In class we discussed how stars portray social and ideological values. Oprah Winfrey is a prime example of this. She has several philanthropy projects, including a new girls' school she opened in South Africa, the Leadership Academy for Girls. Oprah is looked up to by regular citizens and celebrities alike.
She has not only made a career for herself, but also jumpstarted the success of several others, including Rachael Ray and Dr. Phil. It's looks as though it's only a matter of time until Dr. Oz has his own show as well.
She has turned little known books into bestsellers through her Oprah Winfrey Book Club. Oprah has her own Midas touch right now.
Oprah embodies success and feminine power. Now she's using her star power to endorse presidential candidate Barack Obama. Tomorrow she will be in Des Moines at a rally with Obama. She's visiting New Hampshire and South Carolina on Sunday. In South Carolina, an Obama rally had to be moved from an 18,000 person venue to an 80,000 seat arean after tickets were snatched up in less then two days.
Even if Oprah's appearance may not result in direct votes for Obama, but her sheer star power has provided loads of media coverage and people coming to see Oprah will hear Obama as well. How her endorsement effects the election has yet to be seen.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
In the Spirit of Christmas...
Our discussion of ethnicity in Disney movies really got me thinking. Children are bombarded with all these images. With sincere effort, we could use these images to educate children about diversity.
In addition to Disney movies, Santa Claus has traditionally been white. Parents everywhere are bringing their children to sit on Santa's lap and tell him what they want for Christmas. For minority children, they could feel left out, because Santa is almost always portraid as a caucasian man.
Not only are most men who play Santa at malls and Christmas parties white, but so are the Santas in books and movies about Christmas. This is a classic example of a structuring absence.
I did a Google Search of Santa Claus images,and the first 86 images, both drawings and photos were of white Santas.
In a search for Santa Claus books at BarnesandNoble.com, of the first 100 results, there wasn't a single image of a minority Santa Claus.
For children, Christmas should be a time of excitement and happiness. While the holiday should not revolve around receiving presents, Santa Claus is a classic traditional part of the Holiday season. There's no reason that children should feel left out of that simply because they are not fairly represented in the media.
In addition to Disney movies, Santa Claus has traditionally been white. Parents everywhere are bringing their children to sit on Santa's lap and tell him what they want for Christmas. For minority children, they could feel left out, because Santa is almost always portraid as a caucasian man.
Not only are most men who play Santa at malls and Christmas parties white, but so are the Santas in books and movies about Christmas. This is a classic example of a structuring absence.
I did a Google Search of Santa Claus images,and the first 86 images, both drawings and photos were of white Santas.
In a search for Santa Claus books at BarnesandNoble.com, of the first 100 results, there wasn't a single image of a minority Santa Claus.
For children, Christmas should be a time of excitement and happiness. While the holiday should not revolve around receiving presents, Santa Claus is a classic traditional part of the Holiday season. There's no reason that children should feel left out of that simply because they are not fairly represented in the media.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Blogging opened opportunities for career journalism
When James Kurisunkal began his blog Park Avenue Peerage 10 months ago, he never could have imagined where it would lead him. Kurinsunkal had always been interested in royalty and the socially elite. So, from his dorm room at the University of Illinois, he began a blog about the young socialites of New York City.
His subjects took notice. They began sending him photos and news to post. In May, Kurisunkal said that his site receives on average, 8,000 hits per day. Over the summer, he was offered an internship at New York magazine. Kurisunkal was only 18, a freshman in college.
There are several things that could be learned from Kurisunkal's experience. We discussed in class how public records can provide valuable info for stories. Although he was living in Illinois, Kurisunkal was able to access wedding and death announcements and certificates to begin his site and map together the lives of his subjects. His thorough research gained him credibility. He made a point to avoid salacious gossip and rumors which gained him the respect of his readers and his subjects.
One thing I questioned was his decision to not use his real name on the blog. When Andrew Keen gave the McBride Lecture earlier this month, he said that one major problem with the Internet is that people can hide. They can create fake pseudonyms to disguise who they really are. It's a huge problem because there's little credibilty and people don't take responsibility for what they post.
Obviously, in Kurisunkal's case, the pseudonym worked. I still feel it's something that should be avoided.
His subjects took notice. They began sending him photos and news to post. In May, Kurisunkal said that his site receives on average, 8,000 hits per day. Over the summer, he was offered an internship at New York magazine. Kurisunkal was only 18, a freshman in college.
There are several things that could be learned from Kurisunkal's experience. We discussed in class how public records can provide valuable info for stories. Although he was living in Illinois, Kurisunkal was able to access wedding and death announcements and certificates to begin his site and map together the lives of his subjects. His thorough research gained him credibility. He made a point to avoid salacious gossip and rumors which gained him the respect of his readers and his subjects.
One thing I questioned was his decision to not use his real name on the blog. When Andrew Keen gave the McBride Lecture earlier this month, he said that one major problem with the Internet is that people can hide. They can create fake pseudonyms to disguise who they really are. It's a huge problem because there's little credibilty and people don't take responsibility for what they post.
Obviously, in Kurisunkal's case, the pseudonym worked. I still feel it's something that should be avoided.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Black Friday
Yesterday, we had our tv on most of the afternoon. It served mostly as background noise while we caught up on homework and chores around the house. However, as I watched CNN, I got more and more annoyed. A majority of the coverage focused on the day after Thanksgiving shoppers. The day, referred to as Black Friday, is one of the busiest shopping days of the year.
I understand if CNN reports one time that people are out by the thousands, probably millions, shopping. I understand if they want to tie in this year's slow economy. What I don't understand is how they think that whole segments on this can be considered newsworthy. My educated guess is that the same clip of shoppers running into the mall was shown five or six times over the course of the afternoon. Is this really the only thing that went on yesterday? Do I really care that Molly from New Hampshire had already gone home once to unload her car? No!
Maybe people would be more interested in the news if they focused more on issues like how many people won't have a meal this Christmas, (or how many will, thanks to food banks, etc.) than what stores are the most popular.
I understand if CNN reports one time that people are out by the thousands, probably millions, shopping. I understand if they want to tie in this year's slow economy. What I don't understand is how they think that whole segments on this can be considered newsworthy. My educated guess is that the same clip of shoppers running into the mall was shown five or six times over the course of the afternoon. Is this really the only thing that went on yesterday? Do I really care that Molly from New Hampshire had already gone home once to unload her car? No!
