Violence

It's a tough call. It's one of those areas that you always hope the "common sence / decensy" will govern the media's actions. There are many times when violence is something that the American people need to see. War needs to be accuratly represented as the monstrosity that it is, but the media needs to show meaningful material, not just senseless violence. A carcrash in which somebody's loved one perished could be considered important news, but if the media has footage there is no need to plaster the thing on the TV over and over again, forcing the family to relive their nightmare time and time again.

Viewers need to reflect when they see media and ask themeselves, "Now did I really NEED to see that or was it just there because it existed."

Violence

It's hard to monitor something like violence in the media because it comes in so many forms and is so prevelent. Violence is on the news all the time in footage from the war in Iraq or local shootings, violence is in shows like the CSI, Law and Order, and Without a Trace. It woud be nearly impossible to regulate violence over the air waves because in some forms the violence is neccessary and in other forms it is excessive.
The Public has the right to be informed, but we do not have the right to know everythig. In some cases knowledge can put peope we are trying to protect into danger. This is kind of off subject, but when Georaldo Riveira was in Afganastan and gave away the location of a top-secret troop mission, he put them in danger, for the sake of full disclosure. That said, knowing exaclty where they were did nothing for us as a television viewer. In the same manner, it does nothing for us to see horrendous shootings or murders. The shoc value isn't worth it

Violence in the Media

I do think the media should be allowed to show violence to certain levels. How are we to know what is REALLY going on in the world and make our own decisions about things if we are being sheltered?

I think that maybe the viewer could be warned that what is about to be shown is violent and they can choose to watch it or not. That way people have a choice if they see the violence or not.

Also, I don't think violence should be shown during the regular hours that young children watch television. I don't think many parents would want their young children to see some of those things.

media violence

I think that the media should be allowed to show violence to a certain extent. And when I say that I guess I am saying they can show the actual violence during the same hours that have been set by the FCC for shows censored for children.

I definatly think that the public should know the truth, but there is a time and a place for all of that. They also need to make sure if they are saying they are showing the truth that is exactly what they are doing. Not just what they want us to see or turn the story and make it bias one way or the other.

I know that there are always going to be people that do not want to see the truth, but the way I feel is. Let's face it people the world is not a wonderful place so don't try not to see what is going on around you. You should be aware of your surroundings and not shield yourself from it. It may not all be pleasant but it is what it is.

Media and Violence

I think the media should show violence to a certain extent. I do not have a problem with the media showing any violence unless it is being taken too far like they are doing with the Iraq war. NBC showing the Cho video as soon as they received it was probably not the best idea. I would, at least, had the families/friends of the loved ones killed along with the authorites to have seen it first and then consulted with them whether it would have been okay for everyone else to see it.

media awareness

It depends on the event, the location of the station and the content of the violence to make a clear judgment. I think the release of material is up to the families of those affected. Other than this, in the case of Cho, u tube would of had the images on the air that same night regardless of if NBC had released them or not. NBC displayed the videos and pictures tastefully and appropriately, all things considered. The families and friends of those killed and injured are the ones that should have been considered more in this decision. But, over all, location, content captured and event are the three main ingredients on rating how appropriate violence is on television.

Patriot Act/Media

I think the government should look into what information the media has. Hey, they do it to us citizens, why not the media????? In the post-9/11 era, we can not take any chances on any information that the government does not know about only to come back and haunt us later. The Patriot Act is a controversial issue. Some people like it. Some do not. Personally, I do not like the government mettling in my business, but if that is what it takes to help keep our country safe then I am all for it.

v-chip

Oops... looks like I'm a little late with this one... Oh well.
With v-chips, I think the bottom line is that they do not replace parenting. They can limit the violence or sexual nature of what is shown on a given television, but indecent nor inapropriate material will still make it into a show rated TV-14 or lower.
The idea behind v-chips is a good one, and they are a great tool, but you still need to monitor for children.

V-Chip

I'm going to have to agree with the majority on this one. I don't think the V-chip has been very effective and mostly because no one takes the time to use it. I personally wouldn't want to figure out how to use it, much less type in a code every time I wanted to watch my show. I don't know anyone, friends or family, that use the v-chip.

I do think that it is an excuse for poor parenting. Except for extenuating circumstances like a single parent who works all the time, like Johnathan said. Parents should be fully aware what their children are watching. If they are not, it's not the television's fault it's the parents.

I understand there may be times when children sneak watching an off limits show. But I did that when I was a kid and I turned out just fine!

V-chip

I would have to say that I don't think that the V-Chip or the FCC is very effective in regulating the shows or content that young children watch on a daily basis. Thought the chip has good intentions it is just really hard for it to actually block all of the bad or inapproriate show or movies that kids are or should be watching.

From things that have been talked about in other classes it is hard for kids to even get the channels that they would need to be watching in the first place. The Disney channel and others like that are not even a part of the basic cable package, which means people are going to have to spend more money just to get those channels and most won't do that.

I also don't think that the FCC is doing its job in regulating what shows are shown during a certian time frame. When it was brought to my attention that there were certain commercials and shows that should not and would not be shown during a certian time frame I decided to watch and see how well that was working. Needless to say it didn't work too well. I saw some things on tv that if I had kids I would not want them to see and they were during what the FCC calls "Prime time hours," the hours that kids are most likely going to be home watching tv.

I guess I am trying to say that I think the V-Chip has good intentions, but just needs to be updated along with the tv regulations of what can be aired at certian times. But if I was to be realistic about it the real answer is. Parents you need to be watching what your kids are watching and make it your responsibility to be the regulator in your household.

V-Chip is lame

From the get go, I have never liked the idea of the V-Chip. I think that it only promotes lazy parenting. For starters, there is no need to have televisions in every room of your house. I think for when you have kids, there should only be televisions in common living areas and the parent's bedroom. That makes it much easier for a parent to monitor what the kid is watching for the most part. Now I know that there are a lot of families nowadays where there is only one parent, or for some reason maybe work, that the parent or parents are not able to be home a lot of the time, so if that is the case, then maybe a V-Chip could be useful, but for the majority of families, it should not even be a choice.

I know that growing up, my parents always knew what I was watching and they made sure that I only had access to channels that they felt were appropriate. Besides, the only thing I wanted to watch was cartoons or stuff that was age appropriate, I always thought stuff like Miami Vice and LA Law were boring because I didn't understand them. Now I know that in today's world, it can be easy to say that there are so many more channels, but face it, if you have a kid and they aren't watching Nickelodeon or Disney or whatever, then the channel probably needs to be changed and that is why you as a responsible parent intervene.

If I had the V-Chip, I would not use it because I would be selfish and would not want to have to worry about putting in or remembering a code every time I watch the Sopranos. I feel that most people would agree with me and would not bother with the chip as well. It's all about being into your kids and knowing what they are watching. Parents are just lazy and soft these days.

V-Chip

This is just another classic example of how technology is trying to ease some of the burden in parenting, but it ultimately excuses moms and dads from the responsibility of monitoring what their children view. Rather than counting on an outside source for child rearing help, strict guidelines should be set and enforced. I feel like a broken record saying this over and over, but parents have been capable of raising children since the dawn of time. It's the lackluster and lethargic attitude of some parents that should be addressed instead of the desire of a young kid wanting to see explosions or scantily clad sex symbols.

v-chip

I think I'm with Jarod on this one. An overwhelming portion of the American populace just has no earthly idea how to use the V-chip feature built into their television set. Is this a problem? I really doubt it. I fail to believe that people would use the V-chip even if the possessed the clairvoyance to operate it. Honestly it's just too much effort.
When the adult in question, who activated the doohickey in the first place, sits down to watch TV after spending a long day doing whatever people do when they're not watching TV, the last thing he/she wants to do is exert the extra energy it takes to punch in the three or four digit code to turn the V-chip back off. Honestly, if the adult in question doesn't have the energy to sit down with his/her kid, discuss what he/she is watching on TV, and take an active role in the kid's life, ensuring that they live a long, happy and fulfilling existence?
I mean come on, parenting is difficult and just because somebody brings a new life into the world is no reason to bust hump and actually raise a human being. That's what TVs are for.

V-Chip

I don't think it is effective. I don't know anyone or me for that matter that has this in their television sets. Nowadays, anyway, kids will find there way around this v-chip and watch any program they want. The parents are not going to be able to know all the programs that they think are inappropiate for their kids and block it. The parents are going to have to be extra cautious of what their children are watching. I don't think the v-chip will help all that much.

The V-chip is not effective.

I can honestly say that I do not know one person who uses the V-chip in their television. Not an aunt or uncle, friend, or other relative... literally nobody. One of the reasons that I think the V-chip is ineffective is because who is teaching you how to use it? The manual that came with your TV? Please, first of all it's a well known fact that no guy reads a manual for a television. We men are preprogrammed to know how to work a TV. You take it out of the box, plug it in, put batteries in the remote and away we are. The V-chip is what guys like to call "a process" meaning that in the time it takes to figure out how to use it we could have done 12 other things that are deemed to be more useful... plus Sportscenter is on an lord knows that nothing is more important than that.

