Please provide complete citations for all of the sources you are consulting for the lit review. This includes: full author name, title of book or article, name of journal with volume and issue number --if available; date published, page numbers for journal articles.

Please use quotations judiciously! You may quote, but do so in moderation and provide page number for quote. Consider paraphrasing and providing page numbers in lieu of excessive quotations.

A literature review reviews secondary source material on a particular subject, issue, or theory. It provides a critical assessment of the literature, and provides a useful summary of scholarly work, in terms of the research questions asked, theoretical point of view, and methodological considerations.

Students are asked to write one literature review of 3,000 words (exclusive of the bibliographic citations). You will be taking one or several of the weekly themes and surveying some relevant scholarly articles, books, and other sources that are applicable to your research topic. Use the readings for the weekly theme you choose, plus identify no less than 5 and no more than 8 other articles, books, or other sources located in the Concordia University library.

Information to consult on writing lit reviews can be found here:

University of California Santa Cruz, How to Write a Literature Review, http://library.ucsc.edu/ref/howto/literaturereview.html

Another useful guide is: University of Wisconsin Writing Center, Writer's Handbook: Academic Writing: Reviews of Literature, 2001, http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/ReviewofLiterature.html

The Concordia University Library has some excellent resource guides at http://www.library.concordia.ca/help/howto/#.

Citation guidelines can be found at http://library.concordia.ca/help/howto/citations.html

Plagiarism will be taken seriously. Look at the Undergraduate Calendar Code of Conduct at http://registrar.concordia.ca/calendar

There is a vast literature on this. Here are some web resources:

The Drum Beat's
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) National Policies & Case Studies.

The Global Knowledge Partnership

International Development Resource Centre (Ottawa)

How do the poor use their phones

From WSIS, ICT for Development Platform, Geneva 2003

United Nations Development Program ICT for Development

Millennium Development Goals - MDGs

UNDP Human Development Report 2001

International Telecommunications Union ICT Statistics by country and region

See:

Robin Mansell, Ambiguous connections: entitlements and responsibilities of global networking, Journal of International Development, Volume 18, Issue 6: 901-913.

File is a powerpoint slide on Intellectual Property - more info than you'd want to know.

Other resources include:

Courtney Love Does the Math, her 2000 defense of Napster.

Calvin Leung. Digi-drama: Internet movie piracy in Canadian Business, February 13-26, 2006.

Michael Geist. U.S. Music Piracy Claims Mostly Fiction, Toronto Star, Feb 05, 2007:04.

Digital Copyright Canada

Laura Murray's Faircopyright.ca a great collection of resources.

CIPPIC on Copyright Reform

and more below...

Creative Commons Canada

Lessig's Free Culture

Free Culture-international student movement

Lawrence Lessig blog

The Free Expression Policy Project. Copyright Isues>

Siva Vaidhyanathan

A report below that has many many links on this topic and the general problematic of privacy and ICTs....

Communication Rights and the Right to Communicate in Canada
Draft 2.1, March 9, 2007

Outline

1. What are the Dimensions of Privacy as a Communication Right?
Why Consider Privacy as a Human Right?
Canadian Legislation
Toward a Privacy Rights Charter–Senator Finestone’s Private Bill (2000)
New Privacy Threats
Platforms for Privacy as a Communication Right

2. Theoretical Notions of Privacy
Legal Constructs of Privacy

3. Privacy and ICTs–New Challenges and Trends
Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFIDs)
Biometric Identification
Identity Theft
Children’s Privacy–Datamining in Commercial Websites

4. Federal Privacy Legislation and Governance in Canada
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The Privacy Act
PIPEDA
Access to Information Act

5. Privacy Rights Post 9/11
Surveillance Threats
Anti-Terrorism Act
Lawful Access
The Arar Report

6. Trade and Privacy
Deep Integration
Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia (OIPCBC) ‘Privacy and the USA Patriot Act’