Maybe people would be more interested in the news if they focused more on issues like how many people won't have a meal this Christmas, (or how many will, thanks to food banks, etc.) than what stores are the most popular.
Bee Movie Portrays Men as Rulers of the Hive
In class we discussed Disney movies and how they portray traditional roles of males and females. The men are typically strong and take care of the women.
Nowhere is this image more prevelant than Dreamwork's new film, Bee Movie. In the film the main character, Barry, decides he doesn't want to work on the assembly line making honey like the rest of the bees.
Of course, as a recent article in the New York Times points out, this wouldn't even be a problem for Barry because, in the real world, male honey bees actually serve very few purposes.
Almost all the jobs within the hive are completed by female honey bees. The sole job of male honey bees is to fertilize the queen bee. As the article points out, they have large eyes to see the queen, and large antennae to smell her, but little other means of survival. Once a male bee has mated with a queen, it dies.
There is little use for the male honeybee in the hive. This explains why, in a hive population of 40,000 bees, approximately 200 are male. So, why then, does a male get the leading role in this film?
It all goes back to the roles of femininity and masculinity. The movie producers still believe that men are the ones who go out on new adventures. Women are supposed to stay behind and maintain the house, or the hive. Ultimately, the man is supposed to be the hero and rescue the colony.
This film is reinforcing the idea that women need men to defend them. It tells boys and girls to adapt to the stereotypical roles of breadwinner and houswife respectively. It seems surprising that in a movie such as this, where it it would be easy to make the main character female, the studio does not.
I'm disappointed that producers would go out of their ways to produce this inaccurate portrait of a bee colony. It would have been an excellent film to help empower girls and women. Instead, it's no different than any other children's film.
Friday, November 16, 2007
The Cosby Show brought black families into the media world
As we have been discussing in Media and Society, minorities have long been underrepresented in the mainstream media. Scholars have even used the term structuring absence to describe how the lack of images of minorities in the media results in white people being the natural identity category.
One show that really opened the doors to television for African Americans was The Cosby Show. When the show premiered in September of 1984, it gave Americans a new image of a black family.
The parents were successful as a lawyer and a doctor, and the family was thriving. They owned a fashionable home in New York City,one episode even focused around the expensive art that the family had used to decorate.
Accoding to the website for the museum of television, The Cosby Show was designed to address the history of negative portrayals of blacks on televison.
The show topped ratings charts for more than five years. It forced people to face the race issue in America. It made them rezlize that there were African-American families out there just like them.
I don't think that Cosby understood the impact he would have on people when his program first aired. He inspired other minorities to get involved in the media. Today, there are many programs that include minorities.
Even Grey's Anatomy can be used as an example. The Cheif of the entire surgical unit is african-american. So is the chief resident and one of the top surgeons.
It is programs like these that are pushing us towards equality among Americans. I think we are still a ways off, but the Cosby show was the program that made it acceptable to present blacks on television.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Television stations could be good for newspapers
In class we have discussed the drawbacks of media conglomerates, both on a national and on a local scale.
On a national scale, media companies that own several television stations, radio stations, newspapers and other types of media make it difficult for smaller companies to compete.
On a local scale, having a single company own the television station, the radio station and the newspaper limits the amount of information presented to the audience. Instead of sending out three reporters who find three different angles to a story, the company can send one to cover all three genres. This eliminates different viewpoints of the story. It would also be difficult for the audience to determine the accuracy and objectivity of the reporting, because there is nothing to compare it with.
This appears to be a problem that should be avoided. However, a recent op-ed article in the New York Times advised that local television stations could be the savior of regional newspapers.
Newspapers are becoming more of a novelty in America than a staple to daily life. As a result, newspaper subscription numbers are down. People are turning to online resources for news, and advertisers are turning from print media to the internet with their business.
In the article The Daily Show by Kevin J. Martin, Martin states that at least 300 daily papers have stopped publishing over the past 30 years.
He points to televion as a way to save newspapers. Martin argues that companies who own newspapers in the 20 largest cities should be permitted to purchase one tv or radio station within their community.
Martin goes on to argue that not allowing newspapers to own television stations could hurt the quality of news the paper is able to produce. A television station could bring in revenue to help run the newspaper and allow journalists to do more in-depth research, or allow the company to hire more journalists.
This appears to be a catch-22 in media today. It is a logical worry that having a sinle company own a lot of the local media market could result in non-objective reporting or incomplete stories. People could be less informed than if several companies owned different aspects of the media. However, without the revenue and cooperation of the media outlets working together, one company may not have enough resources to produce a quality product.
On a national scale, media companies that own several television stations, radio stations, newspapers and other types of media make it difficult for smaller companies to compete.
On a local scale, having a single company own the television station, the radio station and the newspaper limits the amount of information presented to the audience. Instead of sending out three reporters who find three different angles to a story, the company can send one to cover all three genres. This eliminates different viewpoints of the story. It would also be difficult for the audience to determine the accuracy and objectivity of the reporting, because there is nothing to compare it with.
This appears to be a problem that should be avoided. However, a recent op-ed article in the New York Times advised that local television stations could be the savior of regional newspapers.
Newspapers are becoming more of a novelty in America than a staple to daily life. As a result, newspaper subscription numbers are down. People are turning to online resources for news, and advertisers are turning from print media to the internet with their business.
In the article The Daily Show by Kevin J. Martin, Martin states that at least 300 daily papers have stopped publishing over the past 30 years.
He points to televion as a way to save newspapers. Martin argues that companies who own newspapers in the 20 largest cities should be permitted to purchase one tv or radio station within their community.
Martin goes on to argue that not allowing newspapers to own television stations could hurt the quality of news the paper is able to produce. A television station could bring in revenue to help run the newspaper and allow journalists to do more in-depth research, or allow the company to hire more journalists.
This appears to be a catch-22 in media today. It is a logical worry that having a sinle company own a lot of the local media market could result in non-objective reporting or incomplete stories. People could be less informed than if several companies owned different aspects of the media. However, without the revenue and cooperation of the media outlets working together, one company may not have enough resources to produce a quality product.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Working moms a problem for Colbert
In class we discussed how first wave feminism brought women into the work place. Men were off fighting in World War II and women were needed to take their roles in the factories.