Also, I think that some people view the V-chip as a form of regulation. Simply put, that we are filtered from certain content. This bothers me. Personally I don't like the idea of missing out on something and when I am not allowed to view something, well that is going to get to me.

Now I know that this is primarily designed for children... and that it came about shortly after the Columbine Massacre in response to the viewpoint that children were seeing too much violence on TV and that it was effecting the way children saw the world. Well, if you ask me the V-chip is no excuse for poor parenting. Seriously, you should know damn well what your kids are watching on TV. You should be right there watching it with them, no excuses. The television has become a babysitter in this day and age, how it morphed into that I have no idea. If you are going to let your kids watch TV unregulated, then make sure you are having a dialog with them about what they are watching. So many people are afraid to talk to their kids these days. Be a parent, or at least try. Sit down with your children and set the guidelines for what they should be watching and then enforce it. Or find an alternative to too much TV time. It's OK to play with your kids - they just might enjoy it.

V-chip

The V-chip does keep programs from showing up, but only when children can't figure out the password or learn to watch around the blocks. Bottom line is: the TV is not the babysitter. it is not the FCC's job to regulate what your children watch. Parents should be more accountable for what their children do, then none of this would be a problem.

wikipedia

I would use wikipedia in a paper, but only if that citing was backed up with another citation. I trust the site when researching, but only when I already have a clear understanding of the topic. The site is a good tool for research, but considering that anyone can contribute to the definition or a topic, it can be a tricky tool if you are not careful and do not do other research.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia, by large, is pretty reliable. Yes it is updated by common people, and yes, mistakes are possible, but there are enough people that check and update the site, that it keeps it in line. Since people cite a good deal of their research, you can track their research to more reputable sources, and it gives you a great leg up on knowing where to look. Nobody should trust wikipedia for any kind of academic research, but sometimes it is a great road map for knowing what to start looking for and where to look for it.

I'm surprised Johnathan is the only person thus far to admit (more specifically) he's used it as a source in a research paper. I think, although the chance of misinformation exists, Wikipedia is darn close to being a very reliable source. Maybe I haven't been sharp enough to catch it or perhaps just lucky enough to avoid all the false information on the site, but I have yet to have my confidence in Wikipedia shaken. And Johnathan, I'm with you. I use Wikipedia in papers frequently.

Using Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a good source to find information on anything. I would cite/use Wikipedia for a paper as a source. In fact, I have used it on a paper and my professor had no problems with it. Most of the time though, I would spend extra time double checking to make sure that the information on Wikipedia is accurate. For example, I am not going to use anything that sounds ridiculous, but my experience with Wikipedia has been that their information is accurate and also very helpful.

Wikipedia

When writing a paper, I don't think that Wikipedia is a reliable source of research information. Personally, I do use it every now and then just to get an idea about something, but I would never use it for a paper. There are too many people out there who submit false or inaccurate information.

Wikipedia

I would not trust wikipedia. Yes.... it is a good site to go and look up certain information, but to totally use it as a source is not a good idea. There are people from all around that can edit things on there not to be true. Personally, I would check the encyclopedia first before going over to wikipedia.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not to be trusted, that said, it is a great source to se how others view a certain subject. I often use it as a starting point and then verify the information I need elsewhere. I do not think it should be referenced in scholarly works, unless that work is on the culture of media. While many people post knowledgeable and intelligent items, it is the few who blatantly corrupt the system who are making it unreliable.

iTunes, etc

I’m guilty, I’ll admit it. I’m a pirate, it’s true. But aren’t we all? I was an avid illegal downloader back in the day (by avid, I do not mean excessive, but a ‘normal’ amount). I have since reformed and now use the very legal iTunes. (and thanks to daddy’s credit card, it’s just like being free, I kid). My conscience is clear. iTunes and similar sites are fantastic because they are so easy to use. Now if they only had The Beatles…

Parody/Fair Use

While the issue of parody in broadcasting and fair use can be tricky, I feel that the examples we were shown in class were clear-cut. If anything is on SNL it is obviously a parody and within the realm of fair use. Of course there are times when the line is more muddy. I tend to think more things should be allowed into the sphere of fair use.

Music and iTunes

iTunes have improved the world of music. With this program, anyone can choose to buy just the song they are interested in, without having to get in the car and pick it up in the music store. I personally find myself buying more music from the comfort of my computer chair as opposed to standing in a music store. iTunes also promotes music well, if not better than music stores because of the attainable information without have to stop a teenager to ask.

iTunes and music sharing will do nothing but improve listening.

Parody and fair use

Depending on the topic and the way you use the "art" will depend on if it is a libel suit or not. In the case of SNL, i think it is fair use. Every one and everything they parody is in the public eye. It is very case by case subjective, and i think it should be up to the artist. It is the argument between keeping the original art safe and not keeping other people from being creative.

iTunes et al

Don't remember if I post on my own topic or not, so I'll keep it short. I think that iTunes and similar movements have the potential to greatly reform the music community. I think it's unfair that artists, the people responsible for the music, get a very small cut and loose the rights to manage their own music. I believe that there is a long way to go before things are set right, but it's moving in the right direction finally.

Fair Use

Fair use needs to be a permissible reason to avoid libel suits. I don't really see how either of these cases represents libel, but I guess the author could be offended about having his characters malformed. Most parodies are unflattering of their source material, but sometimes this message is the purpose of the parody. It's very difficult to parody a private figure and if I remember correctly, public figures have a much harder time proving libel. Main point, if all parodies were open to libel suits...we'd probably never have them.

Fair Use

I don't really know if fair use is a reasonable excuse to get yourself out of a libel suit, but I also think that their are other circumstances that have to be considered.

But I do think that you should have some ground to stand on when it comes to fair use, but I guess if you look at it from one way or another you could vailidate both sides.

I really don't have much to say about this topic, but maybe after class I will understand it a little more.

I-Tunes

I think that Itunes has had an effect on the recording industry, but I don't think that it can be blamed for all of the problems that the recording industries have been having.

I think that now that the world and most Americans have become so lazy that it is so much easier to just type the song in online and get it off the web. But I know that I not only get it off of the web, but I also buy the cd if I really like the song. So I don't think that itunes is the only reason for the problems.

Fair Use and Parody

Fair use and parody is definitely a valid excuse to get out of a potential libel suit in almost all cases. Without parody and fair use, we could have no Saturday Night Live or Weird Al. I think it is important to our culture that we are able to make fun of these things and parody them.

Even though people might say that we should all just create our own original stuff, I think that some of the best ideas have come from people who have taken something and made it better. That is what fair use and parody allow us to do. Taking that away from Americans would be a terrible thing and limit our freedoms as a society.

Sharing Music Online

I think that music sharing has had a lot of complicated effects on the music industry. I think the Internet has most importantly provided a way for artists to make a good living themselves without having to worry about being signed to a major record label. The Internet has also provided an opportunity for artists to have their music heard around the world, when ten years ago, their music would not have made it outside of their local town.

However, downloading is hurting a lot of artists, but more importantly it is hurting the record companies. Which for the future, is going to lead to the arguement of do we need record companies? I think that the music business itself is going to have to endure the most change but it is not going to go out without a fight. Now is the time in the music industry for change and I think people like Tunecore are going to be the most successful as far as the record distribution. The music industry as we know it is in a serious crisis and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Fair Use

I really do not understand the full definition of fair use. All I know is if you are using someone else's work, make sure you credit their work. Personally, I like to come up with ideas on my own instead of using the work of another person. It would be a lot easier on myself and everyone else. If you happen to get sued for libel, make sure you can prove that you are telling the truth with the right facts to support your work.

Online Music Sharing

I think downloading music online has changed the music industry for the better. You have more options online to download a song instead of an entire CD that might cost you a lot of money. You can listen to a certain portion of a song as a free preview before deciding whether you want to buy it or not. Plus it's faster to get. I am not that big into music, but even someone like me sees this as a good thing. Rather than going to a music store and having to spend more money on a CD packet, I can download a single song online that would cost me less money.

Online Music Sharing and the Recording Industry

Itunes and online music sharing have changed the music industry in many ways. It allows you to purchase the songs you want to listen to instead of having to buy an entire CD. It has also allowed local artists, who wouldn't normally be able to get their music heard, out there for people to listen too. One thing I don't really like about Itunes is the number of times it will allow you to download the same song. I feel that if you have bought the song, it should be yours...it shouldn't matter how many computers you put it on. My husband is a computer technition and we have gone through several computers throughout the years. It is such a pain when Itunes makes me re-download the songs I have already purchased.

As far as online music sharing changing tomorrow's music...I think it will get more artists' names out there and give us a wider variety of music to listen to.

