Azure is gaining, it's having growing pains. For years I've talked about the economies of scale for AWS due to its automation. I talked about the company's marginal economics at volume and you can see it in the firm's operating margins. The question to ask is Microsoft running into disc economies at scale due to its large install base and does it have technical debt? Because it's jamming its large software estate into Azure and having to preserve the past while trying to innovate for the future. I don't know and it's hard to tell because Microsoft is so big and so profitable, but it's something that CIOs definitely should keep an eye on. Now I want to look at some key sectors here and evaluate how AWS is doing and some of the areas where we see really innovation and I want to start in the all important database area. Now I'm going to focus here on analytic databases and data warehouses and I think there's some interesting trends going on here. So this is a cut of the ETR data warehouse segment. Now I've talked about Snowflake in the previous episodes of Breaking Analysis and you can see why. Snowflake has a net score of 71%, one of the highest and most interesting newer companies in this space and in the ETR dataset. You can see AWS doing very well and I want to make some comments on both Snowflake and AWS Redshift. But before I do that, look at Oracle and Teradata on this chart. What you see here is the classic innovators dilemma. It's at play where AWS and Snowflake, you can see them, they're solidly in the green and you got the two legacy players are firmly in the red. So I include them as reference points. But I want to come back to Redshift and Snowflake because I feel like there's something new going on in cloud. Where cloud 1.0 was all about IaaS and compute and storage and throwing some database. There's this new trend emerging that's really driving new workloads. And this data that now sits in the cloud, it's maybe stored in S3. Customers are using data stores like Redshift and Snowflake to get more insights out of that data. They're bringing tools like Databricks into the equation and really driving a whole new set of workloads that are not just about provisioning infrastructure, but really extracting insights much more quickly from the data and applying it to your business. And for AWS, it's driving tons of compute sales and customers are getting more value out of their data. Now, here's the interesting thing is Redshift and Snowflake are both best in class modern data warehouses. They seem to be coexisting. They're both thriving. Why is that? They're both MPP columnar stores. They've got many similar attributes, but I think what it comes down to really is what I call horses for courses. I may not have time to dig into it today, but when you peel back the onion, what you find is different approaches to things like architecture, security, scaling, different philosophies, pricing, different feature sets. So it really comes down to the best strategic fit. And for now, you know, it looks like to me that there's room for both platforms as they're both doing very well from a spending momentum perspective. You know, we'll see how that plays out over time. Let's now take a look at the analytics sector. Now here, we're talking about things like Amazon's query services, Elastic MapReduce, Search, Kinesis, QuickSight, Glue, Streaming, those kinds of tooling. You can see in this chart that AWS is very strong and it leads Microsoft by a small margin in the ETR dataset. Now for comparison, and again, I'm not trying to pick on the legacy players, but I think it's important to provide context. And when it comes to spending momentum, you know, the data doesn't lie. You can see here, IBM, they've got a sizable and very impressive set of capabilities in the analytics space, but you can see where the buyers are placing their bets. Now, what I'm showing you now in this next chart is a similar view, but this time, I'm showing ETR market share for AI and the machine learning segment. So for context, I've added IBM Watson. Remember, market share for ETR is a measure of pervasiveness. Not only to AWS and Microsoft, they're battling it out for the top spot, but they got stronger spending momentum, as you can see by the net scores. Now, look at Watson. I mean, it's respectable in the ETR data, but it just doesn't have the scale of the top two players. Okay, finally, I want to look at the container space. It's hot and I want to focus on Lambda from AWS. So what we're showing here is the net scores for Lambda and Amazon's Elastic Container Service. And you can see Lambda, very, very strong. You know, ECS is tapering a little bit. It's showing less momentum over time, but still well over 50% next net score. But look at Pivotal Cloud Foundry. They've showed a steady downturn over time. Now, this underscores the work that VMware and Pat Gelsinger have to do with one of their newest acquisitions. As an aside, this is an opportunity for VMware, which I, in my opinion, I've said they really need to get their developer act together really to drive new innovation. And by the way, Pivotal just had some layoffs, but my understanding that it was not an engineering, but rather folks that VMware saw as redundant and roles that it already had in place. So the bottom line is Pivotal has been steadily losing momentum in the ETR surveys. But look, a 27% net score is not a disaster by any means. I said on my last breaking analysis that if I were Michael Dell, I'd dedicate a thousand engineers to open source using Pivotal to really appeal to developers and then make his hardware run better on the open source tooling and apps that these thousand build and make his infrastructure programmable. This is how the edge is going to be won. It's not going to be by throwing boxes over the top of the fence, but it really bottoms up by devs. I digress. The last data point that I want to share here is really designed to address the question, how is the cloud impacting what Jassy calls the old guard? So this view shows market share, it's defined, which again is defined by ETR. Remember, they do the math to measure the pervasiveness of a vendor in their dataset. And they call that market share. And I've cut the data by just the cloud spenders. So those buyers spending heavily and I've isolated on AWS Azure and Google Cloud and how they're spending on traditional vendors has changed over time. And I'm picking out Cisco, HPE, Dell EMC and Oracle. And the story you can see is clear. So they came out of the downturn in 2010 and the big guys who were holding their breath and they came up for air and they saw lots of pent up demands. And they did pretty well. But the cloud has continued to slowly eat away at their share and their spending momentum, seen by the net scores in this table has been affected. But look at Cisco. They actually have quite a strong net score. It's 37%. So, and to me, by the way, this makes sense. And I think Cisco's in a good position to connect clouds and secure data moving across clouds. But the cloud, it's a long, steady march continues. And we are entering a new era that I think is only going to see greater share gains for the cloud in my view. By the way, I want to just back to my rant about the edge and programmable infrastructure and how developers are going to win the edge. Cisco with DevNet is actually in a pretty good position here. It's done a good job. And I think they're one of the few, if not the only legacy player that has kind of figured this out. Now, before I close, I want to make a few comments on the ecosystem and give a glimpse as to what to expect at a reinvent in 2019. All right, first, the ecosystem. There's a lot of sort of chatter and griping and concerns around, you know, AWS cannibalizing the ecosystem partners. And I think, frankly, that concern has merit. You know, when AWS has like this insane customer focus, you can pretty much take that to the bank. If a customer wants something and expresses that to AWS and they see a space to fill work and leverage that flywheel that they always talk about and add services, AWS is not going to sub-optimize its portfolio to protect its partner. It's going to go hard after it. So as a partner of AWS, it's up to you to keep innovating and moving fast. That's hard because AWS is probably moving faster than you are. But, you know, you can still specialize as a partner and thrive as a best-of-breed player. I mean, look at the snowflake example.  And of course, there's the infamous multi-cloud opportunity. And I say infamous because AWS doesn't use that term. You're not going to see it on the floor of reinvent this year because it's frankly not allowed. AWS is very controlling over the messaging that it puts out to its customers. And that includes the rules of the ecosystem if you want to go to their show. But you'll hear, you know, plenty of side conversations about multi-cloud. And we're certainly going to be talking about it on the cube. You know, it's multi-cloud, a symptom of multi-vendor. You know what I think on this topic. I think it's more than that than it is a strategy. But CIOs are now being asked to clean up the multi-cloud mess. And so it does have merit, but it creates complexity and that means opportunity for partners. So multi-cloud is white space for the ecosystem as is hybrid and on-prem connectivity. So partners are hedging their bet, they're supporting multiple clouds and they're partnering with Azure and Google. And that makes sense to do so. But here's the thing. Cloud 2.0 is getting more complex. AI, new workloads, edge, new use cases, machine learning, more APIs, more services, more complicated pricing. These are confusing matters for customers. And partners can help simplify this. And as well, thinking about, you know, competition with Microsoft, Microsoft's kind of an easy choice if you're already a Microsoft software customer. So partners need AWS and AWS need partners to help them deliver solutions to go to market and keep it simple. As you know, John Furrier says this a lot winning in the enterprise requires salesmanship. And AWS partners, they're a powerful channel. So AWS has to lean on this channel to really create solutions for customers and simplify. Okay, let's talk about what to expect at Reinvent 2019. And I want to start with storage. Jeff Barr put out a blog post announcing a series of new storage offerings around block store, new gateways, S3 replication, a new Windows file server capabilities, and stronger emphasis on file storage. Now most of the world's data is stored on file and AWS is expanding its portfolio. It started with S3 object back in 2006 and then EBS block store and then now big emphasis on file services. So I expect to hear a lot about that. And as well, we're going to hear about outposts. What progress has Amazon made with outposts? What's the status? What's the vision for outposts? How does it fit in at the edge? You know, as I just said in my rant earlier, the edge is all about developers. And I like AWS's edge approach. I think AWS has the right perspective. It's very dev centric. It's bottoms up from devs, not over the top like many of the box sellers. Now at Reinvent, you're probably going to hear more about unplugging Oracle databases, certainly security is going to be a big focus as will AI and machine learning. But I also expect a lot on transformation of industries. As Microsoft continues to grow and I ask, expect AWS to somehow try to change the game again. And I'm not sure AWS can win the battle head on with CIOs. Rather, I think AWS is really going to focus on this dual disruption agenda, both within the horizontal technology stack, but also within industries. In other words, expect AWS to increasingly focus on enabling industry transformation in different segments like media, healthcare, financial services, manufacturing, government, automobiles, telco, virtually every vertical. This dual disruption agenda, both in the tech stack and within industries, it's in AWS's DNA because it's in Amazon's DNA. It's driven by Jeff Bezos at the top. Now in closing, I want to stress again that Cloud 2.0 is here and it's getting more complex. The so-called old guard is hanging onto its install basis, but in many ways it's working hard to get simpler. Now these two domains going to collide together and create an equilibrium, the cloud native wannabes and the cloud native guys, probably not functionally, but there are a lot of opportunities for the big whales to capitalize on this industry consolidation and compete by simplifying their experience enough to keep customers hanging around. You know, don't forget, the enterprise business for years has relied on high touch specials and unique requirements and that's the wheelhouse for the legacy players. It's not AWS's and AWS's approach is going to continue to pick away at those opportunities with repeatable and automatable solutions. So this should be really interesting to watch. Stop by theCUBE, come see us at Reinvent. We got two sets there. This is Dave Vellante signing out from this episode of Cube Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching, we'll see you next time.