Women have been working outside the home ever since. Still, there are people who believe that a mother's sole job should be to care for her children.
Take Steven Colbert for instance. He recently announced that he was running for president in the state of South Carolina. His manifesto, I am America (and So Can You!), outlines much of his campaign platform. In it he discusses his view of working moms. He said on a recent episode of Meet the Press that a woman should spend every second of her time thinking of her children. He said in his book that working outside the home is as bad as bringing coconut arsenic brownies to the school bakesale.
While Colbert's book is probably as serious as his campaign, the fact that he would even think to write such a thing shows that those beliefs do still exist. His book reached number one on last week's New York Times Best Seller List. A facebook group titled 1,000,000 strong for Steven Colbert recently surpassed a 1,400,000 person membership.
I doubt that these people really believe that mothers working outside the home is equivalent to feeding children drug-laced desserts,but Colbert's writing could certainly reinforce the negative image of working moms.
Surely his writing is not to be taken literally. If it is, he has alienated a large part of the voting American public.
Women have been working outside the home ever since. Still, there are people who believe that a mother's sole job should be to care for her children.
Take Steven Colbert for instance. He recently announced that he was running for president in the state of South Carolina. His manifesto, I am America (and So Can You!), outlines much of his campaign platform. In it he discusses his view of working moms. He said on a recent episode of Meet the Press that a woman should spend every second of her time thinking of her children. He said in his book that working outside the home is as bad as bringing coconut arsenic brownies to the school bakesale.
While Colbert's book is probably as serious as his campaign, the fact that he would even think to write such a thing shows that those beliefs do still exist. His book reached number one on last week's New York Times Best Seller List. A facebook group titled 1,000,000 strong for Steven Colbert recently surpassed a 1,400,000 person membership.
I doubt that these people really believe that mothers working outside the home is equivalent to feeding children drug-laced desserts,but Colbert's writing could certainly reinforce the negative image of working moms.
Surely his writing is not to be taken literally. If it is, he has alienated a large part of the voting American public.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Citizen Reporters
I recently watched an interview that Matt Drudge creator of the infamous Drudge Report had with the National Press Club. As we are showing through this class project, blogs are everywhere. There are millions and millions of blogs.
People use blogs to keep in touch with family and friends. Some people use them as journals. Now, it's becoming increasingly popular for people to use their blogs as news sites.
As Matt Drudge showed, regular citizens can become journalists. Drudge was working in the CBS Gift Shop when his father bought him his first computer. He soon discovered how to post information on the information, and as they say, the rest is history.
Now Drudge's sight gets more than six million hits a month. He has scooped the mainstream media on several major stories, such as the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and the Microsoft and NBC merger.
Yet, the National Press Club seemed to despise Drudge. They accused him of suspect methods. They said he spread gossip as much as he reported news. He doesn't do in depth research or check his facts.
Drudge, however, says that he's just one of a growing number of citizen reporters.
People who take on the powers that be. They are the watchdogs of the watchdogs. Now that anyone is able to post information on the internet, people don't have to go through mainstream media to get something seen by the world. They can simply upload it to YouTube or MySpace.
It eliminates the need for editors which eliminates the filtering of news. According to Drudge, it enables the public to have access to a more accurate complete view of what's really happening.
People use blogs to keep in touch with family and friends. Some people use them as journals. Now, it's becoming increasingly popular for people to use their blogs as news sites.
As Matt Drudge showed, regular citizens can become journalists. Drudge was working in the CBS Gift Shop when his father bought him his first computer. He soon discovered how to post information on the information, and as they say, the rest is history.
Now Drudge's sight gets more than six million hits a month. He has scooped the mainstream media on several major stories, such as the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and the Microsoft and NBC merger.
Yet, the National Press Club seemed to despise Drudge. They accused him of suspect methods. They said he spread gossip as much as he reported news. He doesn't do in depth research or check his facts.
Drudge, however, says that he's just one of a growing number of citizen reporters.
People who take on the powers that be. They are the watchdogs of the watchdogs. Now that anyone is able to post information on the internet, people don't have to go through mainstream media to get something seen by the world. They can simply upload it to YouTube or MySpace.
It eliminates the need for editors which eliminates the filtering of news. According to Drudge, it enables the public to have access to a more accurate complete view of what's really happening.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Just Another Reason!!
It's one thing to know personally that your U.S. Representative sucks, but it's a whole different level when he portrays his incompetency to the world YET AGAIN.
Just another reason why I'm SO proud to be from the Fifth District.
Just another reason why I'm SO proud to be from the Fifth District.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
"Taxation without Representation"
That's what you'll read on a Washington D.C. license plate. The theory has always been 'no taxation without representation' right? That's what led to the Revolutionary war. That's what led to the Declaration of Independence. That's what led to a democracy where "citizens of every state" are represented.
So why did citizens of D.C. change their license plates in 2002 to read "Taxation without representation"? Because, those living in the nations capital are not being represented.
Citizens of the District of Columbia do not actually live in a state. They do have a representative in the House, Eleanor Holmes-Norton. However, Norton is not allowed to vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. For this reason, she is known as a silent representative.
It seems very ironic, that in the nation's capital, the birthplace of democracy, the people are not given a fair say. It goes against the very ideology of democracy that we discussed in Mass Media and Society.
We examined democracy as an dominant ideology in America. People believe in the right to vote and the need to have a say in who runs their government and how that government is run.
Not allowing residents of Washington D.C. to participate actively in the democratic process goes against this dominant ideology.
Now, residents are fighting back. As stated, they changed their license plates in 2002, and added the phrase, "Taxation without Representation."
In September of this year, a bill that would give the District of Columbia one full-voting member in the House of Representatives went before the Senate. The bill was shot down. Opponents said that the bill went agaist Article I of the Constitution, which says that the House of Representatives will be elected by citizens of "several states".
According to an article on About.com , more than 500,000 Americans are residents of the nation's capital. They pay the second highest per capia federal income taxes in the country, yet they have no say in how that money gets spent.
There has been a call to add an Amendment to the Constitution, allowing DC voting rights. Some strides have been made. Citizens of the District of Columbia were finally granted the right to vote in presidential elections in 1961. In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act which allowed citizens to elect their own mayor and city council.