7. References
Appendices:
The Privacy Act; PIPEDA; Privacy Rights Charter (Finestone)
People’ Communication Charter; APC Internet Rights Charter
Privacy Rights Organizations

Maher Arar:

Arar Commission Enquiry, Opening Statement. (2004). Submitted by Maher Arar and His Council to the Commission of Enquiry, 2004.
If link does not work check www.maherarar.ca/cms/images/uploads/Arar_opening_statementfinal.pdf

See also Maher Arar site
http://www.maherarar.ca/

Commission of Enquiries into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. (2006). Arar Commission Reports
--Report of the Events>Relating to Maher Arar: Analysis and Recommedations.
--A New Review Mechanism for the RCMP’s National Security Activities. Retrieved February 2007.

The Missing Women in BC:
Yasmin Jiwani. How We See 'Missing Women', The Tyree, June 21 2006.

The Feminist Media Project, UBC.
The Feminist Media Project was started by a group of concerned academics and journalists focused on a feminist intervention in media depictions of missing and murdered women, and the related trial of Robert Pickton in Vancouver, British Columbia, for 26 charges of first-degree murder in the slayings of women.

The website, which launched in January 2007, is under the direction of Dr. Mary Lynn Young, a faculty member at the University of British Columbia School of Journalism.

Note: These resources, with the exception of the GMMP, are US in orientation.

Carolyn Byerly. A Feminist Analysis of Media Conglomeration presented at Network of Women in Media, India Bandra, India, 13 January, 2004.

Carolyn Byerly. Questioning Media Access: Analysis of Women and Minority FCC Ownership
Data. "The Benton Foundation and the Social Science Research Council released four independent academic studies of the impact of media consolidation in the U.S. The studies focus on how the concentration of media ownership affect media content, from local news reporting to radio music programming and how minority groups have fared – as both media outlet owners and as historically-undeserved audiences -- in an increasingly deregulated media environment. These studies make clear that media consolidation does not correlate with better, more local or more diverse media content. To the contrary, they strongly suggest that media ownership rules should be tightened not relaxed."

Jennifer L. Pozner, Why Fixing the Media System Should Be on the Feminist Agenda, essay adapted for Reclaim the Media and NOW's NW Organizing Project from an essay in BitchFest: Ten Years of Cultural Criticism from the Pages of Bitch Magazine and in Alternet.

Women in Media and News, includes a section on Research on Media and Women/Gender, Pozner's articles and essays, and a section on Media Justice: A Women's Issue.

Global Media Monitoring Project, 2005. "On 16th February 2005 the world's news media came under scrutiny when hundreds of people in over 76 countries monitored the representation and portrayal of women and men in news on television, radio and in newspaper. A year on, groups in over 50 countries launched the results of that incredible effort and challenged the media to ensure that fair gender portrayal becomes a professional criterion like any other such as balance, fairness and honesty which all good journalists should aspire to in their work."

Media Report to Women. Industry Statistics.

Take a look at their media violence in Canada chronology.

A 2001 Canadian Teacher's Federation study:
Majority of Canadians believes media violence linked to youth violence in the community.

Obit of George Gerbner by Robin Anderson in Fair, 2006.

Su Jhally interview about GG at Media Education Foundation.

George Gerbner. Telling Stories, or How Do We Know What We Know? The Story of Cultural Indicators and the Cultural Environment Movement. Wide Angle - Volume 20, Number 2, April 1998, pp. 116-131.

Cultivation Analysis. Overview at Museum of Broadcast Communications.

Acuff, D. S. (1997). What kids buy and why: The psychology of marketing to kids. New York: Free Press.

Austin, M. J., & Reed, M. L. (1999). Targeting children online: Internet advertising ethics issues. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 590-602.

Buckingham, D. (2000). After the death of childhood: Growing up in the age of electronic media. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Center for Media Education. (1996) Web of deception: Threats to children from online marketing. Washington, D.C.: Center for Media Education.