things like looking at flight details, looking at a simple fallback that we have, maybe an expense report that you can see here is getting a little bit more complicated. That's all then generated with this. Click the reject, you see I have to put reject message that I'm going to include there. These are all really cool and can give you some inspiration. Developers can use adaptive card messages from bots and messaging extensions and also in task modules and tabs. The card element section is going to list of all the card elements that you can use with adaptive cards and it's going to be filtered based on the target version of the adaptive card schema that you select. Again, the light and the dark mode of eva connections. Also, if I choose the image, it's going to the image here.


When we reviewed our monetary policy strategy, we launched the ECB listens portal, where people could express their views and concerns about our policies. But only 22% of the responses we received were from women. And we have to ask ourselves, why is that? One explanation might be that there is still an existing difference between women and men in what we call financial literacy. That is the knowledge of products like mortgage and bank loans. Now, the good news is that there has been clear progress in access of women to education. But there is, however, still a gender gap, a gender gap in access to financial services globally. Women, for example, globally are 9% less likely to have a bank account than men. Improving the access to financial knowledge and financial services is a priority for us at the ECB. It directly affects our ability to fulfill our tasks. In order to keep prices stable, it is essential that people trust us. And for this, they need to understand what we do and why. In the past, we mainly communicated to experts, and most of them were men. But now we are pushing for a change. We want to communicate more clearly to a broader audience and especially to women. And if we talk more to women, we learn more from women and about their concerns. And these are different. In the ECB and Lyssen's portal that Isabel Schnabel, my colleague was referring to, women have been more vocal on issues such as climate change, inequality and job security. And actually, women are more vulnerable in these respects. So it is absolutely crucial that we listen carefully to that. Maybe it is not a coincidence that climate change action at the ECB has been stepped up under a female president. Recent ECB research shows that carbon emissions at companies with a higher share of women in their leadership were by around 5% lower than at companies that had fewer women in their management.  It is time that we make sure that women are properly represented in science, in research, in key jobs that are so important for the transition to a greener economy. And this applies also to us, the European Central Bank and to the banks that we supervise.


Well, welcome, everyone, to Media Justice Fundamentals, the Spring 101 series. That's right. You weren't expecting sound effects, but there will be sound effects today. The Media Justice Fundamentals Spring 101 series is a workshop series that's produced by us, Media Justice. And for this workshop today, which is being facilitated by me, this is, my name is Stephen Randeros, I guess I should say that. And this is a series of workshops that Media Justice is producing this spring. Here's a listing of some of those workshops from that are coming up. And obviously it's not Tuesday, April 6, you don't need to double check your calendars. We had to unfortunately delay this workshop by about a week. So thank you all for those of you who still stuck with it and came out today. So appreciate that. We're in Media Justice 101 part two, but these are a couple of the workshops that we've got coming up over the next few weeks. So highly encourage folks to stay tuned into attend those workshops that are being led by other members of the media justice team. Today's topic, of course, is part two of Media Justice 101. And I'll catch you up in a bit about what we covered in part one. If this is your first ever media event with Media Justice, I just want to welcome you. A quick word on Media Justice and let me get out of the way so that you can see my wonderful staff here. Let me see. There we go. So, you know, Media Justice is an Oakland based black and brown led organization that fights for the media and technology rights of people of color in the United States. One of the core principles that guides our work is the belief that the right to communicate belongs to everyone. We're also the host of a national network called the Media Justice Network. And if you're a member of our network, welcome. So wonderful to have you all here. And if you're not a member of the network, we still welcome you, but you should talk to the other about joining. All right. So again, today's topic is titled Media Justice 101 part two. So what was part one, you might ask. So in part one, we actually focused on, you know, one of the kind of oldest forms of media here in the United States. Let me see if I can switch my slide. There we go. And I'll come back on screen so that you can see me. Yeah, we talked about the history of the newspaper. We explored racism in newspapers, the ways in which newspapers from very, from its very early days going back to the first newspaper in the United States, the public occurrence helped to shape racist narratives that continue to define black and POC people of color media representation today, as well as where people of color have fought to control our own stories and we learned about incredible kind of pioneering journalists like Ida B. Wells and Jose Maruti. We learned about the rise of the black press and its role in telling the story of the black experience here in the United States. So that's a lot of what we covered in a bit. I'll actually ask folks for those of you that were here last time to share a little bit about what you learned. So stay tuned for that. Before diving in, I'd be remissed if I didn't shout out some of the organizations and leaders whose work have highly influenced the content of today's workshop. So that includes, you know, groups like Global Action Project and our very own Media Justice, which before we were known as Media Justice, we were known as Youth Media Council. And here on screen, I have a couple of our, you know, a couple of curriculums that were highly influential, at least to me, Global Action Project, which was a youth media organization group based out of New York City, and produced a really groundbreaking political education curriculum called Media and Action. And the version you see here on the left side is kind of an updated version of that curriculum. They actually recently shut, you know, closed their doors after many, many incredible years of leadership in the field of youth media and youth media organizing. And in their work, I know will continue to live on and so many of the youth and people that they've impacted and I certainly count myself as one of those folks. And I also want to shout out on the left, you'll see a curriculum called Communicate Justice 101, which was a curriculum that I came across early on in my career as a media organizer. It's based by the Youth Media Council, which is what Media Justice was originally called. And, and yeah, so those two pieces of curriculum are highly influential. I also want to shout out a couple kind of longer essays and books. These are called All the People, which was written by Juan Gonzalez and Joe, Joe Torres, and it chronicles the racial history of media in the United States. Lastly, I also want to shout out Media 2070, which is a research essay detailing the history of US media participation in anti black racism and issues a call to action to repair the harm media institutions have caused. I invite you all to read this powerful essay and dream up reparations with us at media 2070.org, and I'm sure there'll be a link to that in a bit, but this incredible essay was written by some of the black staff at an organ and allied organization that we work very closely with and includes folks like Alicia Bell, Joseph Torres, who also wrote music for All the People, Collette Watson, and others at Free Press. All right. So one last bit of housekeeping before we get into it. I wanted to make sure that you all are familiar with the tools that we'll be using in today's workshop and to make sure that your experience as interact is as interactive as possible. Obviously, I'll be talking for quite a bit but I'll be relying on certain tools to help me make this this this workshop a little more interactive and the first tool we're using is zoom and I know many of us have gotten really familiar with zoom over this past year but there are two features that I for sure want to kind of draw your attention to. The first is the speaker view and hopefully for most of you, the speaker view is what you've got turned on, which would just be as you see, you know on the slide behind me, seeing the speaker in a big view. If you're seeing me more in like a Brady bunch style view, then you're in the gallery view and we need to switch that to speaker view. And the reason I'd like folks to switch over to speaker view is because as you can tell, as you can see, I'm being fancy and I've got my slides in my background sits away for me and for you to not have to worry about looking at anywhere else for slides and for content. So that's the first feature and to change from gallery view to speaker view. You just kind of float your way up to the top right of your zoom screen and it'll either say speaker view or gallery view so if you can click on that and get to this kind of view that you're seeing that would be great. The second feature I just want to direct you to is the chat box from time to time I'll ask folks to, you know, post some messages into the chat box, chat box so I want to make sure that you have it open. So if you can go over to the bottom of your zoom screen, you'll see a little icon and, you know, little icon with a bubble, and it says chat, if you can click on that button, it'll open up the chat window. And then let's move on to talk about Mentimeter, which is the tool that we'll be using for today's presentation. I'll actually be using Menti as well to collect responses from you all throughout the