Online Sharing and the Music Industry

The music industry is slowly benefiting from the on-line promotions and sales that is the new face of iTunes and Napster and other on-line music sites. The music industry is finally doing something about the "loss" (and note the quotations) of the on-line downloading phenomena of the late nineties and into this century. While sites like iTunes and Napster have helped to drive the price of a CD down to $9.99 per full volume there are certain conditions. First of all, it's not a physical copy of the CD, instead it is an electronic copy downloaded straight to your iTunes library. Also, the downloaded album has a transfer limit, meaning that it can only be burnt to a CD or switched to a different iTunes library about 3 times. Is this worth the 3 dollar reduction of price as compared to a physical copy of the album? NO! It's not worth it. Just like before when downloading was apparently free and somewhat not illegal just yet, the music industry is still thriving. Thanks to the measures and restrictions on these downloaded albums, having a physical copy still benefits the user. You have all the songs in the same quality in the right track order in the original formatted style. With the downloaded material you have tracks of conflicting quality with long pauses in between tracks that aren't on the original volume. Not to mention that you miss out on the album artwork... bummer :(

So, the CD still has some worth - however if you want one track you aren't going to go buy the album. Insert iTunes and Napster. However these are mostly publicity tools in my opinion. Does iTunes really do enough single sales in volume to truly benefit the music industry? Nope. The new wave is unsigned local artists who put most of the works available to download on the net. If you like them then you go out and buy their album to support them, so that maybe one day you can go see them live in concert coming to an arena near you. Finally being a musician takes a little work. Better get a good publicist, because your "album" deal ain't going to cut it any more.

Fair Use Doctrine and Libel Law?

Fair use is essential to a democratic media. It successfully allows for parodies and other forms of satire for copyrighted works. These types of commentaries on the originals should be upheld as a form of free expression. Without them, we would be facing even more instances of conglomerates and other cases where a multitude of works were owned by a handful of corporations. These would then become forever locked away... never to be heard or seen again. The beneficial thing about parodies is that it generates interest in the original. Trust me, someone is waiting out there for a satire on Mork and Mindy, so that they can re-launch the original back into circulation and benefit off the publicity. It's a classic pattern of development. Take South Park's, "The Passion of the Jew" - which was a clear parody of Passion of the Christ, a famous Mel Gibson production. Not only was the South Park version wildly popular among it's cult following, but it led some of those viewers to watch the Passion of the Christ to fully understand the South Park parody. Genius! Both parties profited.

Now in regards to libel? Well the relationship of Fair Use to libel is loose at best. Is there even a landmark case here? I could see it being an issue in copyright law but not in libel cases. Someone wasn't paying attention in mass comm law if they think that these two principles are closely related to each other. Show me a case and prove me wrong.

Getting to the issue - libel is libel and the only real defense in a libel case is the truth.

video news releases

I think that they could be considered news worthy if they were done in a professional manner. I don't think they should just be used as a way to fill up a day with news. I guess on whether or not it is ethical will depend on what is being said or the topic given. I think that it is easy to get away from being ethical when it is a quick news relase. You tend to not be really concerned about who sees it and what is said.

This is a lazy way of doing journalism, but I think it fits the time frame. In todays time we are constantly looking to find the easy way out. However this is going to end up hurting the crediability of news and media in the end.

VNR's

VNR's can be both positive and negative. For news stations, they can help fill up time on a slow news day, and they can help the network save money by not having to pay someone to go get a story if they just receive it from a PR firm. I think that VNR's do create lazy journalism. This in turn, could cause reporters to eventually be replaced unless they get off their butts to go get the story. VNR's will only give networks reasons to fire more employees to cut costs.

Also, I have a problem with just getting your video from one source that is not objective. If you want to just take one side of the story that is biased and run it, then what is going to stop others from just releasing their own video. For example, where does this end. I mean it is not to unimaginable that the White House start releasing their own packages to news outlets, and not letting others report on stories. I could really see something like that happen, if that is what journalists accept.

VNR

I really do not have an opinion on this issue one way or another. All I am for is the media to be honest and accurate with whatever information they give us. Where ever they get it needs to be from any credible source. I hope that is not too much to ask although, I doubt it. The media nowadays can be lazy.

VNR's

I don't see an ethical problem with journalists using video news releases as long as they inform where they got their information and make sure the story is unbiased and newsworthy. I suppose that maybe VNR's could promote lazy journalism,but I agree with Laura's comment. Journalists are paid next to nothing and on top of that the job is stressful. With that combination I'm sure that it's hard to stay motivated. I don't see anything wrong with journalists using outside help as long as they make sure the VNR's are newsworthy and don't overuse them.

Video News Releases

Video news releases are a double-edged sword. On one hand, it make the journalist's job MUCH easier, on the other hand, it ensures the PR firm gets a story on the air. If it is a valuable story that causes interest in viewers and is actually news, than there is no problem in the publishing on the news. The problem is when journalism does not happen to change up and re organize the VNR to make it an unbiast news story. VNRs can be ethical journalism, but it is up to the journalists to make it into real news.

VNRs most definitely create lazy journalists. Regardless of if the journalist turns the story into real news or not, the VNR does part, or all, of the work for the journalist. Not that this is bad thing. Journalists hardly get paid anything, therefore, having someone else help them do their work is justifiable because of the low pay.

VNR's

I think VNR's are ok for news broadcasts if it is made clear who has produced the information. In my opinion, it's no different than using a press release. If the news station is pssing the VNR off as a legitimate story that they produced.. I'm not ok with that. But I think the distinction should be made.

I don't really have an opinion if VNR's... I suppose they do encourage a bit of lazy journalism... but if a journalist or news station is going to be lazy... they dont need VNR's to help facilitate that problem. I

Media Sensationalism

I do think that in some instances there is too much media sensationalism. I think that when this happens it sometimes tends to take away from the importance of the story and makes the viewers focus more on how over baring the whole story is. I guess one example would have to be the Anna Nicole Smith stories. It is getting so out of control the amount of coverage that is going on. It is fine to talk about her if you want to do it in a respectful way, but come on the girl was a human just like all of us, and the media is showing her no respect. I think that this is something that has started to evolve more over the most recent years, now that it is more about ratings and not as much about news worthy material.

News Sensationalism

I do not like it in the news at all. Trying to scare people or use it to get ratings is not good. It is stupid. Meteorologists tend to do this a lot. Maybe because they try to prepare the viewers for the worst case scernario. Other than that aspect, I do not think sensationalism belongs in the news.

News Sensationalism

News sensationalism is a bad thing for all news outlets. I hate when reporters try to make nothing into something by sensationalizing. It is something that we must face now though, since our society is growing accustomed to 24 hour news outlets and the Internet. With each of those outlets, you constantly have a space to fill, so on slow days, you have to start making your own news. I think that the bigger problem we need to look at it how much news do we really need. Also, we need to start making the news more efficient and to make it better since so many people seem to have a problem with the way it is represented. A lot of people are complaining about news now, so we need to do more research to figure out what is working and what is not.

I see stories get sensationalized so often, that I do not even pay attention to it anymore. If I see a story like something almost happened, then I don't pay attention and I know that it must be a slow news day.

news sensationalism

Of course sensationalism harms the media and every source. Sensationalism occurs when you twist a story to make it news and emphasize on minute facts that don't really make the story. This harms the source and the media. It is obvious because a lot of people complain about the news and sensationalism because it makes chicken salad out of chicken shit. But, in their defense, regardless of what is happening in the world, the news still has to happen, fill the full hour, and be on time. If chicken shit is all you've got, you still have to make a great newscast.

The best example I’ve ever seen happened in okc when a story tease had something to do with "A child almost drowns in a neighborhood pool" wow... looks like you almost had news.

News Sensationalism

News sensationalism definitely harms the reputation of any given media source. I believe news sensationalism is part of the reason the general attitude towards news media is increasingly negative. It’s so commonplace for a story to be over-emphasized and ‘sexed’ up that it losses its effectiveness… therefore encouraging the news media to sensationalize even further in order to grab viewers and readers attention.

My definition of news sensationalism is making a story appear to be more of an influential and pressing matter than the facts actually warrant. Often times this will include manipulating a story to seem life-threatening or life-changing.

My favorite examples of news sensationalism are usually from the local evening news. I will be minding my own business, watching Oprah, when a commercial for the 5 o’clock news comes on with a lead like ‘the cure for cancer is found!’ or ‘are deadly toxins in you kitchen cabinets’ and suddenly wanting to know what the real story is. However, the real story is always far less catchy than the commercial hook makes it appear. The cure for cancer is only in the trial stages for rare forms of cancer only found in albino mice and the toxins in my cabinets are only lethal when drank in large quantities… it never ends up being what you hope for.

Bloggin'

I’ve got to admit it… I love celebrity gossip. I don’t know why and I wish I didn’t because it’s kind of trashy, but the truth remains. Celebrity blogs fall under the definition of news, but that does not mean they should be broadcast with the same frequency and prominence as legitimate local and national news.

