Media and Technology Stats and Studies – May 20, 2013

A soon-to-be published University of Wisconsin-Madison meta-analysis of data on more than 10,000 children in 15 countries is expected to show viewing international co-productions of Sesame Street has a positive impact on learning in children around the world. According to the University of Wisconsin, the study will show an average 11.6 percentile difference between viewers and non-viewers on “cognitive outcomes (including literacy and numeracy), learning about the world (including health and safety knowledge), and social reasoning and attitudes.” An NTI/PBS study recently showed PBS Kids’ TV and online media outlets attract a higher proportion of African American, Hispanic and low-income households, compared to their proportion of the overall population. A 2010 study of 600 pre-school children showed children who viewed PBS’ Sesame Street increased their ability to articulate scientific concepts by 100%.

Media Matters for America released Diversity of Evening Cable News in 13 Charts. The report looked at the race, ethnicity and gender of 1,677 guests and found that women did not make up more than 33% of guests on any of the cable news channels. Media Matters also found that Fox News had the highest proportion of white guests (83%), with MSNBC having the lowest (73%), and that African Americans were the “largest non-white group on all of the networks,” as 19% of the non-white guests Media Matters reviewed were African American.

Netflix released its ranking of the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with the fastest speeds. Google Fiber ranked first with an average speed of 3.45 Mbps, with Cablevision, Cox, Suddenlink, Charter, Verizon-FIOS, MediaCom, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House, rounding out the Top 10.

NTIA reported that 18% of rural areas continue to lack access to download speeds of at least 6 Mbps, compared to 100% of urban residents.

The Center for Democracy and Technology has released a report explaining the technical reasons why the report’s authors believe the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s effort to step up Internet surveillance poses serious national security risks. Currently, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) enables law enforcement officials to wiretap phone lines. The authority for tapping communications conducted via instant messaging platforms and VOIP platforms such as Skype is not as clear since these services rely on the Internet, rather than phone lines, to function. Among other things, the report concludes that requiring these service providers to build in intercept capabilities at endpoints exposes the United States to “serious consequences for the economic well-being and national security of the United States.”

A record year in political spending on local TV stations has led to a spate of broadcast mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity in the US TV broadcast industry. The revenues generated by local TV stations during the 2012 election cycle allowed them to make their balance sheets more attractive for investors. LIN Television, Nexstar Broadcasting, Sinclair Broadcast Group, and Tribune are among the largest groups leading this new wave of consolidation, the value of which could exceed $6 billion through 2014, according to Moody’s.

Clear Channel reports its iHeartRadio service has reached 30 million registered users. This is compared to 200 million registered users for Pandora, the Internet radio market leader. Clear Channel also reported 60 million unique users per month, compared to 67 million active Pandora users. Clear Channel attributes this difference to the fact that Clear Channel users can always turn to local FM radio stations for local content.

Media and Technology Stats and Studies – April 30, 2013

UCLA’s Children’s Digital Media Center found that among children between the ages of 9 and 15, those who use social media often are more interested in becoming famous than other kids the same age. Earlier this year, Pew found Blacks and Hispanics to be the most avid users of Twitter and Instagram. Interestingly, the Girl Scouts found girls who are interested in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) to anticipate that they will become famous at a lower rate (29%) than girls who did not report being interested in STEM (41%).

Pew released a study of civic engagement online. The report found people higher up on the socioeconomic ladder were more likely to “participate in civic life” online. Among Blacks, Whites and Hispanics, Hispanics overall were the least likely to be politically active both on and offline.

A Texas A&M University study found typed and voice-activated texting to be equally as distracting while driving.

Google reported that it has received more content removal requests from governments worldwide than ever before.

In a review of how well “covered entities” under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act have safeguarded patient data, the Department of Health and Human Services found most problems were caused by entities not being aware of the data and privacy rules in the Act.  Sixty-percent of problems were related to data security, 30% pertained to data privacy, and 10% related to data breach notifications.