Not allowing citizens of Washington D.C. an active member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate goes against the very foundation of America.
Democracy is one of the strongest ideologies in our nation. There is no reason that those who live in our nation's capital, the heart of our democratic world, should not get to participate in that.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Debate of the Century?
There has been a continuing drop in news readership and viewship over the last decade or so, particularly among young adults.
It seems that everyone in the media and those who study the media are particularly fascinated by the trend. Those who own newspapers and television stations are trying desperately to entice audiences to return to their programming. Those who study the media are analyzing trends and making theories as to why people are no longer paying attention.
One person who hasn't been losing ground in the viewship battle is Jon Stewart. Stewart's television program, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, is a hit on Comedy Central. The Daily Show is a parodied news program that gets rave reviews for it's comical twist to real stories.
The polar opposite of the Daily Show, is the godfather of news stations, CNN. Particularly, CNN's political coverage with programs like The Situation Room. The man behind the Situation Room, and all of CNN's political programming is CNN Political Director, Sam Feist.
Now, with the presidential primaries around the corner, candidates are in full campaign mode and have been for months. Feist brags that CNN alone is hosting nine debates for the presidential hopefuls,including one earlier this year on YouTube.
As interesting as presidential debates are, I think a debate between Stewart and Feist would trump all.
In a 2004 C-SPAN interview (video) Stewart berated the media industry, saying that reporters were lazy and organizations were more interested in earning money than serving the public.
Stewart referred to presidential debates, the ones that Feist thinks so highly of, as horseraces. He argued that they are merely political pundits who've fed their words to the candidates, and the public doesn't really get anything out of the scripted banter.
Stewart also said in the same interview that CNN is no longer the tough, go to newstation it once was.
"CNN has the saying, 'CNN, news you can depend on.'" Stewart said. "Well guess what, I've watched CNN and no you can't!"
Feist has taken a few jabs at Stewart and his audience as well. He said that he doesn't understand why people watch the show. He personally does not like it.
In a speech earlier this month Feist said, "I don't know how people can watch that show. It's not real!"
In the end, it all comes down to what each feels they are offering the viewer. Feist believes they are drawing in a younger audience with their Election Express. They are conducting focus groups and doing in-depth research. Although, their idea of in-depth research is debunking the Obama Madrassa story Perhaps if they put as much work into their every day issues, people could be informed again.
Stewart, on the other hand, is reaching viewers. They are drawn to his witty bashing of the candidates and over the top anecdotes. How much they actually learn about current events and the presidential candidates is questionable.
Feist and Stewart should go head to head in the media battle and argue it out about the affective way to reach young viewers and what is wrong with the media today. That would be a debate worth watching.
It seems that everyone in the media and those who study the media are particularly fascinated by the trend. Those who own newspapers and television stations are trying desperately to entice audiences to return to their programming. Those who study the media are analyzing trends and making theories as to why people are no longer paying attention.
One person who hasn't been losing ground in the viewship battle is Jon Stewart. Stewart's television program, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, is a hit on Comedy Central. The Daily Show is a parodied news program that gets rave reviews for it's comical twist to real stories.
The polar opposite of the Daily Show, is the godfather of news stations, CNN. Particularly, CNN's political coverage with programs like The Situation Room. The man behind the Situation Room, and all of CNN's political programming is CNN Political Director, Sam Feist.
Now, with the presidential primaries around the corner, candidates are in full campaign mode and have been for months. Feist brags that CNN alone is hosting nine debates for the presidential hopefuls,including one earlier this year on YouTube.
As interesting as presidential debates are, I think a debate between Stewart and Feist would trump all.
In a 2004 C-SPAN interview (video) Stewart berated the media industry, saying that reporters were lazy and organizations were more interested in earning money than serving the public.
Stewart referred to presidential debates, the ones that Feist thinks so highly of, as horseraces. He argued that they are merely political pundits who've fed their words to the candidates, and the public doesn't really get anything out of the scripted banter.
Stewart also said in the same interview that CNN is no longer the tough, go to newstation it once was.
"CNN has the saying, 'CNN, news you can depend on.'" Stewart said. "Well guess what, I've watched CNN and no you can't!"
Feist has taken a few jabs at Stewart and his audience as well. He said that he doesn't understand why people watch the show. He personally does not like it.
In a speech earlier this month Feist said, "I don't know how people can watch that show. It's not real!"
In the end, it all comes down to what each feels they are offering the viewer. Feist believes they are drawing in a younger audience with their Election Express. They are conducting focus groups and doing in-depth research. Although, their idea of in-depth research is debunking the Obama Madrassa story Perhaps if they put as much work into their every day issues, people could be informed again.
Stewart, on the other hand, is reaching viewers. They are drawn to his witty bashing of the candidates and over the top anecdotes. How much they actually learn about current events and the presidential candidates is questionable.
Feist and Stewart should go head to head in the media battle and argue it out about the affective way to reach young viewers and what is wrong with the media today. That would be a debate worth watching.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Genres of journalism begin to blend
There are several genres to jounalism today. News, editorial, lifestyles and sports are some of the most popular.
As with movie genres, each has its distinct characteristics, a typical iconography. The lifestyles section includes feature stories, profile pieces, and movie reviews. This where you find the 'feel good' stories.
The news section includes breaking stories. Crime and politics are hot topics. These are front page articles. They are likely to have the greatest impact on readers.
The editorial page is where you find the witty columnists who usually have strong opinions on one side of the political spectrum or the other. Other op-ed writers simply provide their insight on life or the local community.
Lately, there has been a shift to a new type of journalism genre known as news analysis. News analysis typically involves a reporter writing a hard news story, but including his or her editorial sense.
In a recent article in the New York Times , author Adam Liptak, used news analysis in his coverage of a Senate hearing. Liptak does report the facts from the hearing, but he throws in subtle opinion in comments like the nominee for attorney general "seemed so pleased," and things were perfectly aligned.
News analysis has grown out of the use of political pundits by papers and news broadcasts. Pundits are experts that media organizations use to break down or analyze certain situations, particularly decisions made by the government.
O'Shaunessey and Stadler stated that sometimes genres change and evolve to keep up to date. The news genre of journalism is evolving to include reporter bias. I think this it's the media organizations' attempt to cater to a new audience's desire to have everything shown from their perspective.