As far a being reputable goes, some sites do a better job than others. The nature of celebrity gossip itself is somewhat suspicious so the sites parleying this information aren’t always reputable. Some blogs do genuinely try to remain truthful, backing up sources and pictures and labeling unconfirmed gossip as such.

It really bothers me when this kind of story makes headlines in the local and national news. There will be times when celebrities warrant headlines on channels like CNN and MSNBC, but when they are the lead story everyday for two weeks, that is a problem. When I want the latest info on Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears, I turn the station to E!, not a 24 hour ‘news’ channel. The celebrity culture of our nation seems to have created the need for these blogs which in turn have influenced the news.

Celebrity Bloggs...

Celebrity blogs can be news. Seems to me like it depends on the reader. Everybody has a slightly different conception of "relevant news." There are actually two important questions implied by the question. What is news? And what is a celebrity? To me, both seem highly relevant.

News is the information that people need and/or the information they think they need. These two things are not always different and they're not always the same. All people have niche interests. Blogs are a great tool to fill these niches. Therefor, if they are not always news, they at least have a high potential for being news, to somebody.

Now, at first glance, it seems odd to put the words celebrity and credible together. What makes these people any more credible than Billy-Bob-Down-The-Street-Digs-Holes-In-His-Front-Yard-For-No-Apparent-Reason? Well, what makes them celebrities. They rose to public attention somehow. Could it be that they're doing something better than everyone else?

Here, let's look at an example. I'm a video game freak. I float from game reviews to news about things changing in the industry. It's an interest of mine that I stay on top of pretty relentlessly. Shigeru Miyamoto is a celebrity in the gaming world. He is the man who created Mario, Donkey Kong and Zelda, three of the biggest games in the history of games. I would consider any blog entry by him to be news, hands down.

I'm sure a similar example exists for just about every other niche interest.

Celebrity Blogs...

My take on celebrity blogs is that it is not news. It's a lot of people that follow around people because they want to know what is going on in their lives. It's just about our love for gossip. It is sad that some peoples lives are so bad that they care where Britney Spears went to eat breakfast or if Hugh Grant is still with his girlfriend. That is not news, it is simply gossip, and we are a really nosey country.

The sites are reputable for gossip, but they are not news sites. Now some of these sites have been very clever and they want to try and disguise themselves as news sites, but 90% of them are just nosey sites that report celebrity mistakes as fast as possible. There is no way that I would ever visit Perezhilton.com to find out about any real news story. But if I want to know what kind of drugs Anna Nichole had in her system when she died, than I might check that site instead of CNN.com or MSNBC.com. These sites have their own area in our country, but to report any sort of news and to be accepted as being seriously credible is not acceptable.

Advertising in Sports

Advertising in sports has a really interesting effect on me. For the most part, I am indifferent to the ads because there are just so many of them. Unless you have an ad that is really, really funny or just separates itself, then I am not going to pay attention to it. I actually think sponsoring a segment of the game, or some sort of highlight reel or thing in the pregame/postgame show is more effective than running a commercial. There are just too many commercials.

I really do not feel that advertising affects us as much at home as it does the viewer at the house. It is easy to block out ads, by getting up and getting something out of the fridge or talk to someone on the phone when you are at home watching the game. However, when you are actually at the event, the television timeouts almost force you to focus on what is going on around the stadium. If I am at an event, and I am waiting for the action to start, I might see a Ford ad and think nothing of it, but for some reason, I will remember that Ford sponsored that team or the arena.

All in all, I think that there are so many commercials that they are almost ineffective when it comes to advertising during sporting events. Advertisers need to come up with more creative ideas that simply do not affect the game for the people in the stands.

Celebrity Blogs as News

I don't personally consider celebrity blogs as news. I don't have a problem with magazines like "US"or "People"or shows like "E True Hollywood Story," but I would never rely on them for information. They are purely for entertainment. There are times when I think the coverage is WAY over-done! I think the issue of Anna Nicole definitely needs to be put to rest as well as Britney and her drama.

Celebrity Blogs

Overall, I do not care about celebrity blogs or news or whatever. I think celebrities in general get too much coverage when it is not warranted. Anna Nicole Smith (R.I.P) and Britney Spears to name a couple. The media constantly shoves these people down are throats so much it makes me want to (you get the idea). There is other news that is more important than following these celebrities' personal lives all the time. Get a life, people.

Celebrity Blogs as News

Celebrity blogs have very little news value to me. I really don't care what Britney's ass looks like after she falls on a patch of ice outside a nightclub in New Delhi. Anna Nicole... she's dead, that's about it. The commotion of her death rivals that of JFK's. What did Anna Nichole ever do to advance America? Porn? Playboy? God Bless the U.S.A.! So Lindsay Lohan is drinking again... predictable? Uh-huh. The bottom line is that if we stopped publicizing the activities of these stars then they would probably straighten up. If Britney's cooter wasn't all over TV and magazines she would eventually throw on a pair of underwear and wear shoes when she goes out of her home. It's unfortunate that we live in a society where we care more about the lives of celebrities then we do national politics. Here's a new route to go with, lets promote real issues like we do celebrity gossip... ala The Daily Show, it seems to be working! No but seriously, could you imagine a tabloid style news magazine? I'm sure one already exists but it isn't nearly as promoted as well as say Star or National Enquirer. Let's work on that.

Blogs

I don't think that celebrity blogs are not something that I consider news. I actually had never looked at any until the links got sent for class. I think that the blogs run along the same lines as the US weekly and the other magazines on the shelf. THey don't give news worthy information they basically just talk trash about celebrities.

I would also hope that these blogs are never looked upon as sources of news, because if they do our intellegence as a population would would have the lowest IQ ever.

I thinkt that these blogs need to stick to being a source of entertainment and that is all.

Advertising in Sports

It's difficult for me to have an opinion about advertising in sports. I'll be the first to admit that my feelings on major sports in America is somewhat (ie extremely) biased. I'm not a fan. In any sense of the word, so my observations of sports are very limited. From what little I have seen, advertising has always had a close relationship with sports. Many sports are used for advertising, and many sports use advertising for their own gain. There are countless products that revolve around sports. I guess the real concern is when the advertising is unrelated to the sport and detracts from it. The quote presented about the proctology exam hit home (hot damn, a pun) with this concept. There do seem to be examples though, GE had an add in which they used the concept of playing baseball at night to increase their popularity. I liked the ad. It was a good ad, but baseball and electricity are two different things.

It's really an unavoidable crossover. Americans, time has shown, love their sports. And associative advertising tries to pair the things they want to sell us, with the things we love. Like it or not, it's not going away.

Advertising in Sports

I personally do not think at this time that advertising in sports is a big problem. I think that in some cases having advertisments is good because you usually have a group of people over to watch the games. I think the advertisments are good ice breakers or conversation starters.

However I do think that the advertising companies are now making the business really cut throat. It has gotten so competitive that it is on baseball walls and just the thought of having them on video game seems a little extreme for me. I actually heard that they may put advertisments on your phone.

I do think that there are so many advertisments today that they are actually killing the telvision ratings of shows because people are starting to go out and get dvr's. I am not sure how that really works, but I don't think it is good to not have the viewership during the actual airtime.

Overall advertising doesn't seem to bother me all that much mainly because I am so use to it now. But i do think if it does continue to increase it will start to become more and more bothersome. This is something that I see happening in the future, but hey what can you do, they are only doing their job.

Advertising

To be perfectly honest, I question how effective advertising is during sporting events. It's one thing to notice a Nike swoosh on a jersey and an entire different bag of marbles to have the desire instilled in me to purchase Nike merchandise once I leave the stadium. Does anybody feel compelled to buy an F-150 truck when they see the Hornets just because the team plays in the Ford Center? Maybe Toby Keith... But most of us are indifferent to the ads. The lack of a call to action = a waste of advertising dollars. Hell, make stadium seats more comfortable and spacious and THEN I'll consider buying your product. Until then, be prepared for my eyes to dart past your colorful ad in the arena and onto to Chris Paul. Or maybe the Honeybees. Okay, only the Honeybees. I didn't realize basketball was played during those games until a week ago.
- Daniel

Advertising in sports

I personally don't have a problem with advertising in sports. To be honest, I really enjoy the commercials during the superbowl! Some years, depending on who is playing, I am more excited about the commercials than the actual game!

I do think that advertising can be good and bad for the actual team. It can be good because it brings in money for the team. It helps pay the salaries to the players as well as keeping the facilities nice. In a way it helps us because if sports teams weren't receiving money from advertisers I'm sure the price for a ticket would be more expensive. On the other hand, there is potential threat for advertising to be bad for the teams. If one player is constantly getting media attention and getting paid to do commercials that could cause tension and jealousy with the other players as well as creating a prima-donna.

All in all, I think that advertising in sports is more of a good thing than a bad thing.