Chung, Grace and Sara Grimes. (2005). Data mining the kids: Surveillance and market research strategies in children’s online games. Canadian Journal of Communication 30.4.

Cook, D. (2005) The dichotomous child in and of commercial culture. Childhood, 12(2), 155-159 .

Cross, G. (2004). The cute and the cool: The wondrous innocence and modern American children’s culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dale, Stephen. (2005). Candy from strangers: Kids and consumer culture. Vancouver: New Star Books.

Giroux, Henry A. (2003). The abandoned generation: Democracy beyond the culture of fear. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Giroux, Henry A. (1999?) Animating Youth: The Disnification of Children’s Culture. Online at http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/Giroux/Giroux2.html

Grimes, Sara and Leslie Regan Shade. (2005). Neopian economics of play: Children’s cyberpets and online communities as immersive advertising in Neopets.com. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 1(2): 181-198.

Gruber, S., & Berry, J. (1993). Marketing to and through kids. New York: McGraw-Hill books.

Harris, Anita. (2004). Jamming girl culture: Young women and consumer citizenship, pp. 163-172 in All about the girl: Culture, power, and identity, ed. Anita Harris. NY: Routledge.

Jacobson, L. (2004). Raising consumers: Children and the American mass market in the early twentieth century. New York: Columbia University Press.

Jenkins, Henry, ed. (1998). The Children’s Culture Reader. NY: NYU Press.

John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 183-213.

Kapur, J. (2005). Coining for capital: Movies, marketing and the transformation of Childhood. Rutgers University Press.

Kenway, J. & Bullen, E. (2001). Consuming children: Education-entertainment-advertising. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Klaffke, P. (2003). Spree: A cultural history of shopping. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press.

Klein, N. (2000). No Logo. New York: Picador Press.

Kline, S. (1993). Out of the Garden: Toys, T.V. and children’s culture in the age of marketing. London: Verso.

LaFerle, C., Edwards, S. M., & Leu, W-N. (2000). Teens’ use of traditional media and the Internet. Journal of Advertising Research, 4 (3), 55-65.

Langer, B. (2005). Consuming anomie: Children and global commercial culture. Childhood, 12(2), 259-271.

Linn, S. (2004). Consuming kids: The hostile takeover of childhood. New York: New York Press.

Macklin, C. (1996). Preschoolers’ learning of brand names from visual cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 251-262.

McNeal, J. U. (1999). The kids market: Myths and realities. Ithaca NY: Paramount Market Publishing.

Quart, A. (2003). Branded: The buying and selling of teenagers. New York: Perseus Publishing.

Ravitch, D. & Viteritti, J.P. (Ed.) (2003). Kid stuff: Marketing sex and violence to America’s children. Baltimore: The John Hopskins University Press.

Russell, R. (2005). Branding, bricolage: Gender, consumption and transition. Childhood, 12(2), 221-237.

Saunders, Eileen. (2006). Good kids/bad kids: What’s a culture to do?, pp. 77-94 in Mediascapes: New Patterns in Canadian communication, 2nd. Ed., edited Paul Attallah and Leslie Regan Shade. Toronto: Thomson Nelson.

Schor, J. B. (2005). Born to Buy. New York: Scribner.

Seiter, Ellen (1993). Sold separately : Children and parents in consumer culture. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Seiter, Ellen (2004). The Internet Playground: Children’s Access, Entertainment and Mis-Education. NY: Peter Lang.

Shade, Leslie Regan, Nikki Porter and Wendy Sanchez. (2005). ‘You can see anything on the internet, you can do anything on the internet’: Young Canadians talk about the internet. Canadian Journal of Communication 30(4).

Siegel, D. L., Coffey, T. J., & Livingston, G. (2001). The great tween buying machine: Marketing to today’s tweens Ithaca, NY: Paramount Market Publishing.