Nielsen reports that affluent homes are more likely to subscribe to streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Plus, and Hulu. Homes making $100,000 or more were 85% more likely to subscribe to streaming services.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers found that while customers are reducing their talk time and using more data on their mobile plans, average revenue per postpaid customer with smartphones fell from $82.75 per month in 2011 to $77.79 in 2012.

How TV May Make Your Kids Smarter

by Joseph Miller, Esq.

Wasteful government spending is a legitimate problem that should be addressed, but it should not be approached with blinders on.  Many government-funded programs have been associated with positive socioeconomic outcomes.  PBS is an example.

Research on television viewing by children can often seem conflicting and confusing to parents, educators, and policymakers.  It is important, though, to distinguish between the effects of children spending too much overall time watching programming on television, computers, tablets, and smartphones, and the effects of the context in which children are exposed to content.  Accordingly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time for children under age 2, and no more than 2 hours of “quality programming” for children over the age of 2, preferably with parents watching with their children.

A robust body of research highlights some alarming statistics about the amount of video content children are exposed to. In 2005, a study published in American Behavioral Scientist found that children between the ages of 6 months and 6 years spend 2½ hours per day watching media content.  The study also found that infants are exposed to 1 to 2 hours of media content per day. Another study by Northwestern University released in 2011 reported that youth between the ages of 8 and 18 spent 8½ hours consuming media content each day, compared to a staggering 13 hours for minority children.  A recent University of North Carolina-Wilmington study further concluded that children spend an average of 4 hours per day with the television on in the background which, in turn, distracts children from play.  This excessive media usage has been tied to negative consequences in both health—namely, tobacco use, childhood obesity, and unhealthy sexual behavior—and academic achievement.  One study by the University of Virginia correlated Nickelodeon’s SpongeBob SquarePants with impeded academic performance.

The logical response from parents in light of these statistics would seem to be that they should ban their children from viewing all forms of media content.  Indeed, President Obama has implored us on more than one occasion to simply “turn off the TV” (see here and here). Policy makers may also view this research as a justification to point to public broadcasting as an example of wasteful government spending. These approaches, while expedient, ignore the role of content in producing outcomes the majority of Americans find favorable.  In short, these responses ignore context: the degree to which the media being consumed foster interactive, rather than passive, viewer engagement, and the extent to which such programming may actually improve circumstances when consumed in moderation and when paired with comprehensive educational strategies.

PBS is one of the strongest examples of quality programming that has been associated with improved educational outcomes:

• In 2011, PBS won 8 Parents’ Choice Awards for Television.
• A recent University of Pennsylvania/PBS Kids study revealed that children who watched Super WHY! scored 46% higher on standardized tests than those who did not.
• A Joan Ganz Cooney Center study showed that PBS Kids’ “Martha Speaks Dog Party” app improved vocabulary by up to 31% in children ages 3 to 7.
• Several studies have shown PBS Kids programming to be associated with positive impacts on children overall, but especially on children from low-income backgrounds or who are at risk of reading failure, among which children of color are disproportionately represented.

Anyone who is genuinely concerned about education and concerned about racial and socio-economic achievement gaps should also be concerned about PBS’ continued viability.

Joseph Miller, Esq., is Deputy Director and Senior Policy Counsel of the Joint Center’s Media and Technology Institute. More information on Mr. Miller and his work can be found on the Joint Center website.

How Can Community Colleges Change the Way we Think About Talent?

by Joseph Miller, Esq

Believe it or not, some high school graduates not bound for four-year colleges still want to pursue higher education.  But our system of higher education has other plans in mind for these students.  In the United States, if you don’t attend a four-year college immediately after high school, you essentially become red meat for employers seeking low-wage workers (if you’re fortunate enough to find a job at all) or for-profit colleges whose duty is to the bottom line, whether or not they meet the unique needs of each student.   In too many cases, community colleges have become either a choice of last resort or a choice that has lost so much credibility that many students no longer consider it an option.  Why attend community college for two years, if you can “get the training you need for a job with a future in as little a nine months,” as Everest College heralds on its website?