Advertising in Sports

I'm having a hard time finding the issue here. Is advertising during sports that much different than advertising during primetime? Is advertising at ballparks not product placement? Unfortunately money rules, especially when it comes to sports. Athletic teams demand high revenue in order to pay their players. Teams are businesses... cut and dry. It is up to the owners of those teams to whore out their outfield walls, their hockey boards, the baseline scorers table.. it's all expected. I think that without some of these ads modern sports wouldn't be what it is today. I know from experience that some youth baseball programs couldn't survive without hanging a few banners from dentists and restaurants in the outfield. I understand that professional sports has no shortage of money, but it has become part of the game.

It's ultimately and exchange. One company is giving some advertising in exchange for some money. Lord knows what that money pays for, but knowing the sporting world it probably buys a few pairs of sneakers. You want a real topic? Try professional athletes who exploit their image for money. Now there's an issue.

Sports Advertising

Advertising in sports has really never bothered me. I can see why there is so much of that in sports, especially the more popular sports like football and basketball. Businesses want to be able to sell their products to a large audience. The Super Bowl is a prime example of this. Everyone is tuned into watching the game. At the same time, here is the chance for some of these businesses to use that towards their advantage by selling their products. People become interested in some of it and buy it. It is gotten to the point, now, that star athletes are being used to sell ads. This equates into big cash. Making the big bucks, because if it was not.... there would be no reason why any of these businesses or corporations would bother us with their crap. As long as we buy there stuff, they will always be around.

Deportes

You’ve got to love the way everything in sports is branded: from the Ford Center to the Chevrolet Player of the Game, to the State Farm NFL Pro Bowl, to College Game Day built by the Home Depot. Sports, both amateur and professional, have been plastered from head to toe with advertisements. I do not believe these ads have marred the game because the game will always be the game… regardless of who it is sponsored by. These ads do, however, make the broadcast itself a bit ridiculous. But sports fans have no problem overlooking the extraneous packaging. And when it comes to sports, ads are almost always entertaining. Lots of people watch the Super Bowl solely for the ads. As far as athletes being prima donnas because of the attention and notoriety they gain from advertising goes, the majority of athletes make a seven-figure salary before any additional income from endorsements. So I suppose the prima donna thing comes naturally, the ads only give it a national audience.

Sports advertising

Advertising in sports has nothing to do with the game. There is a very obvious break between the game and the advertisement and it would be difficult to do other wise, so I see no problem in sports advertising. This does not destroy the game nor does it set up business to be bad in the future.

However, I do think that making some players stars will hurt the game mentally and later physically with their plays and success in winning depending on how the fame effects the player in focus. This makes the not so publicized member of the team feel less self worth, and think less of their abilities. This will either entice him to get better or cause him to crash. How the media effects the team really depends on the individual in the spotlight.

I have no problem with "advergaming" but I am also not invested in the product at any level.

Gatekeeping

Our generation will be the future gatekeepers.
I really don't have much of an opinion on gatekeeping because there are SO many gates to be kept that you can not pin it on one individual or a group of individuals. We should all take personal responsibility to gatekeep when we are acting as journalists and bloggers. There should also be some external gatekeeping to keep journalists in check with the information they put out. There should be some government intervention, but when it all comes down to it, in a perfect world everyone would gate keep for themselves.

Gatekeeping

I think gatekeeping in some ways can be good and bad. Good meaning you, at least, have someone out there to keep an eye on something that could be out of line. Bad meaning, a bias effect. That a certain gatekeeper might have a bias in an article or story reported, which could have a major effect on how the public sees it. So in a lot of ways, I do not know if gatekeeping should completely be ruled out or kept. I guess I am neutral on the topic.

Gatekeeping

Gatekeeping in todays world is a problem that is very evident in todays society. I don't really think that there should be a lot of gatekeeping. I think that some things need to be looked at before they are sent out for the public to see but I don't think that it should be a way to keep some messages away from the public. I feel that gatekeeping more recently has been used more for only letting out the opinions of the gatekeepers. It is another way to keep the public informed about only the stuff certian people want us to know. I don't really have much else to say about this except that it is not something that I think is going to go away anytime soon.

Gatekeeping

Gatekeeping is a problem. It's not new, but it is a problem. The issue with gatekeeping in modern times is that it goes without notice. Most of the American public, or at least I'd assume, was aware of newspaper editors and television managers, but I'm not so sure that they realize that the internet also falls victim to bias and selective offerings. Search pages imply that they do exactly that...search, but in actuality, they're really good at indexing. Like all things indexed, they fall into hierarchies and orders.
It's also pertinent to note that they are not always predictably flawed either. An algorithm is a very exacting way to do a process, usually a process that is too work intensive for us to see the end solution, so here, as with many things, the unexpected may arise.
This could be a plus, but even though internet searches are through gateways, the problem is somewhat self corrective. We all use google, because it works, or at least because we are all under the belief that it works well. If we stop believing this to be the case, google's power will significantly decrease. There are plenty of competitors waiting for google to slip up.

Gatekeeping

I think that gatekeeping can be a problem as far as bias and not getting the whole story. I also think that it's inevitable. The people who report the news are always going to have their own opinions about a topic and they also have to answer to somebody (an editor) who has an opinion on the topic. Even if a reporter tryes to be objective there is still the fact that you aren't seeing the whole story. Only the "juciest" and most "newsworthy" information is shown during the short newscast. In order to get the whole story, people should check out the information for themselves. That way they can make an educated decision on how they feel about the subject.

The Gatekeepers

Gate Keeping in the media is a major issue. There are a lot of people who decide what gets aired and what does not get aired. Those gatekeepers include station managers, station executives, and advertisers. All of these people in different ways decide what gets aired and what will not. The station managers and executives will determine what gets coverage depending on the station's ownership and their views. The will also decide depending what gets aired depending on the FCC's regulations on what could get them in trouble. The executives also want to make sure that the advertisers stay happy and that they will not get mad and pull their advertisements if the content is offensive to their product or to the company who provides the product.

The gatekeepers of the future are not going to be that much different from the gatekeepers now. Advertisers and webmasters will still have a huge effect on what still gets posted. It just depends on how much money these websites/blogs want to make. If they want to sell advertising and make a lot of money then the advertisers will want to make sure that there advertisements are not posted all over websites or pages that are going to get them in trouble or make there product look bad. However, if a blog/website is not looking to make any money or sell any advertising than a site could post whatever they want.

Television, radio networks and music labels will also be gatekeepers for blogs and other Internet sites by demanding their content to be taken off of websites due to copyright infringement. They will want to make sure that they are paid handsomely for the use of their content and will act as gate keepers to make sure that there content does not get used improperly.

Gatekeeping Issues

I think that gatekeeping is inevitable in today's media outlets. Ultimately it is the reporters decision and then that of the editor to determine content and how much or how long we see that content. Breaking it down even further, the news director will often dole out stories to the members of his newsroom. It is then up to the reporter to find an angle on the story and then to report it. Therefore what we see on TV is actually just a percentage of what the original story is.

Because of the time constraints of today's TV news shows and the page limit of today's newspapers, there has to be "gatekeeping"... at least in a sense. Now when gatekeeping turns into a bias, that's when we begin to have a problem. Stations such as Fox News tend to have a political gatekeeping slant as to what they choose to cover. Therefore, they are not giving their viewer ship an unbiased, ethical view on today's news stories. Other stations and news outlets are equally as guilty, however these organizations need money to operate and that money comes from rich, important types. These rich, important types tend to have certain beliefs and ideologies that they would like to see "attached" to their generous contributions. And lord knows we aren't supposed to bite the hand that feeds us. Read the wire copy... better yet cover the story yourself. Be your own reporter.

Gatekeepers

I don’t suppose I spend much time thinking about the gatekeepers of the media. Of course there is a part of every story that we aren’t told but I’ve never felt like information wasn’t available to me. Every channel/station/etc. has an agenda, a bottom line that they cater to, but when you know that before you consume the product, you can disseminate what is right and wrong and decide what you believe. I don’t know, I really don’t have a whole lot to say about this subject right now.

The Fairness Doctrine

Yes, it violates the 1st Amendment. If that isn't enough (although it certainly should be), I believe Scott had a great point with the hypothetical situation of 90% of the public sharing one ideology with only 10% of the public feeling differently. Is it then "fair" to devote half of the reporting to cover this minority stance? In today's world, countless outlets provide coverage for every opinion, and I also am reluctant to support governmental involvement (i.e. potential censorship) in the press.

No me gusta el Fairness Doctrine.

Tony and Caleb's presentation

I know I'm a little late, but I still maintain the resurgence of completely respectable journalism is in reach. As discussed in class, the demand for late-breaking news causes some of the problems - such as not being able to thoroughly investigate stories due to time constraints - and can only be remedied by a joint understanding between the public and journalists that news reports will benefit greatly from being more accurate rather than timely.

Fairness Doctrine

I think that in todays time we are in desperate need to have the fairness doctrine. Since there are now a lot of people with a lot of different views that things need to be addressed in the media accordingly. There is never just one side of an issue, you may however like one side better than the other but there is going to be someone else that feels differently than you do. I do think that having this type of doctrine is very important but I think that it is going to be hard to keep seeing that everyone these days only see issues and want issues there way or no way.