News analysis reflects a media that is unwilling to simply provide the facts. It also feels that it must interpret those facts for the public, rather than letting us come to conclusions on our own.
As with movie genres, each has its distinct characteristics, a typical iconography. The lifestyles section includes feature stories, profile pieces, and movie reviews. This where you find the 'feel good' stories.
The news section includes breaking stories. Crime and politics are hot topics. These are front page articles. They are likely to have the greatest impact on readers.
The editorial page is where you find the witty columnists who usually have strong opinions on one side of the political spectrum or the other. Other op-ed writers simply provide their insight on life or the local community.
Lately, there has been a shift to a new type of journalism genre known as news analysis. News analysis typically involves a reporter writing a hard news story, but including his or her editorial sense.
In a recent article in the New York Times , author Adam Liptak, used news analysis in his coverage of a Senate hearing. Liptak does report the facts from the hearing, but he throws in subtle opinion in comments like the nominee for attorney general "seemed so pleased," and things were perfectly aligned.
News analysis has grown out of the use of political pundits by papers and news broadcasts. Pundits are experts that media organizations use to break down or analyze certain situations, particularly decisions made by the government.
O'Shaunessey and Stadler stated that sometimes genres change and evolve to keep up to date. The news genre of journalism is evolving to include reporter bias. I think this it's the media organizations' attempt to cater to a new audience's desire to have everything shown from their perspective.
News analysis reflects a media that is unwilling to simply provide the facts. It also feels that it must interpret those facts for the public, rather than letting us come to conclusions on our own.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Apple Ad Paints Hilary as a Big Brother Wannabe
In class we have been talking about culture-jamming and media activism. According to O'Shaugnessy and Stadler, culture jamming is a form of media activism that subverts and reworks the intended meaning of existing media texts. This form of activism often involves parodies.
One form of culture jamming discussed in the book is adbusting. People modify advertisements to undermine their intended meaning.
Similarly, people can alter a popular ad to give it an implied meaning.
Take for example, an famous Apple advertisement from the 1984 Superbowl. The commercial shows men, all dressed in the same prison-type, uniform marching down a long dark hallway. A woman dressed in bright clothes is running down a similar hallway carrying a sledge hammer. The men enter a room single-file and sit down in front of a large screen where an angry man is shouting. The men all stare at the screen as if absorbing the message. The woman runs into the room being chased by police, but before they can catch her she shatters the screen and a message about Apple appears.
Essentially, the ad is saying that Apple's new Macintosh computer would save us from the totalitarian society described in George Orwell's novel, 1984.
More recently, a similar adverisement was posted on YouTube. In fact, it was the exact same ad, but with a few major adjustments.
It starts off the same way, with the men marching and the woman running down the gloomy hallway. She's wearing a similar outfit to that of the lady in the first ad, accept that she has an Apple iPod on her waist and a Barack Obama symbol on her shirt.
Instead of listening to an evil dictator, the men are absorbing the words of Hilary Clinton.
After the woman breaks the screen a message comes up that says,
The advertisement, which was created by Obama for America, was clearly trying to relate the idea of Clinton as president to having a totalitarian leader.
The Obama for America campaign was using media activism to portray a very negative image of Hilary Clinton.
The nature of the ad also ties into the idea of hegemony, dominant ideology, and interpolation.
First, Clinton appears to be forcing her ideas on the masses by making them sit in this room and listen to her speak. It is almost as if they have been brain-washed into believing everything she says.
Second, Clinton is trying to impress upon the people her own ideologies. Clinton says, "I don't want people who already agree with me. I want honest, serious, patriotic, hardworking people."
She keeps talking about the conversation they are having together, but really it is her speaking to them without any opportunity for feedback.
Finally, there is a point in the commercial where Clinton says, "I want people who want to be part of a team, the American team."
She is addressing the people as part of her team, so they will feel included and not question her motives.
The Obama for America campaign used an already popular commercial to portray a negative image of Hilary Clinton in an attempt to make her appear like a dictator from a "Big Brother" society. The ad has obviously caught on, with over 3.7 million views and 13,500 comments on You Tube since it was posted in March of this year.
The real test for advertisments such as these is not whether or not they are popular but how much of an impact they have on the audience.
One form of culture jamming discussed in the book is adbusting. People modify advertisements to undermine their intended meaning.
Similarly, people can alter a popular ad to give it an implied meaning.
Take for example, an famous Apple advertisement from the 1984 Superbowl. The commercial shows men, all dressed in the same prison-type, uniform marching down a long dark hallway. A woman dressed in bright clothes is running down a similar hallway carrying a sledge hammer. The men enter a room single-file and sit down in front of a large screen where an angry man is shouting. The men all stare at the screen as if absorbing the message. The woman runs into the room being chased by police, but before they can catch her she shatters the screen and a message about Apple appears.
On January 24th Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like "1984."
Essentially, the ad is saying that Apple's new Macintosh computer would save us from the totalitarian society described in George Orwell's novel, 1984.
More recently, a similar adverisement was posted on YouTube. In fact, it was the exact same ad, but with a few major adjustments.
It starts off the same way, with the men marching and the woman running down the gloomy hallway. She's wearing a similar outfit to that of the lady in the first ad, accept that she has an Apple iPod on her waist and a Barack Obama symbol on her shirt.
Instead of listening to an evil dictator, the men are absorbing the words of Hilary Clinton.
After the woman breaks the screen a message comes up that says,
On January 14th the Democratic primary witll begin and you'll see why 2008 won't be like "1984".
The advertisement, which was created by Obama for America, was clearly trying to relate the idea of Clinton as president to having a totalitarian leader.
The Obama for America campaign was using media activism to portray a very negative image of Hilary Clinton.
The nature of the ad also ties into the idea of hegemony, dominant ideology, and interpolation.
First, Clinton appears to be forcing her ideas on the masses by making them sit in this room and listen to her speak. It is almost as if they have been brain-washed into believing everything she says.
Second, Clinton is trying to impress upon the people her own ideologies. Clinton says, "I don't want people who already agree with me. I want honest, serious, patriotic, hardworking people."
She keeps talking about the conversation they are having together, but really it is her speaking to them without any opportunity for feedback.