workshop. And there are actually two ways that you can get to Mentimeter. The first way is by using your cell phone. So if you pull out your cell phone and open up your camera. There's this QR code. So all you have to do is actually point your camera to the screen and it'll automatically open up a link and take you to where, you know, the Mentimeter presentation is located. The second way that folks can get there is through a link that I believe my folks are already putting into the chat. Thank you so much. This will automatically take you to the same exact place. The advantage to opening up Mentimeter now is you'll also have access to my slides there. So if you want to, if you prefer to look at my slides through your cell phone or on your computer in a separate window, you can do that. So from time to time, I'll be asking folks to go to Mentimeter. So please take a moment to at least open up that window. Alright, so I think we're all ready to jump in. And we can actually practice using Mentimeter right now. So I want to start out by getting to know who's in the room. So if you go to Menti, I'd love for folks that just populate in just your name, pronouns and location where, where are you dialing in from today. And if you can take a moment and we'll probably start to see answers pop up in here pretty soon as soon as folks get there. And I'll take a pause. Welcome to see it's good to see you. All right, we got folks from San Jose from Minneapolis. Love Minneapolis as my home for many years. When Brooklyn's in the house are usually pretty loud. So you can tell. Yeah, Brooklyn will not be land. That's right. Yeah, okay. Relax Brooklyn as I see all the Brooklynites already starting to start to pop off in the zoom. All right, Urbana. Love Urbana. What's up Chad. Good to see you. So yeah, y'all are getting the hang of it. So if you haven't gotten to Menti, go ahead and jump in there. Putting your name, your pronouns, your location. It's also a good way for you all who are sitting at home to check out, you know, the breath of the places that people are coming from. Awesome. Got more New York. Got a Portland in there. Welcome Portland. So I'll give it just another minute before I jump ahead to my next question. Let's see what we got. Yeah, she has good to see you Shea. Hi Fernando San Jose. Cool cool South Bay South Bay is coming in strong today. Appreciate that as well as as well as the Midwest. Cool cool. Well, folks can keep populating in there it's going to get recorded into the slides and we can always come back to it in a bit and shout outs to folks coming in from Boston. What's up. The next question I wanted to actually ask for folks to dive in on is, did you attend part one of this workshop. Curious if we've got any returning folks. And yes or nah. A lot of returning folks. Cool. Okay. Wow. Mostly returning folks at this point. That's wonderful. Well, I'm actually, you know, for folks for the folks here that haven't attended part one. There is a recording of the workshop and we're currently working on making that widely available soon. I've heard rumors that it's going to get broadcast somewhere so if you randomly see me talking out of a TV in Philadelphia at some point. Shout out to our member out there Philly cam. But anyways, we're work we've got a recording. We're going to make it available soon. And you can learn about some of the messed up history that I talked through in part one. Alright, so great. A lot of you were were in part one. I'm wondering if I could get a couple folks, literally mean like two responses of folks coming off a mute and just sharing maybe one thing that has really stuck with you from that workshop. And if you unmute if you can share your name and your pronouns that'd be wonderful. Can I get a couple volunteers. I'm getting crickets right now. I'm from Minneapolis. And I use she her pronouns but what I really enjoyed was looking at the different ways that media was used to and like when you did the study of like a older headlines and newer headlines and you showed how bias they were and how they can still like be used for today. So I enjoyed that a lot and we're going to actually kind of copy you and use that with our K or some interns. Please. Absolutely. Well, I love KRSM as well. So shout out to Southside Minneapolis. And, yeah, and I've been and also much love to you all out there dealing with everything. Can I get one more person to kind of come off mute share a little bit maybe something that stood out for you from part one. I'd like to share something this is Don Alda. I think it's still always just shocking, shocking to see how racism and violence and doing evil is was still and is still considered a social norm. That is horrifying to me. That's right. Yeah, and I think and and when you see the kind of common through lines throughout history where you see, you know, studying some of the early articles that covered indigenous folks in such, you know, really disrespectful ways. You see coverage of black folks from a place of criminality, pretty much from jump, you know, even before the United States was the United States and how there's this kind of common drum beat that has reverberated throughout history and and also where media has been used as an instrument of violence. And that carries over to this day. And it's all good Dre. We got you. Thank you so much to know that I really appreciate that. All right, so let's go ahead and keep keep moving. So I've got I think one more question for you all to fill out on the mentee. And this is just what comes to mind for you when you hear the word technology. So we can populate some responses there. That would be awesome. That's what comes to mind for you when you hear the word technology community connection power surveillance white supremacy. Yeah, Afrofuturism. I'm seeing function, seeing access tool. People getting left behind electronics. San Jose connection tools. And those of us that were around for it for sure. Smartphone. Information aid learning. White men. Yeah. Yeah. I love that connection has kind of stuck is kind of a big, the biggest of the words here, which is I think apps. I'm seeing Silicon Valley, which makes sense. It's a whole industry. Yeah. I'm seeing advancement efficiency. That's right. Those are all incredible responses. And thank you so much for indulging me. And part of the reason why I bring up technology is because today I think we'll be looking to pair and talk about how technology has always been kind of central to media justice as well. And in terms of a definition, I really like this definition by Thomas Hughes who wrote that technology is kind of a creativity process involving human ingenuity. But I think the reality is that technology is many different things it is also it is an object but it's also a process. It is also it is also reflective of who is in control of getting to shape and create technology. So, so all of these responses are 100% spot on and you'll find out a little bit why why I'm harping on technology. So last time since we're talking about media justice 101, we also defined media and we talked about media as being a vehicle to communicate to lots of people. You know, so I wanted to just kind of remind us and get us all on the same page. You know, what do we mean when we say media. In terms of media, and we've talked about team, we've, you know, last time we talked about newspapers and today we'll talk a little bit about TVs and radio. But media is really just a vehicle, it's a vehicle to communicate to lots of people, and in that way, the internet is media in that way, you know, using our cell phones, you know, using our telephones that is a form of media. Well, earlier I asked about technology because it's always been central to our ability to communicate to lots of people. There actually would be no newspapers if it were not for the printing press. You could not reach people through radio without a transmitter, you know, for years with TV you actually couldn't see television without an antenna. Innovations in technology have always really changed what media is able to do. When you think of TV, your cable actually changed our relationship to TV. And prior to cable and I'll show you the little coaxial cable but the infrastructure behind it. And compared to that, there was a limit to how many channels, you know, our TV could get through the airwaves and if I go back like you'll actually see on this old television, I remember having one of these. As a kid, there are only so many channels to get up to I think it was like a dial that only got up to like 30 channels. Now compare that to the world that we're living in today with cable where there are hundreds of channels. You know, and for the most part in the old days.  They were available all over the US and if you happen to live in a community like I did, I grew up in Los Angeles, you know, you might get some more local channels, you know, so you might get the Spanish language TV station. I grew up in Korea town so I got the, you know, Korean stations cable change the way that, you know, that we were able to engage with content. It only changed that it gave us the ability to get hundreds of potential TV channels, but in this like cable you could actually deliver other things like Internet and telephone calls and I think anyone here who has had, you know, cable provider in their home today has probably been sold a bundled package by these companies, you know, get your TV and your telephone and your Internet. And that's because they can all get delivered through the same infrastructure. So, as we get to the present history of media justice technology continues to do that in media. It changes what media can do. And we will learn through this workshop, you know, innovations and technology to not necessarily end up benefiting everyone equally. And, you know, furthermore technology is not always good. So, at the end of the last workshop, I mentioned that media justice was a turn and a movement that emerged out of a convening at the Highlander Research Center and Newmarket Tennessee. And today's workshop will learn a bit more. Oops, sorry, I didn't want to switch to that just yet. And today's workshop will learn a bit more about what was happening in the world leading up to that gathering in 2002 to understand, you know, what was the problem they were hoping to solve then. As we get to know the media justice movement today through two issues that have shaped media and technology from the 1980s till about the turn of the 21st century. So we're going to go a little bit deeper on media consolidation and deregulation. Now to keep it fun and engaging. We're actually going to be playing a little game throughout the workshop. Every now and then, we'll have a pop quiz with questions on either content that I've recently presented on, or content that I'm just curious to see if folks have an answer for from within this group. At the end, the top three people with the top three scores will receive a prize from us I've checked in with some of my operations folks and it seems like we're going to be able to do this we have some some wonderful stuff in our Oakland office. I'm sending out to you, including incredible books and maybe some swag. And just to name part of how you gain scores is not only by getting the correct answer but there is a higher score based on speed.  