Fairness Doctrine

Hmm, the left wants to talk as loud as the right, the right as loud as the left. If they get equal air time it'll just be left to who can out shout the other person. I don't believe the fairness doctrine is the answer to the problem. I don't think lack of coverage of the right or the left is the problem. I was under the assumption that news media already aired conflicting view points. Crossfire wouldn't be near as interesting if everyone agreed. The time may not be equal, but at least they're both there. In a media sphere where it's already black or white, right or left...where's the grey. Am I completely naive? I thought the majority of the American people fell somewhere between the extreme left and right. Where is their voice?

Credibility

I don't really think that there is a huge problem concerning making up stories in todays news. I feel that if there is a problem with this though that it should definatly be addressed. The public is relying on the sources that we have to get there information and for it to be accurate and realiable. However I do think that this could very well be a problem in the blogging world. It has been said by others that it is a lot easier to get away with not telling the truth in a blog than in an actual paper. The bloggers in the blogging world are not held to the same standards as actual publications. So though I have not seen this to be a huge problem I do think if it does become one it should be take very seriously and acted upon immediately.

Licenses and the Fake news

Is it really necessary? I understand that there is a need to keep journalists and news industries honest, but are the current checks and balances (blogs included) not doing the job? If anything I agree with Nick Gillespie in the fact that it's only become easier to watch the watchdog. Dan Rather didn't need any one to take away his licence did he? In any job, if you don't perform your duties correctly or proficiently, unless you spend your entire life brown nosing, you don't last. If a actor or actress (isn't actor the pc term for both now?) makes a horrible movie, then people are less likely to pay to go see his or her next flick. It's the same for journalist. Less trust by the people + less favor by the editor = smaller or no paycheck.

Fairness Doctrine

The fairness doctrine for journalists is an interesting idea. I think that all sides of an issue should get the chance to express their views over an issue. But that was if we lived in a perfect world. I personally think that it is a tragedy that the liberal side is not represented nearly as much as the conservative side on the radio spectrum. However, there has to be some responsibility for the viewer/listener to not necessarily believe everything they see or hear. They must for themselves research and find out both sides of the issue to determine what they believe or not believe. Sometimes, it just seems as if too much responsibility is put on the media companies and none is put on the consumers of that media.

Licenses for Journalists

At first glance, the idea of licenses for journalists that can be revoked for irresponsible reporting sounds like a good idea. However, I just feel that it would not work and that the system that we have in place already works well enough. If you develop a system of licenses, then obviously there has to be a committee that decides who's license gets revoked and for what. By doing that you are censoring journalists and that simply cannot happen. For example, if I write a story about the government that may be critical of the current administration and the committee deems it as "irresponsible" and revokes my license, then they are censoring my message, even if it is correct or good for the general public to hear. Most of today's journalism companies systems for handling an irresponsible reporter are that if you are acting irresponsibly in your reporting, then you are just fired. I think that is the better way to handle things, just so that journalists messages are not censored by some sort of licensing committee that could threaten the true integrity of journalism and free speech.

Fairness Doctrine

I don't think the fairness doctrine would be able to work today. One thing is, I don't think too many jounalists would be happy about someone telling them what to write about. Next, there are millions of opinions out there. For instance, bloggers. Would the fairness doctrine apply to a blogger? How would we regulate all of them out there? Also, there are so many different ways to obtain information now. If you don't like what you are hearing and you believe it is too one-sided you can simply change the channel, get on the internet or grab a paper. I agree with Cory when he said the media works hard to deliver what people want instead of what they need. I definitely think that altering the way the media delivers news would cause a problem with ratings.

False News

I have to agree with what everyone else has been saying. I don't think there is that much of a problem with journalists falsifying news. There are too many people out there to catch them. I do think they stretch their stories to sound more newsworthy sometimes and they also leave out certatin information that may negatively expose a sponsor. I have noticed working in newsrooms that negative stories about their sponsors are avoided in order to keep them happy and keep the money coming in.

Anne and Martin

The fairness doctrine would not work today. First of all, it was found unconstitutional by Congress because it violates the first amendment. Next, it would take too much time and money for it to be followed. It is the job of a journalist to report the facts, not to send transcripts to everyone they talk about.

tony and caleb's presentation

False news is not the problem in broadcasting, funding and fact checking are the problems.
If I were a journalist getting paid $18,000 a year, I would not feel a huge urge to go the extra mile it takes to check out all of my facts. That aside, I feel the facts are stretched more than made up. It is reflectance rather than malicious behavior that is to blame for false information. Sensationalism goes a long with fact stretching.

Fairness Doctrine

This is a gray area for me. In terms of what one can use and what one can't use, the fairness doctrine comes into play as a measuring tool for fair use. Some examples are using copyrighted materials for educational purposes, using an image for parody or commenting on an original. This all stems from problems of monetary loss and the ever alluring "deep pockets". I think that artists tend to get a little sue crazy sometimes. It usually happens after the pinnacle of the career but before the Casino concert tours. One day and artist wakes up and says, "Crap. I can't afford to buy wal-mart oatmeal this month... I wonder if I can find a Christina Aguillera song that sounds like something I hummed in the shower about 20 years ago." I think that there are legitimate reasons for some copyright infringements and sometimes there are no excuses period. It all stems back to a character issue of the perp. Moral and ethical values are disappearing in the world of media. We have developed a generation that knows where to go to get free music and movies. We have nobody to blame but ourselves. If you look at specific court cases regarding the fairness doctrine, you will find some rulings to be complicated, relying heavily on variables for truly unique situations. I think that a court should step up and offer a stronger precedent for the fairness doctrine. Give some strong guidelines that are not so broad in nature. It seems almost too easy to prove fair use in some cases and sometimes too easy to prove that you were infringed upon. This is an issue for the courts to decide, however we need to bring a legitimate case in front of the courts so that they can make a clear ruling... and that we will have to wait for.

False Stories

I really don't think there is an issue here. The very article that we were asked to read gave perfect evidence as to what steps are being taken so that this doesn't turn into a problem. For example, ombudsmen are ever more present in the industry now. But it's not like we need them, the public does a fair job of checks and balances. There is a good chance that when you write an article or report a story that somewhere out there, there is an expert on the very subject that you are writing about that is waiting on pins and needles to prove you wrong. Say you make a mistake, well then here comes the letters to the editor and trust me, someone reads those. The Oklahoma Daily tells me that they usually print every letter to the editor that they receive... with the exception of one person who sends multiple letters to the editor in a days period. What we are focusing on here a couple of stories out of a thousand that were allegedly "false". Lets take a look at where those people are now. Let's start with Dan Rather. Forced out of his job after the network aired a story in which an army of Internet users assured Dan that he was wrong. Even after an apology he was ousted. Credibility ruined. There is incentive enough to strive for credible journalism. Everyone here has a conscience... you live with it. If you mess up, it will be the first thing to tell you so. If you can handle that feeling then by all means go right ahead. There are your checks and balances. I don't think that this is an issue at all.

Fairness Doctrine

The fairness doctrine is something I’ve learned about previously (Mass Comm Law, etc.) but never really thought about. I don’t believe it is/was a negative force or control in media, that said, I highly doubt it could work with any level of success in today’s media marketplace. The media works so hard to give the people what they want (instead of what they ‘need’) nowadays, that to alter the recipe would undoubtedly cause a ratings disaster. Now, I’m not talking liberal/conservative, right/left, liberal media bias/overly conservative; I’m simply saying that people expect certain views and opinions from certain media outlets and altering that networks viewpoint would have an adverse affect on the almighty dollar. And we can’t have that now can we.
(My posts are always so short... you guys are making me look bad!)

Post for Tony and Caleb's Presentation

I do not believe falsifying stories is a widespread problem in American news media; however, the few journalists who choose to falsify information give the entire industry a bad name. A negative or damaging story on the actions of journalists is much more likely to make national news than a positive story about a hard-working ethical reporter. When a reporter at a highly respected publication or network is caught lying or bending the truth, competitors latch onto the story. This, in turn, raises doubt in the minds of the American public. As the article stated, a majority of Americans already believe journalists can be dishonest and unethical so damaging information is just fuel to the fire. Of course there are reporters who cut corners and don’t research topics as thoroughly as they should, but this can be blamed as much on newsroom cutbacks as the journalists themselves.
A revocable license to practice journalism seems unlikely and unnecessary. To employ such a license, we would have to define who qualifies as a journalist. Would bloggers get a license? What would be the penalty for writing and reporting without a license? There are far too many variables for the idea to actually go into practice. I think such a license would violate out freedom of speech.

Falsifing Stories

I do think it is a problem that the media does falsify some stories. It is not good to mislead the public when they usually count on you (the media) as a #1 source to receiving information. Also.... if it happens to be slander or libel, that could lead to serious trouble of whoever is doing it. The media, whether it is television, radio, internet or the newspaper, have the responsibility to report the accurate facts of something to the public. There is no excuse for falsifing stories in any situation.