Finally, there is a point in the commercial where Clinton says, "I want people who want to be part of a team, the American team."
She is addressing the people as part of her team, so they will feel included and not question her motives.
The Obama for America campaign used an already popular commercial to portray a negative image of Hilary Clinton in an attempt to make her appear like a dictator from a "Big Brother" society. The ad has obviously caught on, with over 3.7 million views and 13,500 comments on You Tube since it was posted in March of this year.
The real test for advertisments such as these is not whether or not they are popular but how much of an impact they have on the audience.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Journalist was within her rights
This week in class we discussed whether journalist Elise Ackerman of Oakland had the right to write a letter to the mayor of her city and send it not only to the mayor, but also to the editors of the newspaper she works for and other local newspapers.
I think that Ackerman had every right to send that letter. As a concerned citizen of her community, she should be able to express her beliefs regarding the mayors handling for crime in Oakland. She does not lose that right simply because she is a journalist.
I think it could be argued that she has a responsibility to speak up if she feels something is wrong. She gave sound evidence in her letter of issues that need to be addressed. She gave examples of times when the police have not been able to act accordingly to crimes.
Ackerman was not the only resident of Oakland to create an anti-Dellums website. According to an article in the Alameda Times-Star, at least two other similar domain names had been purchased with the same intent.
I understand that Ackerman needs to check her feelings at the door when she goes to work. It is important for her to remain objective. However, Ackerman covers technology for the Mercury News. Such a beat relates little to Ackerman's feelings as a concerned resident of Oakland.
It might not have been in Ackerman's best interests as a writer to create such a firestorm, but she still has that right, and she will have to take responsibility for her actions.
I don't think it would be any different than if say a local store owner published a similar letter. He has every right to do so, and people who disagree with him have every right to stop shopping at his store.
People who disagree with Ackerman have every right to stop reading her articles. If the Mercury News' ratings begin to fall as a result of her speaking out against the mayor, they might have reason to take action against Ackerman. Until then, she has every right to speak her mind, especially about an issue as important as this.
I think that Ackerman had every right to send that letter. As a concerned citizen of her community, she should be able to express her beliefs regarding the mayors handling for crime in Oakland. She does not lose that right simply because she is a journalist.
I think it could be argued that she has a responsibility to speak up if she feels something is wrong. She gave sound evidence in her letter of issues that need to be addressed. She gave examples of times when the police have not been able to act accordingly to crimes.
Ackerman was not the only resident of Oakland to create an anti-Dellums website. According to an article in the Alameda Times-Star, at least two other similar domain names had been purchased with the same intent.
I understand that Ackerman needs to check her feelings at the door when she goes to work. It is important for her to remain objective. However, Ackerman covers technology for the Mercury News. Such a beat relates little to Ackerman's feelings as a concerned resident of Oakland.
It might not have been in Ackerman's best interests as a writer to create such a firestorm, but she still has that right, and she will have to take responsibility for her actions.
I don't think it would be any different than if say a local store owner published a similar letter. He has every right to do so, and people who disagree with him have every right to stop shopping at his store.
People who disagree with Ackerman have every right to stop reading her articles. If the Mercury News' ratings begin to fall as a result of her speaking out against the mayor, they might have reason to take action against Ackerman. Until then, she has every right to speak her mind, especially about an issue as important as this.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Football picture not too shocking.
When the Carroll High School football team took their team picture in late August, no one could predict the controversy that was to follow.
The picture set off an uproar after three of the football players made an obscene hand gesture in the picture. The three players made the shocker gesture, a sign considered derogatory towards women because of its obscene sexual nature.
The photo was to appear in the local Daily Times Herald newspaper. Instead of retaking the picture or not publishing it at all, the paper decided to blur out those players.
The editor's reasoning was that they did not want to waste the team's time or the newspaper's time or resources. Ann Wilson, who owns the newspaper said they would do the same for any type of gesture, even a "thumbs up" sign.
The administration suspended the boys from one game and required them to write an apology to the newspaper and the photographers. When the players' parents learned that the game they'd be sitting out was against cross-town rival Kuemper Catholic High School, they complained that the punishment was too harsh.
As reported in the Daily Times Herald article, "School board reduces players' suspensions", parents of the punished players spoke out against the administration's decision.
Dan Stevens said that they didn't mean for it to be disrespectful. He claimed they were imitading a gesture done by other athletes. Duke basketball star JJ Redick has been known to make the gesture.
Mike Bach said that the symbol could have been interpreted several ways, as a "W" for win, as the number 7, or even as a symbol of love.
However, when the head football coach was asked if he thought the boys knew what the sign meant, he said yes.
Ultimately, the school board voted to reduce the boys' punishment to only a half-game suspension.
The boys' claim that they did not mean for the gesture to be rude shouldn't matter. The fact that they made a gesture that could have had a derogatory meaning should be cause enough for punishment.
This ordeal ties into our discussion of discourse and ideology. According to O'Shaughnessey and Stadler an ideology is "a set of social values, ideas, beliefs, feelings and representations, by which poeple collectively make sense of the world they live in."
First of all, the image of a football player has always been a tough, powerful, strong male. I think to a point a disrespect for women also goes along with the whole football player persona. It shouldn't, but there are often stories of star athletes who sleep with different women everywhere they play. Over the years, this idea has been molded.
One of the boys involved claimed that they had been using the gesture for so long that they never even thought about it. It seems it had become like second nature, which often happens with ideologies.
So, the highschool football players were most likely just trying to look tough. Essentially, they wanted to fit the ideology of a football player. It's the same reason athletes don't smile in their pictures. They aren't supposed to necessarily be happy, they're supposed to be intimidating.
Women have always been in this battle to gain respect as a gender. An ideology is not consciously thought out. People don't think twice when they see an athlete like JJ Redick make a shocker sign. He is an allstar, that's what allstars do.
If there is a negative ideology such as this, I think it is important to discourage it early. Those football players were punished, and the whole situation was surrounded in controversy. Now, everyone involved might think twice before using the shocker or any other derogatory symbol.
However, I think the fact that the boys had their punishment lessened is part of the ideology too. Athletes have been making those gestures for so long that most people don't even think twice about it. If the newspaper hadn't blurred out their images, it's possible that noone would have said anything.