So just letting you out letting you know. So why don't we try it out. Let's go back to mentee on your, you know devices, and we got a lot of folks in here already. Yeah. All right, I'll give it just another minute for folks to get there. I mean if you need to get there. You know, click on the link in the chat. Awesome. Just give it another minute before I count down the question. Awesome. All right. Let's go ahead and kick it off here and see what y'all think. Remember to answer fast to get more points. And the question is where did the media justice convening take place in 2002, I just said it. And it's a it's a multiple choice question here so you get to pick. And you've got a little less than 10 seconds now to answer. Was the Aspen Institute Highlander Research Center, the National Labor College. All right. Whoa, if you answered Highlander Research Center, you are correct. Wonderful. So National Labor College, I threw that in there for some of the folks that have been to convenings with us in the past because we actually used to do a lot of gatherings at that place. So, through a little curveball there. Yes, so 2002. And, oh yeah, let's see our leaderboard here. So after we do a quiz question we'll get to see our leaderboard and see where we're at. So right now, seems like James is is is running in the pole position chat is is right there behind James. So don't worry, there's plenty of more questions to come. You will have an opportunity to catch up. So Highlander, which if you didn't know, it's there a member of our network the media justice network, but they've also been around for over 80 years. Been a site of many movements that have turned to, you know, many movements have actually turned to them for space to strategize to train union organizers from the CIO in the 19 in the mid 1900s. And that's how the Highlander Center was a critical space for seeding the plans and training that would lead to actions like the Montgomery bus boycott during the civil rights movement. You know they helped foster a lot of the organizing that happened in Appalachia to address coal miners health and safety. So Highlander would help conceive of a movement known today as media justice is no surprise when you take some of that history into account. So shout out to Highlander Center. I see the link to their website in the chat. They have a wonderful newsletter you should sign up for. They do a lot of especially in this pandemic have done a lot of virtual programming to bring kind of communities of people together so support their work. And what I think is really 2002 gathering unique is that it was really the first multi racial convening of media advocates from across the country. And I wanted to share just a handful of the people that were there just so you have a sense. So one of the folks that was there and you'll see them on the bottom left here, now Kia David Cyril would be the person who would go on to found our organization media justice, as well as helping to start the media justice network. So Peggy Berry, Berry Hill which you'll see here at the top towards the middle. Peggy was at the time, a director of the native media resource center, and an indigenous multimedia producer. Hi, I'm Pena Gangadharan, who at the time had co founded media channel.org, which was a clearing house for news and media democracy. Who was the founder of paper tiger TV and independent collaborative of media makers and also for folks that are involved in the kind of community media sphere is someone who is an og for sure. And who was the director at fair fairness and accuracy and reporting and at the time was also hosting a radio show called counter spin. Cheryl Leanza at the time was working for a law firm called media access project and represented civil rights and public interest groups in proceedings at the Federal Communications Commission. Cheryl did comments on behalf of the media justice network on many occasions back in almost 10 years ago. Cheryl is actually now at the United Church of Christ Office of media justice which is a member of our network. Pena, who founded the praxis project, and then is also just a brilliant racial justice communication strategist. It's someone whose work you all should follow if you don't yet. And assist net, who is the director of Austin free net, which was the organization in Austin, Texas, which way back in 2002 is trying to help people get free public access to the internet. There's just a handful there actually many more folks that were there. But I wanted to highlight some of those wonderful folks, because I think, you know, these are the folks that were helping conceive of this movement that we now today call media justice. And at this gathering actually took an intensive look at the current media conditions that they were trying to respond to, and I'm going to go deeper as I said, into two of those topic areas. They talked a lot about media consolidation at this gathering, and they also talked a lot about deregulation. So I want to kick it off with media consolidation. And to kick us off. I'm curious if folks can go to the chat, and just post like, what do you think that means when I say media consolidation. What am I referring to, and anything that comes to mind please feel free to populate in the chat. I see neoliberal mergers and acquisitions mergers question mark mergers question marks capitalism. Yeah. I'll respond to mergers question mark with mergers period. Yes, it is it is mergers buying local newspapers, but big city investment firms. All right. Monopoly. Yeah. Driving diverse voices out of business. That's right. Great. So great responses I appreciate that. In the chat will actually put in, you know, a definition. Yeah, only a few companies owning all the media who owns the media. Yeah. That's right. So it's a process whereby, you know, progressively fewer individuals or organizations or corporations control an increasing amount of the shares of mass media. So I realized that I blocked so many of the folks and in the slides. So here, let me get out of the way so you can see Malkia. I did have Malkia down here in the bottom. Anyways, I'll come back now. Cool. So, that's right. So that's what media consolidation means means progressively fewer groups or people own the majority of mass media or the media that we consume. So here goes another quiz question, I believe. And let me make sure that I get to the slide. Cool. So this is question two of nine. This is worth points. So let me know when y'all are ready. So get back to mentee and if folks can put in the, if our folks can put in the chat, the link to mentee that be awesome. And I'll give it just a second before I press enter. All right. So here goes. The next question. Remember, more points if you answer a little more fast in 1980, how many companies controlled 90% of US media. That means 90% of TV radio newspapers magazine. Was it 50 companies? Was it 25? Or was it four companies? This is back in 1980. How many companies do you think control the vast majority of media and you have about less than 10 seconds. All right, let's see what we got. Okay, the vast majority of folks thought it was 25. It's actually 50. That might seem surprising to some folks, although we had more folks thinking it was fewer in 1980. That's interesting. Yeah, it was actually 50 corporations that owned the vast majority of media. I'll talk a little bit about why it was, you know, it was more in 1980. So here's a question that's not actually let's check back in with the leaderboard. I keep forgetting they always bring up the leaderboard at the end of this and it seems like that hasn't changed. All right, well, we'll come back to the leaderboard making sure that it works. I have a question for you all to check in on how many companies do you think control the vast majority of media today. This question will not count for points. This is just I'm curious what you think. And we'll see the answers populating here. All right, so we're seeing 100. Five or less. Okay, three. I'm seeing two. I'm seeing five fours. I'm seeing one person who thinks it's 100. And but just about everybody else thinks it's in that five, four, three, five or less. Okay. Y'all doing me like prices right. Just like one one digit over seven. Okay. Cool. That's helpful. All right, so I'll come back to the answer in a little bit. So let's talk media consolidation. I didn't mean to click on that. Sorry. This is a media monopoly, which is, I should have mentioned at the top. This was a book that I ended up, you know, studying a lot leading up to this workshop. But it was written by this person named Ben back Dickie and the author goes into documenting how the media system got to be heavily concentrated. So this is a book that was initially released in like the late 1980s. So clearly something went wrong. It's like the book focus so heavily on media concentration media consolidation, even way back then. But one of the interesting kind of revelations is that he finds that all of these industries, like radio TV newspapers, you know, even magazines, even telephones started out concentrated. To begin with. So take radio, for example, where this industry began pretty much as a private cartel back in 1919, when the radio Corporation of America was formed as an umbrella monopoly. And there were four companies for corporations that started RCA, General Electric, which is the same