Steinberg, S.R. & Kincheloe, J.L. (Ed.) (1997) Kinder-Culture: The corporate construction of childhood. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

From Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films:

FoxAttacks "is a campaign that offers you real tools to DO SOMETHING other than throw things at the TV. Join us in forcing Fox to stop serving as a mouthpiece for the right wing's agenda. We at Brave New Films have been as shocked and outraged as you have at their consistent misuse and abuse of the term "news." Fox is not a legitimate news channel. They are a dangerous element in our democracy: dangerous in the way they influence other media, dangerous in the way they force stories into the mainstream without any evidence, dangerous in the effect they have on their viewers. But, just being furious is not enough."

The death of Anna Nicole Smith yesterday was a feeding frenzy for the national media, and coverage of the war was drowned out: NBC’s Nightly News devoted 14 seconds to Iraq compared to 3 minutes and 13 seconds to Anna Nicole. CNN referenced Anna Nicole 522% more frequently than it did Iraq. MSNBC was even worse — 708% more references to Anna Nicole than Iraq.

...and from DigitalJournal, Cashing in on Anna Nicole's Death

and Lynn Crosby in The Globe and Mail

FSG website

Obit in Guardian

Obit in NY Times

Excerpt from On Photography

1975 Interview in Boston Review

Tne New Republic review of Met's exhibit On Photography: A Tribute to SS

Angela McRobbie. While Susan Sontag Lay Dying. in Open Democracy.net, 11-10-06.

Robert Hirsch, review of Regarding the Pain of Others in Photo Vision Magazine

Debate 3: Should there be media regulation for content that could be harmful or offensive to children? (examples can include broadcasting media or the internet).

Probably the best way (and the most *fun*) to tackle this debate is by focusing in on a piece of recent legislation that aims to protect children and youth on the internet. The most recent attempt has been in the US through their Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) whose aims are to require that all public libraries and schools that receive federal funding block access to all social networking sites, chat sites and potentially (according to one interpretation of the Act) all blogs.

While DOPA is still in a state of turmoil now – it has since been (re)incarnated into the Bill S.49, Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act

Debates over protecting kids from salacious, illegal, offensive, or criminal content (and protecting kids from child pornographers) have been a constant since the internet reached popularity in the mid 1990s. Donna Hoffman and Tom Novak in their blog post from 1995 (available from their Sloan site, scroll down to the 31 Jul 1995 post) recount the controvery over the Marty Rimm scandal and mid 1990s debates over internet porn and legislation in the US - the Communications Decent Act of 1996 that was shot down --useful historical look. The Time Magazine cover above reflected media concerns and hysteria at the time.

Some other resources can be found below….

American Library Association. (2006). DOPA Information.

dana boyd. (February 19, 2006). Identity production in a networked culture: Why youth heart MySpace. Paper given at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Henry Jenkins.(August 2006). Four Ways to Kill MySpace. [blog]

Amanda Lehart.(March 17, 2005). Protecting teens online. Chicago: The Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Larry D. Rosen. (June 2006). Adolescents in MySpace: Identity formation, friendship, and sexual predators.

Larry D. Rosen. (June 2006). Sexual predators on MySpace: A deeper look at teens being stalked or approached for sexual liaisons. Short report 2006-01.

Ellen Wartella and N. Jennings. (Fall/Winter 2000). Children and computers: New technology – old concerns. The Future of Children: Children and Computer Technology 10(2), 31-43. At Future of Children.

Kurt Eichenwald, K. (December 19, 2005). Through his webcam, a boy joins a sordid online world. The New York Times.

Here’s an excerpt from a chapter I wrote:

CONTESTED SPACES: PROTECTING OR INHIBITING GIRLS ONLINE?
Leslie Regan Shade, Concordia University
Forthcoming in Growing Up Online,
Ed. Sandra Weber and Shanly Dixon (Palgrave, 2007)

Introduction: The DOPA Debates
While these sites were designed to allow their users to share virtual profiles of themselves to friends and like-minded users, the sites at most have become a haven for online sexual predators who have made these corners of the Web their own virtual hunting ground.Republican Representative Michael Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania, on U.S. House of Representatives debate on DOPA, July 26, 2006.

