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.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)