Feb. 27

I think that the marketplace and the needs of the public do have a conflict between the two. One is what we think the market place expects us to tell the public and then you have the public wanting to know more than what the media is telling us as the public.

The thing that people have to understand is though as the public you want to know the truth about what is going on around you, you are also not the only one that may read the paper or watch the news. As the media they have to make sure they are appeling to a large audience. Not everyone wants to hear the truth.

I also think that it is a hard and fine line between the two. It is hard to understand being a person in the public to know what the media market has to conform to, and as the media having been a part of the public at some time has to find the fine line of getting out the news and media but not crossing the line of what is allowed.

I think that this is going to be something that we are constantly going to be disscussing expecially since times have changed and there is a lot more going on in the world. But who gets to decide what the public needs to know.

Pressures of the Marketplace and Needs of the Public

The pressures of the marketplace and the needs of the public have a strong relationship, yet an intriguing conflict in our country. No matter what, the public's needs will never ever completely agree with the pressure's of the marketplace because the content that will be provided due to the pressure's of the marketplace will only agree with most of society and not all of it. Because of this, broadcasting can never appease everyone which will eventually lead to the disappointment of some viewers. Someone's needs will be left out. The only problem though is that there is no real way to change that. You can't really complain to anyone, you can't really tell your cable provider exactly what channels you want or that you only want content that features this or that. They will try to force you to conform your needs to the needs of the majority of the public. For years those viewers who were left out had no power.

That is why the Internet and TIVO or DVR systems are so popular now. We now have more control/power than ever. Our anger at the fact that for years the marketplace never allowed us to request or make any sort of changes in the content that we need or when we needed has developed into us developing technology that will allow us to in most ways be in charge. We have now demanded our control and are now exercising it through other media outlets. I truly hate that anyone feels that they have the right to censor anything that airs on television because of its content or that they even feel the right to think that they know my needs as to when or what programming I should be watching. Pressures of the marketplace take away from the needs from some members of the public, but it is good now that the pressures of the marketplace are threatened by us taking more control of media outlets by choosing the content that we view on either the Internet or from our digital recording devices.

Rotten Apples

Let's take this analogy and run farther with it than anyone in their right mind ever intended...

The Marketplace is media and the public is the shopper. The shopper could be looking for anything, but in this case, let's say she's looking for fruit. No, it doesn't have to be fruit, but I like fruit. Write your own analogy if it bugs you that much!

Ok, fruit. The underlying theory residing in the marketplace is that the shopper will continue perusing fruit until she locates that one apple that shines brighter and tastes sweeter than all others. I've decided that the shopper should be a "she" and probably of some ethnic descent. If the individual was a white male, he probably wouldn't be allowed to visit the market in the first place. Digression aside, the other vendors, unable to compete with the unparalleled apple, would be forced to seek another venue, or disappear from the market long enough for everyone to forget about them.

I don't think the theory should be scrapped, it definitely has some good points. Besides, it has been a really long time since I've had a really good apple. The marketplace does provide a nice battleground for competition, and those that really have something to offer can excel. Not only that, but we see things at the marketplace we may not just love, but that we need, like bread, vegetables, or fish. What self respecting marketplace wouldn't have a big decapitated fish head for all to see.

There are some problems though. At some point, somebody jacked up the rent on stall space. In order to survive, vendors had to let people cover the fronts of their stalls with posters and fliers. In many cases the fliers are numerous enough to hide the apples. That's all assuming that you even like apples. Perhaps you like some really obscure fruit that most shoppers couldn't even pronounce. If it isn't cost effective for the vendor to carry it, you won't find it in the marketplace. That leaves you sad, with an empty nagging feeling in the pit of your stomach. Speaking of not finding things in the marketplace, we just assumed that the marketplace even housed some kind of uber apple. What if a really good apple didn't even exit. What if all the apples were bad. What if the shopper never learned how to pick a good apple.

The Marketplace and the Needs of the Public

When dealing with the Marketplace in terms of "broadcast television" one can say that we are limited in access. We do not yet live in a world where we can pick and choose which channels we view on our tv's. Instead a room full of people decide what we watch, for long we will watch it and if we will get it at all for what we pay. This is not an ideal marketplace. This is why the internet is so popular. It has a vast amount of information almost all of it completely unregulated. People feel free to express themselves on the net through channels such as this (blogging). Think about this, how long does it take you to browse through all the channels on your tv? I tried and could see what was on all of them in a little under 5 minutes. Now try and see what "channels" are on the Internet... good luck, see you in a year or two, that is if you stop sleeping to sort through all that is on the net. The Internet is the channel out there that has this type of access. Radio...nope, satellite...please, the Internet is the only true marketplace out there. Just like the salons of the romantic era, every viewpoint is expressed free of censorship.

As to what the public needs, well that seems to be a very individual question. No two persons media needs are the same. People like to see different things, while MTV may entertain your average 14 year old prepster, it ain't getting it done for grandma. This is why the Internet works. Grandma can go and choose what she wants to see, unlike TV where she can only see what is available to her. If grandma doesn't like what she sees on the net then she can create her own net channel (if she is computer literate). The public needs to have access to it all... to suit their needs, I mean if it is truly to be a "marketplace". Yeah. Freedom in media. Let the people decide. Does Democracy not apply to broadcasting? It doesn't feel like it.

The Marketplace/The Needs of the Public

There are so many issues between the marketplace and the needs of the public, it is hard to know where to begin. Media ownership and consolidation are problems as are the public’s expectations of media.
One of the major problems in media is the marketplace catering to an increasingly base audience. In recent years, it seems that most media have overly-sensationalized their content.
I feel like there is real hard news out there, but when you turn on CNN, they are broadcasting the latest details of Britney Spears downward spiral or debating who Anna Nicole Smith’s baby’s-daddy could be. Is this really what the public wants?
The marketplace has given in to the ratings game to such an extent; news is no longer a factor. The need to out-do the rival station and gain viewers has lowered the standard. In return, the public expects less.
Of course I like to be entertained, but there comes a point when news needs to be news.

The Marketplace and the needs of the public

The marketplace and the public need each other. If we went back into time where if you didn't grow it or shoot it, you didn't eat; or if your wife couldn't sew it or patch it, you were naked, things would be a lot different.

To be progressive, the individual has to have everything the market place throws at him, commercials included. Your favorite TV show would not exist with the amazing (or not so amazing) actors cast with out commercials.

Journalists, in general, hardly make any money. We would make even less if ad and commercial space were not sold in abundance. I do agree that as journalist, our sponsorship can be sold off to the highest bidder, but our stories should stay un-bias and stick to the facts. Having the luxury of working for a non-sponsored university newscast, our only veto is on ethical grounds. Though we are technically an MTV station, we are still educationally based and would run a story in a heartbeat if something corrupt happened at MTV headquarters. Though we tend to stick to local stories, if we had a national reach, I'm sure we would run the story regardless.

Back to the main question, the conflict between the marketplace and the needs of the public is a necessary evil. In order for the public to have a marketplace, the public must have everything that comes with it, including commercials and sometimes bias. There would not be a marketplace without the commercial aspect, and without commercials and the funding that comes with them, there quality of journalism would be even less because everyone has to pay the mortgage (shameless steal from Thank You For Smoking).

The Marketplace and the needs of the public

The marketplace and the public need each other. If we went back into time where if you didn't grow it or shoot it, you didn't eat; or if your wife couldn't sew it or patch it, you were naked, things would be a lot different.

To be progressive, the individual has to have everything the market place throws at him, commercials included. Your favorite TV show would not exist with the amazing (or not so amazing) actors cast with out commercials.

Journalists, in general, hardly make any money. We would make even less if ad and commercial space were not sold in abundance. I do agree that as journalist, our sponsorship can be sold off to the highest bidder, but our stories should stay un-bias and stick to the facts. Having the luxury of working for a non-sponsored university newscast, our only veto is on ethical grounds. Though we are technically an MTV station, we are still educationally based and would run a story in a heartbeat if something corrupt happened at MTV headquarters. Though we tend to stick to local stories, if we had a national reach, I'm sure we would run the story regardless.

Back to the main question, the conflict between the marketplace and the needs of the public is a necessary evil. In order for the public to have a marketplace, the public must have everything that comes with it, including commercials and sometimes bias. There would not be a marketplace without the commercial aspect, and without commercials and the funding that comes with them, there quality of journalism would be even less because everyone has to pay the mortgage (shameless steal from Thank You For Smoking).

Media Education

The primary source of my media education came from my parents. They would turn off my cartoons, or video games, to switch on the news. We also left piles of news paper out when we planned to be gone for long periods of time so the dog would have a place to do her business if we didn't get back in time.