On July 26, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives passed The Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) of 2006 by a vote of 410 to 15. DOPA requires that all public libraries and schools that receive federal funding block access to all social networking sites, chat sites and potentially (according to one interpretation of the Act) all blogs.

Proponents of the Act contend that it is designed to protect children and minors from access to online sexual predators and sexual exploitation, which the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) estimates has increased significantly; one in five youth received a sexual solicitation over the internet in the last year alone, with teen girls the primary target, receiving two-thirds of the solicitations.

Opponents of DOPA argued that threats are more pernicious for children accessing sites in their own homes without adequate parental supervision. Said Democratic Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, “This legislation will actually drive children to go to unsupervised places, unsupervised sites to go online, where they will become more vulnerable to child predators.” Democratic Representative Diane Watson of California argued, “it sends the wrong message to our children, our parents, teachers and librarians. The bill would curb Internet usage as a means to protect children, a counterproductive method to achieving such an important goal. Rather than restricting Internet usage, parents, teachers and librarians need to teach children how to use our ever-changing technology. The information age in which we live offers so much potential to our children, if they know how to use it.” The furor around this latest piece of U.S. legislation purporting to ‘protect’ children online highlights the heated public debates that arise around internet and youth. Opinions abound; not all of them based on research, facts, or rational thought! This chapter examines the way in which the emergence of new media has typically elicited disagreement, polarized responses and panic regarding children and the protection of childhood, particularly in so far as girls are concerned.

Young people are avid users of social networking spaces such as MySpace, finding them to be a robust, innovative, and attractive method of communicating online to their friends and peers. Social networking spaces are web spaces where individuals can create their own online presence for uploading photos and profiles of themselves; within the larger web community users are encouraged to be interactive via posting lists of fellow users on their friends section, writing within the comments section, and letting other users link to their own spaces (Williams, 2006). The most popular spaces for youth include MySpace.com, Xanga.com, LiveJournal.com, and FaceBook.com. Fueled by the affordability and ubiquity of digital cameras and cell-phone cameras, these web spaces have also become lucrative. In July 2005 Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation purchased MySpace.com for $649M USD, which in February 2006 boasted, according to some estimates, 89 million users since its inception in late 2003. 150,000 new accounts are created every day, and its user population is equivalent to the 12th largest country in the world (Rosen 2006). MySpace now outranks Google for page views – ten percent of all advertising impressions across the Internet occur on MySpace, which is double that of Google (MySpace: Design Anarchy That Works, 2006). These figures have attracted diverse groups eager to tap into MySpace’s youth demographic, including retailers, entertainment companies, cell phone companies, and youth-oriented brands. Larry Rosen’s (2006) study of Los Angeles area MySpace users revealed that “the typical MySpacer has about 200 ‘friends’ with approximately 75 labeled as ‘close friends,’ many of whom they have never met” (p.2). MySpace clients use IM, e-mail, and post and read bulletins an average of 2 hours a day, 5 days a week. Combating pervasive negative media coverage of MySpace, Rosen asserts that MySpace offers positive benefits for teens: “more support from friends, more honest communication and less shyness both on and off MySpace”, providing “a forum for teenagers to develop a sense of their personal identity” (ibid, p.5-6).

Critics of DOPA argue that the legislation will create an even more pervasive digital-divide amongst children and youth who have broadband access in their homes and those that can only access the internet through their schools, public libraries, or community centers. If DOPA succeeds in banning children from established networking sites, it is unlikely that this will prevent children from doing what they need and want to do--communicate and interact with their peers in a society (at least in North America) that is increasing reticent about the public mobility of children, especially girls, without adult supervision. As well as censoring constitutionally protected speech, DOPA will also exacerbate the ‘participation gap’ amongst youth using and creating internet content, particularly for civic participation (American Library Association, 2006; Center for Democracy and Technology, 2006; Jenkins, 2006).