Raising the standards of community colleges would raise standards across-the-board by forcing for-profits to compete by providing student-centered learning, providing four-year colleges with a more diverse pool of quality applicants seeking additional education beyond the Associates degree, and raising the standards of the American workforce.  In a nation in which people of color are expected to make up more than 50% of the population by 2050, it is critically important to reform higher education in a way that teaches students of varying learning styles the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills they will need to compete in a global economy.

This will require us to shift the way we think about the potential of workers beyond the age of seventeen. By some accounts, age eighty is the new sixty-five for retirement.  Paradoxically, American workers internalize the message that their abilities are written in stone and what they have accomplished from age 0 to 17 will irreversibly determine the next 63 years of their working lives.  This myth provides justification to plutocrats, but is holding the rest of the country back.  It also flies in the face of a growing body of research suggesting that IQs are not fixed at birth, but can be improved with education.

On December 16, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies convened a roundtable discussion among education policy stakeholders for a results-driven dialogue to improve community colleges’ ability to educate the next generation of American innovators.  In the keynote, Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Mignon Clyburn urged participants to empathize with individuals who have the potential to excel but not the opportunities. Thomas Kalil, Deputy Director for Policy in the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, stressed President Obama’s goal to move America from the middle to the top of the pack of the world’s most innovative countries.   To do this, the White House has partnered with Change the Equation, the National Academy Foundation, and Skills for America’s Future to improve high schools and community colleges and strengthen ties between community colleges and employers.  The White House has also produced an inventory of STEM programs nationwide through the post-doctoral level.  According to Kalil, over $1 billion of federal investments in STEM are allocated to broaden participation by underrepresented groups.  Kalil acknowledged the critical importance of improving STEM education in early grades, but also said that retaining STEM students by reducing class sizes is important to keep students interested and engaged in STEM. A book entitled “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” summarizes other efforts to improve American competitiveness.

The nation’s challenge to improve STEM education is multifaceted and will not be overcome without significant effort from a variety of stakeholders.  Living conditions play a major role in academic achievement. Thus, any approach to reducing achievement gaps must address the circumstances of poverty and the circumstances of working while attending school.  Several roundtable participants raised other important issues that must not be overlooked.  Ajenai Clemmons, Policy Director of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and a roundtable participant, urged policy makers to include local elected officials in the discussion. Quentin Lawson, Executive Director of the National Alliance of Black School Educators, another roundtable participant, expressed the need to develop better ways to develop STEM instructors, especially STEM instructors from underrepresented backgrounds.  Linda Rosen of Change the Equation raised the issue that many elementary school teachers think of themselves as generalists, rather than science and mathematics teachers.  John Horrigan, Vice President of Policy Research at TechNet, said that data needs to be made available to the research community in order to understand where the “outliers” are that have been successful and develop initiatives to apply what works.

These issues only skim the surface of the many problems that need to be addressed before we accomplish true STEM reform.  It is only through a persistent and interdisciplinary effort that it will be achieved.  Accordingly, the Joint Center announced the formation of a task force to make specific recommendations to improve STEM education.  This effort must be results-oriented rather than simply another Washington discussion in which people drink coffee, eat cookies and go home.  The future of American innovation depends on creating a culture of lifelong learning that makes fewer reductionist assumptions about students’ intrinsic abilities.

Joseph Miller, Esq. is Deputy Director and Senior Policy Director of the Media and Technology Institute of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, DC.  More information on Joseph Miller and his work can be found at the Joint Center website.

STEM and the Big Picture: Preparing the Next Generation of Innovators

by Joseph Miller, Esq.

“Do what you love and success will follow.”  That is standard advice in any number of career advice books.  But too few students are inspired to love science, technology, engineering and math (“STEM”), and the students most likely to major in non-STEM fields, are the students who are least able to afford to.  By the same token, we must also ensure the next generation of Americans are able to excel in both STEM and non-STEM fields.