As far as learning anything media based in formal education... I was in an advanced class in middle school where they had us look at top stories in the news paper. i remember getting in trouble for not knowing how to fold a paper, so the whole class got to learn because of my inability. Later on in high school Spanish we learned that everything you read on the internet isn't true through translation websites. We were given a phrase in Spanish and asked to find 4 different translators to get the job done. Come to find out... none of them were accurate.

I was never fully educated on the topic of media until I got to college and my roommate filled me in on her major. But, I do not see how budgeting would allow for the topic to be fully examined before college.

Media Literacy

Well my personal experience with media literacy really didn't begin until I came to college. I would say that the only thing I did was sometimes I would read the paper, but that was just because my dad always did that so I guess I thought I should too.

When I started my college classes was really when I started to pay more attention to what was going on in the world around me.
The one class however, that helped me most in learning how to read and become a critical reader of the media was Dr. Gades' class. I learned how to pick out important information and retain the meaning of what was being said.

From that class and now others as I am in the Journalism field of study I have come to enjoy learning and understanding about what is going on around me. But to say that I had a good background in Media literacy before I came to college would not be true, but I do think it is good that schools are doing that.

My Media Literacy Education

I never received any formal media literacy education while I was in school. Our school had a newspaper, but all it was about was gossip and other school stories like the football team or basketball team. We did have channel 1, but only one of my teachers ever showed it. When she did, the news was on early in the morning before our 8am start time and it was always muted. I never really paid attention to it, because I was usually really tired and it looked really, really bad. I always wanted to change the channel, but she never would let me.

The only thing that I learned about media bias before I came to college, I learned on my own through two different experiences. The first experience happened when I watched Bill O'Reilly's show in high school. It presented the stories in a different way and it surprised me that it seemed to have an obvious bias in every story that was aired or discussed. It was not that I necessarily disagreed with the bias all the time, but it was just weird to me at the time that there was such an apparent bias and it shocked me. The second experience had to do more with radio. I remember being in Tulsa and listening to a station and then going somewhere (I think it was Florida), and on the exact same frequency, was a station that sounded exactly like the one at home with the exact same host, who was reporting the same news and playing the same music! That sort of shocked me, but it opened my eyes to the fact that if this was happening that only a certain few were in control of the messages that were being sent out to the American public.

Media Bias and me!

I can say, with some certainty, that before college, I have had no education with the explicit intent of preparing me to recognize and react to media bias. I'm interested to know what it was like in larger systems, but my school had enough trouble finding history and science teachers. My senior year, I called three of my teachers "Coach." I never played any form of sport in high school.

Somewhere along the formative process of becoming...well, me, I came to realize that people have this nasty little underlying habit of wanting you to believe what they believe. If I was to muster a guess as to why this is, I think I would have to go with the idea that very few people tend to believe in things that they hold to be wrong. I would denominate this to be human nature, but call it whatever you'd like.

It didn't seem to be a terribly hard concept to realize that newspapers, magazines, radio, television and the Internet were all conceived, staffed, managed, transmitted and financed by humans, or at least what can pass for them in public. All of these different seemingly-human individuals had their own set of beliefs, their own ideas of right and wrong. I fear the day that I meet the person who is apathetic enough to be completely unbiased in everything he does. I don't want to see media made by this person. It would probably resemble reading a dictionary, although if on looked hard enough he or she would probably find some form of bias there too.

I guess the world at large is a bit more naive that I would like to admit. Hell, maybe I am too. I buy products that I see on TV. I'll stop and listen to a news broadcast that is talking about something that attacks or supports an strong bias that I have.


Am I part of the problem?...

Media Literacy Education

I grew up going to two separate high schools and I don't recall either of them providing much education about the media. One of my high schools did have a student news cast, but it ran during our lunch hour on a small television in the cafeteria. It's not surprising that no one payed any attention to it.

Both of my schools did have a school newspaper, BUT neither were very informative. They were both mostly about our school, the people in it and our sports teams. I don't really remember ever being shown the real "news."

I have never heard of the channel 1 everyone was talking about in class the other day. Neither of my schools offered that.

So as far as formal media education... I didn't have much until I got to college.

Media Literacy

I've come to realize now that most of what is most reported is a target of what sells the most. I do not think the media, overall, cares about reporting all sides to a story. They are only interested in reporting stories that tend to create controversy. Controversy or a train-wreck on television, radio or newspaper will get the high ratings that translates into a lot of cash. I do not like that. I want the media to report fair and accurate news of all sides to a story. Liberal or conservative..... I do not care. Before, I thought the media was mostly liberal bias. I see it now as which ever story, whether it is a liberal or conservative slant, has the most controversey is the one that will be reported. It goes back and forth with both sides and I am tired of it. I watch little news now and I find that disappointing. I want to be able to count on the news media to report stories that do not have any slant to them. In this day in age, I do not think that is possible.

Media Literacy Education

Previous to coming to OU, I do not recall having any formal media literacy education. Ive always understood that the media can be biased and self serving to particular interests, no one really had to explain that to me.
One event that opened my eyes to both positive and negative aspects of media biases was my trip to England for the British Media Studies program. On one side is a company like the BBC, while still having objectives and interests, was striving for accuracy and truth in their reports. On the complete other side was Sky News (owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns FOX) where we were told their main objective was to be first. If the facts were wrong, so be it, they will worry about it later.
The approaches to reporting were so vastly different. Sky News didn't (seem to) care about manipulation or dishonesty while the BBC did its best to be reputable and honest above all.
One thing about it is viewers of these two stations seem to know what they are getting in to when they watch either channel. Sky News didn't try to pretend they were serving the public good. They weren't worried about being exploitative or sensational.
As far as the US goes, this sentiment seems to hold. As long as you take the news with a grain of salt and consider where it is coming from, you don't have to worry so much about being manipulated. It's your responsibility to be an educated viewer.

Symposium Speaker

While it was true that the symposium was probably aimed at an audience differing from our group, I think I'd be safe in saying that even if I was a journalist or even a film maker of foreign origin, I don't believe I would have taken much from the speaker's contribution (which I perceived to be the main part) to the presentation. The video's that she showed would have been perfectly insightful as stand alone pieces, he collage demonstrating how much of a barrier culture can be, while the train ride showed an individual's personal experience with language divide and preconceived notions. Both of these implied problems, but did not attempt to define them, possibly leaving it up to the audience.

Nouzeilles's part confuses me to a high degree. Perhaps, she was trying to define the problems illustrated by the videos for us, or perhaps she wasn't sure herself what she was trying to do. I sure wasn't. She tended to favor using the word "exile" which confused me. Maybe the definition isn't explicitly different from immigrant, but it impacts me differently. If I synopsized my understand of what she said, it was basically that exile is hard and unpleasant. I'm afraid I must react with a very unenlightened "Duh."

I suppose I could be wrong. There is the chance that's she's a frightfully intelligent human being that purposely used a word that is literally correct while different in interpretation to illustrate the very culture barrier that she was focusing on the whole time. On top of this, she bungled around with the technology and had to have an individual come up to click on the icons to play her clips, for the sole purpose of satirizing the stereotype that people who have funny accents have a lesser grasp on technology. If this beautifully conceived plan was he modus operandi all along, well, the whole presentation just went over my head.

Either way...I lost.

Symposium Speaker

Out of Place: From Exile to Flexible Citizenship

First of all, it was difficult to understand Maria Gabriela Nouzeilles because of her accent and the fact that she was reading her entire presentation off of the podium.
Immigration was one of the main topics of her presentation. She mentioned how a girl on the subway would not smile because Hitler had complicated the smile of immigrants. I would call this a claim and evidence. The warrant is that Hitler forced these people to leave their country to join an unfamiliar culture. Therefore, she could not smile. Another way to put it:
Claim: Spanish and other immigrants aren’t recognized in the social structure of larger countries. Reason: Immigrants have yet to break through racist overtones, they are discriminated against, portrayed poorly, and left out of American culture because of the way they assimilate or hold on to their original culture. Warrant: Portrayal in the media, placement in the workforce. The social and economic stereotypes they face.

She also talked about electronic media and the fact that we are a visual culture. A booth was set up with a video camera for anyone to sit and film in. In the booth people sang, chanted and acted like most people would unattended. Through this, a video was compiled and titled “Parabolic People.”

It was problematic to clearly identify arguments, let a lone evidence and warrants.

Symposium speaker

I attended the symposium from Deborah J. Yashar titled "Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge". Yashar discussed the importance of indigenous movements in Latin America and their effects on the countries in which they are occurring. Yashar provided evidence that they were good for the countries. She explained why countries are trying to stifle these movements and whether or not they were making any progress. According to Deborah Yashar, these movements are overcoming the governments and are making positive strides in there countries.

Yashar claimed that some people are against indigenous movements because they feel that indigenous people do not have enough resources for their movements to be successful. She showed though pictures and other charts including the influences on the countries economies, that these movements prove differently and that they are in fact helping the countries instead of hurting them. In fact these movements are to both change the citizen regimes and change the economies of these countries and the movements have been having more positive effects than negative ones.