This ideology was found in the representation of the shocker symbol. As it is a derogatory sign towards women, I believe that the boys deserved a harsher punishment than they received. However, I think that the ideologies of "boys will be boys", and the tough-guy image seem to override the idea of respect towards women.
The picture set off an uproar after three of the football players made an obscene hand gesture in the picture. The three players made the shocker gesture, a sign considered derogatory towards women because of its obscene sexual nature.
The photo was to appear in the local Daily Times Herald newspaper. Instead of retaking the picture or not publishing it at all, the paper decided to blur out those players.
The editor's reasoning was that they did not want to waste the team's time or the newspaper's time or resources. Ann Wilson, who owns the newspaper said they would do the same for any type of gesture, even a "thumbs up" sign.
The administration suspended the boys from one game and required them to write an apology to the newspaper and the photographers. When the players' parents learned that the game they'd be sitting out was against cross-town rival Kuemper Catholic High School, they complained that the punishment was too harsh.
As reported in the Daily Times Herald article, "School board reduces players' suspensions", parents of the punished players spoke out against the administration's decision.
Dan Stevens said that they didn't mean for it to be disrespectful. He claimed they were imitading a gesture done by other athletes. Duke basketball star JJ Redick has been known to make the gesture.
Mike Bach said that the symbol could have been interpreted several ways, as a "W" for win, as the number 7, or even as a symbol of love.
However, when the head football coach was asked if he thought the boys knew what the sign meant, he said yes.
Ultimately, the school board voted to reduce the boys' punishment to only a half-game suspension.
The boys' claim that they did not mean for the gesture to be rude shouldn't matter. The fact that they made a gesture that could have had a derogatory meaning should be cause enough for punishment.
This ordeal ties into our discussion of discourse and ideology. According to O'Shaughnessey and Stadler an ideology is "a set of social values, ideas, beliefs, feelings and representations, by which poeple collectively make sense of the world they live in."
First of all, the image of a football player has always been a tough, powerful, strong male. I think to a point a disrespect for women also goes along with the whole football player persona. It shouldn't, but there are often stories of star athletes who sleep with different women everywhere they play. Over the years, this idea has been molded.
One of the boys involved claimed that they had been using the gesture for so long that they never even thought about it. It seems it had become like second nature, which often happens with ideologies.
So, the highschool football players were most likely just trying to look tough. Essentially, they wanted to fit the ideology of a football player. It's the same reason athletes don't smile in their pictures. They aren't supposed to necessarily be happy, they're supposed to be intimidating.
Women have always been in this battle to gain respect as a gender. An ideology is not consciously thought out. People don't think twice when they see an athlete like JJ Redick make a shocker sign. He is an allstar, that's what allstars do.
If there is a negative ideology such as this, I think it is important to discourage it early. Those football players were punished, and the whole situation was surrounded in controversy. Now, everyone involved might think twice before using the shocker or any other derogatory symbol.
However, I think the fact that the boys had their punishment lessened is part of the ideology too. Athletes have been making those gestures for so long that most people don't even think twice about it. If the newspaper hadn't blurred out their images, it's possible that noone would have said anything.
This ideology was found in the representation of the shocker symbol. As it is a derogatory sign towards women, I believe that the boys deserved a harsher punishment than they received. However, I think that the ideologies of "boys will be boys", and the tough-guy image seem to override the idea of respect towards women.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Soft News is Driving Young Viewers Away
I'd like to expand on my idea from class, that it isn't necessarily the way the news is packaged, but the actual news that is being reported that is driving viewers away.
I think this holds true, because stunts like the nude news broadcasts and even news sites on the internet are not attracting viewers.
In a recent report, Doing Well and Doing Good: How Soft News and Critical Journalism Are Shrinking the News Audience and Weakening Democracy-And What News Outlets Can Do About It, Thomas Patterson from Harvard discusses how the downfall of journalists and the media to present quality products has aided in the loss of viewers.
In the report, Patterson sites a turn to soft news as one problem. Soft news is defined as news that highlights incidents anddevelopments that have little to do with public affairs and that are selected for their capacity to shock or entertain can distort people's perceptions of reality.
In contrast, hard news refers to coverage of breaking events involving top leaders, major issues,or significant disruptions in the routines of daily life, such as an earthquake or airline disaster.
The amount of soft news has increased, from less than 35% of stories in 1980, to around 50% today.
Soft news is associated with increased ratings, which explains why entertainment news is so popular. However, in Patterson's research, he discovered that a majority of people would rather hear about hard news stories.
In addition to soft news, the media has taken to providing a much more negative view of society. The place this is most evident is in politics.
In 1990, negative coverage of Congress was over 80%. Also, negative coverage of presidential candidates exceeds positive coverage.
Journalists and media outlets need to find new ways to reconnect with their audience. That has to include a trend change away from soft news.
I think this holds true, because stunts like the nude news broadcasts and even news sites on the internet are not attracting viewers.
In a recent report, Doing Well and Doing Good: How Soft News and Critical Journalism Are Shrinking the News Audience and Weakening Democracy-And What News Outlets Can Do About It, Thomas Patterson from Harvard discusses how the downfall of journalists and the media to present quality products has aided in the loss of viewers.
In the report, Patterson sites a turn to soft news as one problem. Soft news is defined as news that highlights incidents anddevelopments that have little to do with public affairs and that are selected for their capacity to shock or entertain can distort people's perceptions of reality.
In contrast, hard news refers to coverage of breaking events involving top leaders, major issues,or significant disruptions in the routines of daily life, such as an earthquake or airline disaster.
The amount of soft news has increased, from less than 35% of stories in 1980, to around 50% today.
Soft news is associated with increased ratings, which explains why entertainment news is so popular. However, in Patterson's research, he discovered that a majority of people would rather hear about hard news stories.
In addition to soft news, the media has taken to providing a much more negative view of society. The place this is most evident is in politics.
In 1990, negative coverage of Congress was over 80%. Also, negative coverage of presidential candidates exceeds positive coverage.
Journalists and media outlets need to find new ways to reconnect with their audience. That has to include a trend change away from soft news.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
General Petraeus or General Betray Us?
A recent advertisement in the New York Times, put out by MoveOn.org has set off a firestorm in Washington. The ad has an image of General David Petraeus with a caption underneath that reads "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"
Republicans are outraged by the accusations made in the statement that Petraeus is trying to mislead United States citizens.
