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.