corporation that makes probably makes your stove makes your refrigerator, Westinghouse, which is another kind of industrial manufacturing company, AT&T, which you all might know if you if they are your cell phone provider today in the United Fruit Company which they're no longer around but you might best remember them for a couple different things for Chiquita banana, but also for destabilizing a lot of industrial America and in the Caribbean. They were among the biggest kind of collect manufacturer of bananas and imported bananas to the US. And these four companies actually got together and said, we're going to create this, this other corporation RCA. And what they did is they, they basically created this company to divvy up the emerging radio market for themselves, meaning they wanted to have a monopoly on the radio in the entire country, and they established the first major radio station in the United States that broadcast nationally, and it was called the National Broadcasting Company, or as we know them today, and be seen. That's my consolidation. So, let's talk about the 1960s. And about the 1960s Wall Street really got hit to the fact that media was an industry with like really high profit margins. There were, you know, many local newspapers that could generate profit margins between 20 to 40% annually. And yet I think a lot of the public image of newspapers coming out of, you know, the period of yellow journalism in the 1800s and the early 1900s. You know, the perception was the newspapers weren't this kind of like money making machine, they were just like performing a public service they were out there to document the news and expose corruption. And that was a convenient story that a lot of newspaper owners were okay with telling, because, you know, they didn't want to actually tell the truth, which is that they were actually very profitable. And for many years, newspapers radio stations, they got away with telling that lie and it's around the 1960s that many of these companies start publicly trading in the stock exchange. And as a result, investors and Wall Street could for the first time peek under the hood and see that this whole entire industry was an industry where a lot of money could be made. And not only that, but, you know, owning more media meant that you could control what the public focus their attention on, and media companies use this to their advantage, you know, by steering content away from topics that, you know, were controversial or that could affect their bottom lines. Today, you won't really see advertisements for cigarettes on TV or pretty much anywhere. But from about the 1950s on the tobacco industry was the largest advertiser. And here on screen on my screen, you'll see this advertisement from a magazine of the Marlboro man. And here the largest advertiser during this period of time, Gannett, who was one of the largest newspaper monopolies in the country back in the 1980s. They brought in annually about 200 million from billboard advertising alone. So not only were they a newspaper company but they also owned a lot of the billboards throughout the United States and and they generated 1 million a year just from billboard advertising. And in today's money just to translate that as well over $600 million. That's just from billboard advertising alone. The thing is like back then in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, they all knew that cigarettes were harmful to people were harmful to people's health caused cancer, but the general public was unaware. And where you saw this reflected is in Gannett newspapers, you wouldn't see hard hitting reports on cigarette smoking. You wouldn't see coverage of scientific studies that were proving this. A lot of these companies very conveniently would not cover these stories at all.  And media companies actually took the same approach with politicians that they deemed political allies. You know, Ronald Reagan as we'll find out in a bit was super friendly to corporations. And even though his administration was rife with corruption, engaging in unconstitutional activities like buying guns from the Iranians and selling them to the Contras in Karawa. And sorry, I'm not sure who's calling me. Apologies for that.  Media institutions, largely protected Ronald Reagan actually remember when I was a kid in school, being taught history, there were even jokes about it my history teacher would say that they called Ronald Reagan, the Teflon president because he didn't know how to handle what stick to him. And it's not hard to show why that's true when the media system would not hold you accountable. So let me go back to my slides. And here is I think something that Ben Beck Dickey and summarizes about the power of media companies. Through consolidation, corporations knew that they had the power to treat some unlike subjects accurately, but briefly, and to treat subjects favorable to the corporate ethic frequently, and in depth. This actually resonates with a lot of where I started getting kind of politicized around media representation. You know, at the turn of the 21st century post 911, the drum beat to war in Iraq. I would see constant coverage of people talking about why it made sense to go into, you know, go into Iraq that there were weapons of mass destruction. Since high war voices were few and far between and oftentimes, you know, especially in the 24 hour news cycle, when you put someone in who is has an oppositional voice but then you have a steady chorus of people saying the complete opposite. That individual looks like the outlier. And that is I think summarizes some of what corporations figured out, moving into the 1980s that consolidation and having more control over media companies gave them the power to really pick and choose, you know, what people focused on in public discourse. So, and ultimately, you know, pick the discourse that was going to be most helpful to their bottom line. And I do in this context introduce a term that, you know, describes the danger in this type of power. And it's a it's a heady term so I tried to kind of, you know, make it as accessible as possible but it's, it's this term called cultural hegemony, which refers to the ability of a dominant class to impose its world view morals and ideas to the regulation by shaping the status quo. And there's actually I'm going to share here, a set of graphics that a really incredible cultural organizing organization. I mean I'll get myself out of the way. I'll get that the cultural works produced. I know they do a lot of work on the on the East Coast but also in Puerto Rico. But they produce this kind of this Instagram thread on cultural hegemony which I found super accessible and I pulled a couple of the graphics out for you. And it has a definition here which is also in the chat. But it's this idea of a dominant class being able to shape what is the status quo, you know, shape what is normalized in society. And it was a concept developed by Antonio Gramsci, who was a Marxist theorist during Benito Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy. And, you know, the thing that the last slide I wanted to kind of point your attention to. There are kind of structures in our society that shape meaning for us, you know, from government schools, the church and media. And oftentimes these, you know, these individual systems work in concert to protect certain ideas or institutions. And that does as a kind of hat tip to our folks in Minneapolis. Yeah, I think of a lot of the latest, you know, the latest police killing that we saw of Dante Wright in Brooklyn Center Minnesota. You know, even now in this moment where a conversation to defund the police has been pushed to the center, you know, you can turn on MSNBC, a progressive news outlet. You find them giving equal airtime to a law enforcement official. It's almost, you know, almost like clockwork. I will always see at least some sort of former police.  So hegemony works in ways in which, you know, through media institutions can reinforce the institutions that are valued and where the attention goes. And I bring this up because this concept was actually highly influential and shaping the analysis of media justice. And as many people, you know, many people who attended the gathering at Highlander were studied up on this. And you all have the link in the chat if you want to check out this, this cool Instagram thread. The other thing is, you know, the name of the game for media corporations around media consolidation was to make more money and increase their profit margins. And they did that pretty effectively throughout the 80s and 90s. And they continue to find more ways to make more money. Another kind of quiz question. This is in fact worth points. So if you can get back to mentee, and if my folks can paste the link in the chat, we're going to go through another question. And I will give it just a minute for folks to get there. And here we go. I keep saying a minute and then I'm like, two seconds later, I recognize that. All right. So remember, faster gets more points. How else did media corporations increase their profit margins. So this is a select all that applies so you can select any of these that you think are right. You can not select one that you think I just put in there to throw you off. So increasing advertising space, laying staff off, producing sensational content, cutting production costs. They were all right. They were all actually correct. So it's definitely all of the above. It was actually common knowledge among Wall Street investors that you could buy up a newspaper and increase profit margins up to 40% by just doing all of these things. They would come in and the, you know, if advertising only took up 10% of the space in the newspaper, they would come in and, oh my bad, did I did I mess up, I could only select one. I messed up that's that's on me Benjamin. Sorry about that. So, you know, the, the, they could do all of these and so they would come in and if 15% of your newspaper was advertising, they would increase that to 25% or 40%. You know, and essentially replace reporting and journalism with more ads. We see that obviously I'm sure you all feel this if you watch live TV, the ads will just never stop or anytime you watch the Super Bowl. This is a way to generate more revenue to very tried and true tactic. A lot of times we hear in mergers, people tell us like, oh, this is going to create more jobs. But history has been fairly consistent on this point. Anytime we see a merger, there are always layoffs, inevitably, people will get laid off and it's a strategic way to continue to cut costs. It's not about improving the quality of the work of the content. It's all about just making more money for Wall Street investors producing sensational content and we'll talk about this in a little bit of just, you know, there is that old adage around newspapers. If it bleeds, it leads, meaning that like the more sensational the content, the likelier, more likelier we are is actually like retain an audience and get more engagement, which is exactly the same logic that a lot of algorithms operate on on social media platforms. It's the more enraging content that has higher engagement and cutting production costs, you know, doing stuff cheaper, eliminating benefits, eliminating infrastructure, closing down offices. Now, in part one of this workshop, we actually, and actually we can go to the leaderboards here, see if my leaderboard is actually working this time. Let's see. All right, here we go. What are we seeing? All right now. Okay. Whoa. You see that so Benjamin, even though you only were able to answer one, you jumped up to the top score. She was coming in second chat is still still at the very top coming in third. So wonderful. All right, let's keep rolling.  