The value of STEM education is clear. Glassdoor, a site that crowdsources data on different companies’ working conditions, reports that the average starting salary for software engineers in Silicon Valley is $98,000.  For Google, the starting rate for software engineers can be upwards of $151,000.  These facts underscore the need to improve STEM education in low-income school districts, which are disproportionately comprised of African-Americans and Hispanics.

But many African-Americans and Hispanics are choosing not to go to college at all or, if they do decide to attend college, choose not to major in STEM fields.  A recent Department of Commerce report shows that, in 2009, just 22 percent of non-Hispanic blacks and 14 percent of Hispanics held bachelor’s degrees, compared to 54 percent of Asians and 35 percent of non-Hispanic whites.  Of these, just 17 percent of black, non-Hispanic and 21 percent of Hispanic college graduates majored in STEM disciplines, compared to 22 percent of white, non-Hispanic graduates and 43 percent of Asian, non-Hispanic graduates.

In his book “In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives,” Steven Levy describes a corporate culture that celebrates quantitative geniuses, while at the same time pushes employees to be creative and inventive.  Levy depicts Google co-founder Sergey Brin as quantitatively brilliant, but as being more interested in taking courses in swimming and gymnastics than in earning a Ph.D. in computer science.  Levy also describes Marissa Mayer, Google’s Vice President of Location and Local Services, who, before entering Stanford University, in addition to being a computer whiz, also excelled at dance.  In his book “A Whole New Mind,” Daniel Pink argues that “[w]e are moving from an economy and a society built on the logical, linear, computerlike capabilities of the Information Age to an economy and a society built on the inventive, empathic, big-picture capabilities of what’s rising in its place, the Conceptual Age.”

But many of the nation’s public schools are not preparing students for innovative settings like Stanford and Google’s. To satisfy No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act testing benchmarks, many public schools have begun implementing policies that downplay pedagogy and simply “teach to the test.”  These policies have been combined with drastic cuts to arts education.

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) reported earlier this year that it is minority students who have been hit hardest by cuts to arts education.   The NEA report revealed that only 26 percent of African-Americans between 18 and 24 reported receiving any arts education during childhood.  This reflects an extremely sharp decline from 51 percent seen in 1982.  For Hispanics, the percentage of respondents who received any arts education during childhood plummeted from 47 percent in 1982 to 28 percent in 2008.  On the other hand, the number of whites reporting that they received arts education dropped only slightly from 59.2 percent in 1982 to 57.9 percent in 2008.

To prepare African-American and Hispanic students for the jobs of the future, we must ensure that all students have the ability to develop well-rounded backgrounds.

Joseph Miller, Esq. is Deputy Director and Senior Policy Director of the Media and Technology Institute of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, DC.  More information on Joseph Miller and his work can be found at the Joint Center website.

The Good and Bad: FDA’s Fast-Track Approval for Preterm Birth Prevention

by Jermane Bond, Ph.D.

In February, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), through its accelerated approval regulations, approved and granted exclusivity to KV Pharmaceuticals to market Makena (17Alpha Hydroxyprogesterone Caproate).  The drug is also known as 17P, a synthetic hormone delivered by weekly intramuscular injection to slow the progression of pre-term birth (PTB) before 37 weeks of pregnancy, among pregnant women with at least one previous spontaneous PTB.  Although the drug is not for use for women with other risk factors for PTB or women pregnant with twins, it has been sold for years without approval.  Today, the drug just comes with a large price tag.

PTB is one of the leading causes of neonatal mortality in the United States.  Major risk factors for PTB include behavioral and demographic characteristics such as race/ethnicity, maternal age,  history of preterm delivery, stress, income, education, employment, housing, prenatal care utilization, smoking, alcohol consumption and marital status.  Already, the preterm birth rate is roughly 13 percent of live births, accounting for 500,000 infant deaths annually.