You know, we saw racist narratives like, and actually here's just a couple clips from that book media monopoly that goes into some of the thinking behind, you know, increasing costs and it was just common knowledge among Wall Street investors and corporations that were buying up media companies that the purpose, the reason to do it was because you could generate more profit. It wasn't because they wanted to do better business or whatever, even though that that's publicly a lot of what we hear from these corporations. And I'm sure the moment that we hear of another actually we heard this most recently with the sprint T mobile merger of just how wonderful it was going to be for everyone and how much it was going to lower prices and even though it's only been a couple years since they merged they started raising prices. So, again, that's that's the kind of intent behind consolidation is to generate more profit and often it's done at the expense of the content that these media institutions used to used to produce. Going on to the next slide as I was talking about in part one, I ended up touching on a lot of the racist narratives that we saw. And, you know, in early media. Let's see if I, there we go. You know we saw like the savagery of natives, we saw that reflected a lot in the early newspapers, the criminality of black people, the disease written the apologies content morning. The disease written immigrants, you know, all of these were narratives that were, you know, both good for establishing a white dominant status quo and we're also, you know, highly profitable. We also see this, you know, in the 1980s and throughout the 1990s with the declaration of the war on drugs, where the perpetuation of images of cops breaking down doors of arresting black people, you know, representations that were deeply racist we consistently saw those images in the media. And I wanted to play a short video of one of those narratives that kind of emerged and was popularized in the late 80s and early 90s. It's captured in the term super predators, and I'll play the campaign for fair sentencing of use they produced this video about super predators, and about where that myth came from. I'm going to share my screen and play that see if I can actually share my screen there we go. Share the super predator myth is a deeply harmful racist fabrication. It was popularized in the mid 1990s. It was warned of black and brown teenagers perpetrating a violent crime wave. It had a devastating impact on our laws and policies and consequently on individuals and families nationwide. But why did the theory with no basis in reality take hold. Back to slavery and throughout our history, black children have been robbed of their youth and denied the protections of childhood. Along with being presumed guilty and dangerous. Black children have always been perceived as older than they are treated as adults and punished severely. Black children were the human property of slaveholders and therefore not the beneficiaries of whatever rights human beings were afforded Southern society objectified and viewed black children as valuable commodities. This would evolve into Jim Crow justice for black youth denying them access to white institutions of reform rooted in the belief that black youth were undeserving subjects, the white dominated parental state. On this day, black children suffer the horrifying consequences of this history, including disproportionate and harsh punishment at the hands of our legal system. It particularly damaging consequence took hold in the 1990s, the war on drugs raged levels of crime rose around the country. Instead of seeking to understand and trying to eradicate the root causes of this policymakers, the media prosecutors and other powerful people fell back on the long health racist dehumanizing narratives about young black boys stories of youth committing crimes were sensationalized regularly, even by trusted news outlets.  When in 1995 he wrote a standard weekly article called the coming of the super predators. A racist dehumanizing choice of words, a label assigned to children that painted them as ruthless wild animals, and in a single term of phrase stripped away their humanity. The article and DeUlio's future publications stated that a juvenile crime wave would double in the next 10 years and stoked a new white fear of black children. The claims perpetuated by DeUlio were discriminatory misguided, and above all, false. So I'm going to pause it right there and come on back just for the sake of time but just to give you a sense that like you had this kind of perpetuation of a story that was deeply deeply racist. But this was a term that through that, you know, through that, and I can stop sharing my screen there we go. And it was a term that through through media from that op-ed that John DeUlio wrote just spread like wildfire and shaped representation. Cool. Thank you. And, you know, and we saw this representation over and over again from newspaper articles to the way crime was covered on TV to movies. You know, it shaped policy, you know, we saw punitive sentencing laws get passed at the federal, state and local level. I do remember, you know, growing up around laws in California that prosecuted kids as adults. You know, in fact, my cousin was one of them he's currently serving a life sentence at a prison in California. So not only did it shape laws but it also was highly profitable for media companies. You know, and the thing is like it didn't actually matter if it was fundamentally true or not. And I put up here as a slide, this Gallup poll, which has been asking people, you know, for since about 1989, if they think that crime is up in the area that they live in compared to a year ago. And pretty much every year without exception, probably the only exception was 2001 oddly, a majority of people thought that crime was going up. This is every single year since 1989. And yet, when you look at all the quote unquote crime statistics, which are, to be honest, just a reflection of racist over policing. It shows that crime has been consistently declining since about the early 1990s. So media companies have figured out that if we keep talking about crime, we can retain and grow our audience and increase our profit margins, even if the stories they're telling are not necessarily true. All right, so we're going to jump back in so a little quiz. This next question is definitely worth points. So, get over to mentee, if you're not yet and I'm sure the link will be in the chat box. And here we go. You might have multiple choice again, you might have to forgive me, which four companies started MVC. So you'll have five choices here, I believe, was a United Fruit Company, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, AT&T and Westinghouse. I think you just need one to get it right. If I if I messed up on my settings again, that's probably true. Let's see what we got. All right. Everybody wins. This is just like, just like Oprah everybody wins. So awesome. That's right. All these companies were the four companies. Here's another quiz question then for you and actually might get the leaderboard here. Let's see. Yeah, the leaderboards coming up. So how do we do. Okay. All right. Okay, so we're seeing changes here in the leaderboard. This is exciting. This is anybody's game telling you. Okay, next question. We're gonna jump into and here we go. All right. Which industry between the 50s and 90s spent the most on advertising. Was it oil? Was it banking? Or was it tobacco? Okay. It was in fact the tobacco industry. Yes. All right, so let's see how we're doing here. Okay, so let's look at the leaderboard on the leaderboard. Okay. And we're seeing, wow, Vanda is just making a comeback here. Tiger baby is coming right behind. This is great. Awesome. Let's keep, let's keep rolling. So I took media monopoly by Ben Beck to key in the author documents, how the media system got to be heavily concentrated. And one interesting revelation is that he finds that all of these industries started out, you know, concentrated, you know, to begin with. And, you know, one of the, one of those industries was AT&T. And here is a graphic and let me get myself out of the way so that you can see. Speaking of media consolidation, you know, AT&T started out as a natural monopoly. They were allowed to be the single only company providing telephone service throughout the United States, but in exchange, they agreed to provide something that they called universal service, or the idea that everyone had to be served by everyone needed to have access to a telephone line. Now in the in the mid 1980s, the government broke them up. And it was this kind of kicks off our second topic which we're talking about which is deregulation government broke them up and broke them up into, you know, regional companies and allowed AT&T to continue being like a long distance telephone provider. Now this graphic here demonstrates how in