On March 14, 2011 the new 17P, Makena was officially brought to market, marking the first FDA approval of a drug for the prevention of PTB.  Subsequently, the prescription cost increased from $20 to $1500 per dose.  Recent studies support the use of progesterone supplementation for patients at risk for PTB.   The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has promoted the use of 17P injections since 2003, following two successful randomized placebo-controlled trials.  Research has shown that approximately one-third of pregnant women receiving weekly 17P injections have had successful outcomes resulting in the prevention of PTB.  And in 2008, ACOG issued a Committee Opinion indicating that progesterone for the prevention of PTB should be offered to women with a history of spontaneous PTB.

Some obstetricians, maternal health and public health practitioners, including family planning advocates, are outraged at the dosage price increase for 17P and have spoken out and written letters to KV.  As a result, the St. Louis drug company has been criticized for increasing the price of Makena.  In April, the company announced that it would cut the price by more than half (in fact KV reduced the dosage price to $690 two days after the FDA publicly invited competition by announcing that it would continue to allow compounding pharmacies to make and sell a generic version of the drug).  Now, instead of a pregnancy costing $30,000, a much improved price of $13,800 will make the drug more accessible.

Jermane Bond, Ph.D. is Research Associate in the Health Policy Institute at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. More information on Dr. Bond and his work can be found on the Joint Center website.

Video Games and Children of Color: There is More than One Compelling Interest at Stake

by Joseph Miller, Esq.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children was not surprising in light of the Court’s First Amendment doctrine or the Roberts court’s business-friendly stance on corporate speech.  For children of color, the need for data establishing a nexus between violent video games and real-world violence is even more compelling as children of color spend more time playing video games than white children.  In addition to seeking to address the effect of video game violence on children’s psyches, state legislators should also seek to address the impact of popular video games on academic achievement.

At first glance, it is difficult to conclude that the Court’s decision was based on ideology rather than the letter of the law: While the Roberts court has demonstrated a proclivity for protecting corporate and business interests (see, e.g. Wal-Mart v. Dukes, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion), Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in yesterday’s Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association decision was actually joined by the two justices widely considered to be the Court’s most liberal—Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Nevertheless, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito issued concurring opinions that can be read as a refinement of their doctrine protecting corporate speech.

The majority analyzed California’s state law from a strict scrutiny point of view.  To pass Constitutional muster, state laws abridging fundamental rights, such as the right to free speech and freedom of expression, must address a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored via the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.  In the context of free speech, this means that the state law in question must be designed to prevent speech that harms the compelling interest at stake.  Here, the interest advanced by the State of California was to protect minors from violent content in video games.  However, the majority reasoned that the scientific studies presented by the State of California to justify the statute did not prove a direct connection between violent video games and the asserted harmful effects on children.  Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia further stated that the California law was not the least restrictive means that could have been advanced because it was “under inclusive” — while the California law restricted the speech of game developers,  it did not restrict violence in other media targeting children, such as children’s books and television shows.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito deliberately avoided the “broader” issue of strict scrutiny, choosing to focus instead on whether the California statute provided adequate notice to game developers as to the standards that determine which content is too violent and which is not.  Thus, not only must a state law even remotely abridging corporate speech meet the strict scrutiny standard of review, such laws must be so specific as to require legislators to put themselves in the shoes of corporate speakers trying to determine what kinds of speech are prohibited.

Such was the disposition of the majority opinion and the concurrence, neither of which were particularly surprising or groundbreaking.  The strict scrutiny test itself remains largely unchanged, and the notion that legislators must consider the First Amendment from the point of view of speakers other than individuals is a bedrock principle, especially in light of Citizens United—this decision simply solidifies it.

Still, we are left with considerable uncertainty as to whether violent video games actually harm children, and clearly this is a matter that requires further research.  This issue is particularly important for children of color.  Last month, Northwestern University released a study that found that, on average, white children spend the least amount of time per day playing video games (:56), compared to blacks (1:25), Hispanics (1:35), and Asian Americans (1:37).  Not only could violent video games potentially lead to real violence, more time spent playing video games necessarily means less time studying.  Additional research and evidence is needed that firmly establishes these links, so that states can make the case for restricting the sale of video games to minors.

Joseph Miller, Esq. is Deputy Director and Senior Policy Director for the Media and Technology Institute for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.