a period of roughly about 20 years, AT&T went from being a singular monopoly to pretty much reconstructing itself into two companies. And today those two companies, the two big ones are AT&T and Verizon. So, while we might have broken up a monopoly in the mid 1980s, by about the early 2000s, what we had was a duopoly with two big major companies, and this just kind of shows you some of the different financial transactions throughout that time period, and just shows you that they've basically been able to reconstruct themselves, you know. All right. So, you know, talking about deregulation, the other condition that those activists and that the Highlander Center in 2002 were really worried with in the chat. Actually, we're not going to do that just for the sake of time. I'm actually going to play a video by my friend Joe Torres talking about news for all the people. And it goes into this kind of period of deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s. So let me go ahead and share my screen there so you can watch that. Let's see. All right. Here we go. So, some of these rules that the FC passed that the health broadcast is more accountable when Reagan comes along 1980s, his FCC under chamber Mark Fowler starts to undo this with progress and there's a few things he did on the undirectional Mark Fowler, right. The agency rescind the regulations that require broadcasters to operate a station for a minimum of three years before selling it and increase from 7 to 12 the cap on the number of AM and FM radio stations that company could own and increase the caps on ownership of TV station, so long as those stations reached 25% of the national. He transformed the licensing process to mere formality by eliminating the need for broadcast to fill out detailed program logs by ending ascertainment requirements and by allowing stations to apply for renewals by postcard application. He also ended any aggressive enforcement equal employment opportunity rules, and eliminated broadcasters obligation to area certain percentage of public service programming more mergers were happening general electric board, NBC and capital cities communications bought up ABC networks. So that begins a process in the late 1980s of resending or turning back the gains being made to democratize our airways by people of color and other folks as well and then the 1990s come in the 1995. That's probably in Congress, we send the tax certificate programs. That was really the main instrument that resulted in increasing the percentage of people of color on and broadcast stations for 123%. But that's not high number 3% is still represent like the greatest increase in minority ownership in our nation's history over that 1718 period. That programs we send it right and, and then a year later 1996 bill Clinton science, the 1996 telecom act. I'm not only should a new wave of consolidation decimates radio right it gets rid of ownership. The number of radio stations, a company that own. At the time you can own more than 40 radio stations nationwide, and the number of stations are radio company can only provide that that cap is eliminated. So, basically clear channel goes from owning 40 stations in 1996 to 1200 stations in a matter of a couple of years. So, I just goes into some of what happened in the 1990s in terms of deregulation. So a few things to note. So we see deregulation in the 1980s 1990s and it makes it easier for companies to merge. This is like a lot of what Joe was talking about in the video with Reagan's FCC and all the deregulation they did to allow for more mergers. And so this is where we start to see that 50 number of companies in 1980 who own the vast majority of media really start to shrink. You know, and there there were limits prior to 1980 on the like limits of what you could own so you know you weren't allowed to own. You know, you were a cable provider, the TV channels that you were delivering to people, but deregulation through the 1980s and in 1996 through the telecom act, did away with that requirement and so years later like when Comcast decided to merge with NBC universal they could do that because at that point regulation was out of the way, and they were allowed to merge. Take it forward to the digital age, Facebook purchasing Instagram, another social media platform in 2012 for like a billion dollars. You know that wouldn't have been possible before because regulation would have largely prohibited that kind of merger. And even though, as I was explaining here we saw the breakup of mobile of AT&T, they basically reconstructed themselves in the span of a couple decades. So, you know this is how we went and, you know, and from a span of like, you know, what was it, 20 years to going from, you know, 50 companies that own the vast majority of the media that we consume to, you know, about six companies, and these those six that, you know, stood the test of time over those 20 years, General Electric, which we've heard of before, News Corporation, which owned Fox, and all the kind of Fox news and those those those industries, Disney, which of course, you know owns the very popular ESPN, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS. So, you know this aggressive deregulation that was introduced in the 1980s under the Reagan administration was guided by this philosophy of small government. I think if you all have, you know, or a student of history, I'm sure you've heard the clip of Ronald Reagan, you know, talking about government and I'm sure this was from his inauguration I think in an 80 in 1980. Because in crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. You know, government is the problem. So the idea that like we got to strip regulation out of the way. And they paired this belief in small government with an approach to the economic policy that they called, you know, in the 1980s it was called Reaganomics with this idea of an unrestricted, you know, free market. Hold on, let me make sure I'm switching slides. Yeah, there we go. And let me get back to my place here on my notes. And this is just a cartoon that funny cartoon talking about free markets. But they paired this belief in small government with this free market economics, which was this view that in capitalism, a competitive and healthy marketplace is one and where businesses get to make their own choices free from government intervention. So very similar to Reagan's view of government as being the problem. This isn't necessarily a Republican view alone, you know, free markets were an approach to economic policy across the political spectrum. Yeah, and Joe talked about the 1996 telecommunications act. And that was done under a democratic administration. This was an approach to economic policy. This was a political spectrum that allowed for the kind of wave of media consolidation and deregulation that we saw so it didn't really matter what party was in power. This was just kind of the approach. Joe mentioned clear channel in the video, you know, a company like clear channel which is one of the largest corporations that owned the vast majority of radio stations across the country. Early to mid 90s, they owned about 40 radio stations, which is a lot. But, you know, by the time you know we came around as an organization in the early 2000s clear channel was a company that owned well over 1200 radio stations across the country. In fact, like one of the campaigns that we worked on that was a precursor to media justice was a campaign to stop clear channel from buying this, the last kind of independently owned hip hop station in the Bay Area called KMEL back in 2001. And this is a toolkit that we produced way back then tried to engage young people to organize and stop the sale from happening which didn't happen and the campaign pivoted towards holding the institution accountable. So bringing it back to the Highlander Center in 2002. You know, we talked about how media consolidation deregulation were among the forces that were shaping, you know, media conditions around this convening. And at the time there really wasn't a movement that was fighting to transform media and technology. The last time we saw kind of activism around media was in the 1970s when several civil rights groups like the NAACP challenged TV licenses away from racist TV stations. But since that time, you know, there wasn't really a sector advocating, you know, to transform media for people of color. There was kind of a group of folks that were advocating to democratize media, but none of those groups were bringing a racial justice lens to their view of media and technology. And at the Highlander convening there was a key strategic decision that was made to shift terms for how we describe media organizing away from media democracy and towards media justice. And Ruben who was also attending this convening and also a giant in the community radio sphere.  And she said that we thought that transforming the concept to media justice will put our efforts on the same level as other social justice and human rights organizing and give us a new vocabulary to work with in terms of defining our various goals. So they recognized that the concept of democracy, you know, fighting for media democracy had been degraded for people of color, and in the US and globally was just distrusted because US interventionism abroad, you know, would either prop up dictators in some places or destabilize democratically elected governments and other places. I also saw that media justice as a term could bring them closer in proximity to other social justice movements here in the US. Now there were two principles that emerged from this convening that everyone who attended agreed to. And I actually found this very interesting because you know when I think about this convening I think about them shaping an analysis around media, but both of the principles actually deal with technology as well. And they said that first technology and media must be directed towards social justice. So goes back to the belief in the words of Bertolt Brecht, which was a, he was a Marxist cultural artist and playwright. You know this idea and replacing in his quote media or technology that art is not a mirror to reflect our reality, but a hammer with which we shape it so this idea that media and technology exists in service of expanding or accelerating movements for social justice. That was a core principle from this convening that they all agreed to that must kind of shape this movement that we call media justice. The second and here's a for our KRSM folks picture from one of your one of your producers in your studio, but the second idea principle is the technology and media participation must be structured in a democratic way, meaning that communities at the margins should decide how media and technology is created, used and allocated. And this is worth noting that as far back as 2002, they already recognize technology was central to the struggle for media justice. You know, and this was at least a couple years before the founding of Facebook and Twitter, before the proliferation of tech and policing. You know they understood back then will be discussed earlier which is innovations and technology will change our relationship to media, and what media is capable of doing. The movement seeking to change media must also change technology. I'm going to jump ahead just for the sake of time because I want to make sure I let books go on time but I would invite you all to go to our website and check out our vision statement, because I actually think is very reflective of these two principles, but I'll jump ahead for now, but invite you all to check it out. So, when our founder Malkia David zero returned from that 2002 convening, they set out to do two things. The first was transform the youth media council into a national organization that could campaign for media justice. You know, at a national level. That's at the time when we took on the name Center for media justice which was well over a decade ago. They set out to build the media justice movement by helping to start a network which was initially called the media action grassroots network, and is today a network of over 100 social justice media and arts organizations. And there's a lot that we and here's a wonderful picture from a convening that we had a couple years ago. And there's a lot that this movement has actually been able to accomplish over this period of time since 2002. You've actually stopped a couple major mergers. You may have, you may remember that AT&T and T mobile actually tried to merge a few years ago, what we stopped that we stopped the Comcast time Warner merger. We won the passage of local the local Community Radio Act in 2010, which led to the construction of hundreds of new low power FM radio stations including, you know, our wonderful member down in Minneapolis KRSM. We won net neutrality, you know the kind of First Amendment rules of the internet. We won the lowering of prison phone calls at a national level. And certainly, our network has won local campaigns to ban facial recognition to dismantle predictive policing to defund surveillance technology.  So I'm flexing a little bit when it comes to media justice and our wider movement because this this movement has slowly chipped away in a span of about 20 years. A lot of a lot of, you know, issues that have been shaping itself for for many decades. You know, I'm in awe of reading the notes from that 2002 Highlander gathering, and seeing people like Janine Jackson, you know, talk about who was the director of fair fairness and accuracy and reporting and just talking about how she dreamed of a movement for media and technology for a really long time and I think the members of our network are a wonderful reflection of kind of those those dreams coming to reality. I know that 2002 might seem like a long time ago but you know what I've covered here both in part one and part two of this workshop is that the forces that have shaped media and technology are 100 years in the making. And, you know, I think it's it's wonderful to think about what we've been able to accomplish in just 20 years of us being a structured movement with a real political analysis. You know, a thing that I was going to run through for today but I think I'm going to jump ahead and close us out with one more round of quiz questions and finally decide who is our winner. And let me jump ahead. Cool. So if we can get some mentee, these are the last round of questions we're going to go through to decide who was the ultimate winner is going to get some wonderful prizes from us. So here we go. Question six. I think one of the six companies that owns the vast majority of media today, and I put, you can basically put in an answer and just try to try to take a guess who do you think is one of those companies that owns the vast majority of media today. So there are six of them today. And we got less than 10 seconds here, and we'll see the answers popping up. Here we go. All right. And I said, well, it's AT&T and there's a bunch of other correct answers and I believe I collected said it correctly. Yeah, so AT&T and Disney had a couple folks get that right. There are also a few more. And I see Disney spelling correctly, it's all good. I know it's moving quickly. There are others like Netflix, for example, is another one, believe it or not. Time Warner is another big one. Comcast is a big one that wasn't true, you know, even 20 years ago. So, all right, that was a tough one. All right. Here comes the next one, y'all. And actually we'll do our leaderboard here. See where we're at. Okay. So Vanda, congratulations. Oh, this leaderboard is going to be pretty active in the last couple minutes here. All right, here we go. Let's jump on in. Faster gets more points. Google, Android and YouTube are owned by which corporation? It's funny. I was just talking about this with my staff. Is it Apple Inc? Is it Alphabet Inc? Is it Facebook? And you have about five seconds. Pick the correct answer. Here we go. Ooh, wow, interesting. Oh, no, I forgot to set the correct answer. Oh, no, that's my fault. The correct answer was actually Alphabet Inc. And that's my bad. Hopefully I didn't do this with this last question. Oh, no, that's so wrong. Sorry about that. Let's see. No one gets points on that one. I'm so sorry. All right. Let's see if I got this right for this last question. So let's jump on in. Advertising today is largely based on what, and here are the options. Is it personal user data? Is it the TV show Mad Men, or is it commercials? And you've got about five seconds to respond here. All right. All right. No, I messed up. Oh, no. I'm so sorry. I did not get that right. Hold on. Let me make this adjustment here because that's not cool. That's the right answer. There we go. And that is the right answer. All right. I'm making sure y'all can't see the screen. Okay, good. Good, good, good. And we've got one more to go and let's, let's dive on in, present. All right. Question nine of nine. Here's the last one for those of you that answered correctly the last couple rounds you got your, you got your points. So Mark Zuckerberg owns which of these companies and you can select any or all that apply Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Messenger. Which of these does Mark Zuckerberg own? All right. Well, Facebook is correct. WhatsApp is correct. They're actually all correct. So wonderful. Let's check in with our leaderboard and let's see where we're at now. Okay. Final standings and it looks like, whoa, Benjamin with 6500 points. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations. Well played. Well played. As we as we close out here and I see that Benjamin and Lizzie and Vanda are top three. So I'm going to make a note of that for for the prizes. And we'll get some some cool stuff out. We'll follow up to get some information to see if we can get some cool stuff out to y'all. Now, to close this out and I know I'm slightly over time, but I also started slightly late. I hope you will hang with me. I want to make sure that we run through a couple evaluation questions, which will help us improve this workshop, but also shape the content for future workshops. So I'm hoping y'all can take a moment and just fill it out. You can slide from the left if you strongly disagree over to the right if you strongly agree. And the three questions we're just asking today is that you learn to learn a lot today. And stuff that you already knew. So that's also helpful to know what's the workshop interactive that the workshop meet your accessibility needs. These things will help us improve. As y'all are doing that I want to take the time to also thank you for hanging with me today. I especially want to thank the staff of media justice who put in a lot of work to produce this media justice fundamental series. I want to thank our ASL Spanish language and caption interpreters for helping ensure that our event is as accessible to everyone. And while I'm going through it I can cycle through to the next evaluation question which is just what's one thing that we could improve. So anything that comes to mind for you. If it's timing if it's more slides more videos more sound effects, or, you know, the particular kind of bit of feedback please share it with us. It will help us improve to dig deeper into our movement for media justice. Don't forget to join us next week for a workshop on racialized disinformation led by my colleague Aaron shields, which will happen next Tuesday, April 20. I put up a link, or there should be a link coming into the chat for you to RSVP for that workshop that's happening next Tuesday. More videos will help for sure and breakout room discussions absolutely. I think we can probably incorporate that in some of these upcoming workshops. Yeah, okay. That's that's a great suggestion letting folks know the tools that they're going to be using more connection time and breakouts. I feel that 100%. I just want to take that feedback. Alright, so wonderful I just to close out I just want to say again thank you to you all for hanging with me, and for being a part of media justice 101, and especially for those of you who are here for part one for both part one and part two. I hope you all have a wonderful rest of your day. Thank you.


Visual artists in my opinion play the role of communicating their ideas and information through art. Ideas can be intellectual, cultural, emotional, historical, or any combination of these. My name is Bhattavir Malik. I'm a New York based freelance illustrator and an illustration major student at the Fashion Institute of Technology. I agreed to take part in Unseen because this project is redrawing history and giving historical figures the representation they deserve.