This argument ties into our discussion in Mass Media and Society about the power of language.
It is similar to the use of the word "liar." We heard in class that the New York Times would never use the word liar in a story because it is such a charged word. There is a difference between accusing someone of not telling the truth and accusing someone of lying.
In the same way, accusing someone of betrayal is also very serious. As O'Shaughnessy and Stadler stated, language is not neutral. The word "betray" is a very charged word. By definition, betray means to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty. This ad accuses General Petraeus of deliberately misleading the American public. It could go as far as to claim that Petraeus even sided with the enemy.
CNBC Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood stated on the Diane Rehm Show, "It's one thing to raise serious questions about whether Petraeus is wrong. It's another thing to sort of have this childish name-calling thing surrounding the guy's name. I don't know of any evidence that David Petraeus, whether he's right or wrong about this surge, is somehow trying to betray the United States."
From a journalistic standpoint, MoveOn.org's pun on Petraeus' name is an attempt to show off. According to Ron Peter Clark from Poynter Online, the ad's message was tainted by the cunning headline. People are now so focused on the "General Betray Us" line that they miss what the rest of the advertisement has to say.
Clark goes on to say that the headline is not even supported by the arguement of the advertisement:
"I do not believe that the headline writer thinks that General Petraeus is a traitor to his country. Nothing in the ad under the headline supports the pun in the title. Instead, I think writer and editors succumbed to the oldest literary temptation in the book: to look clever in front of the world -- meaning and consequences be damned."
I agree with Clark that MoveOn.org was trying to look clever, but I do not agree that is was a bad thing. I think the whole purpose of the advertisement was to taint General Petraeus, to make him look like a bad guy to the American public.
The word betrayal has such a negative conotation to it, that the public doesn't need to know the rest of the argument to grasp that negative image of General Petraeus.
Republicans are outraged by the accusations made in the statement that Petraeus is trying to mislead United States citizens.
This argument ties into our discussion in Mass Media and Society about the power of language.
It is similar to the use of the word "liar." We heard in class that the New York Times would never use the word liar in a story because it is such a charged word. There is a difference between accusing someone of not telling the truth and accusing someone of lying.
In the same way, accusing someone of betrayal is also very serious. As O'Shaughnessy and Stadler stated, language is not neutral. The word "betray" is a very charged word. By definition, betray means to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty. This ad accuses General Petraeus of deliberately misleading the American public. It could go as far as to claim that Petraeus even sided with the enemy.
CNBC Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood stated on the Diane Rehm Show, "It's one thing to raise serious questions about whether Petraeus is wrong. It's another thing to sort of have this childish name-calling thing surrounding the guy's name. I don't know of any evidence that David Petraeus, whether he's right or wrong about this surge, is somehow trying to betray the United States."
From a journalistic standpoint, MoveOn.org's pun on Petraeus' name is an attempt to show off. According to Ron Peter Clark from Poynter Online, the ad's message was tainted by the cunning headline. People are now so focused on the "General Betray Us" line that they miss what the rest of the advertisement has to say.
Clark goes on to say that the headline is not even supported by the arguement of the advertisement:
"I do not believe that the headline writer thinks that General Petraeus is a traitor to his country. Nothing in the ad under the headline supports the pun in the title. Instead, I think writer and editors succumbed to the oldest literary temptation in the book: to look clever in front of the world -- meaning and consequences be damned."
I agree with Clark that MoveOn.org was trying to look clever, but I do not agree that is was a bad thing. I think the whole purpose of the advertisement was to taint General Petraeus, to make him look like a bad guy to the American public.
The word betrayal has such a negative conotation to it, that the public doesn't need to know the rest of the argument to grasp that negative image of General Petraeus.
Do Partisan Newspapers Result in a More Informed Public?
One major complaint about the media today, is the lack of objectivity. More and more newspapers and media outlets appear to have either a left or right slant. FOX News, for example, is a very conservative news outlet. CNN has been accused of having a more liberal stance, as has the New York Times.
Our nation is more divided along partisan lines than ever. The goal of most newspapers is to maintain unbiased, objective reporting, but would people actually benefit from a partisan press?
The British press is primarily partisan. There is a spectrum of partisan newspapers, from the Mirror on the far left to the Sun on the far right. Two of the most popular hard news publications are the Guardian and the Telegraph. The Guardian has a liberal slant while the Telegraph is more conservative.
British journalists tend to be tougher and more agressive in their reporting tactics. However, there is less in depth research. Standards for accuracy are not as high as those in the United States, and therefore the credibility is lower.
Despite having media outlets that are more in tune with their views, the British public still reads tabloid news, such as the Sun and the Mirror, two to three times more than they read hard news.
Simply providing people with news that is reported from their political viewpoint will not get them interested. Media outlets still need to find a way to make the American public to stand up and pay attention.
(**Information for this blog was taken from my Mass Media and Politics class)
Our nation is more divided along partisan lines than ever. The goal of most newspapers is to maintain unbiased, objective reporting, but would people actually benefit from a partisan press?
The British press is primarily partisan. There is a spectrum of partisan newspapers, from the Mirror on the far left to the Sun on the far right. Two of the most popular hard news publications are the Guardian and the Telegraph. The Guardian has a liberal slant while the Telegraph is more conservative.
British journalists tend to be tougher and more agressive in their reporting tactics. However, there is less in depth research. Standards for accuracy are not as high as those in the United States, and therefore the credibility is lower.
Despite having media outlets that are more in tune with their views, the British public still reads tabloid news, such as the Sun and the Mirror, two to three times more than they read hard news.
Simply providing people with news that is reported from their political viewpoint will not get them interested. Media outlets still need to find a way to make the American public to stand up and pay attention.
(**Information for this blog was taken from my Mass Media and Politics class)
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Waiting on the world...
-786485.jpg)
In class we discussed whether or not celebrities should be able to use their status to promote social issues. I was listening to John Mayer's song Waiting on the World to Change, and it got me thinking about this point.
The whole song is a political message. Mayer talks about how his generation, my generation, takes a bad rap for not trying to do anything about all of the problems we face today.
One way to read the text of the song is to say that the song itself is a signifier of the way our generation lives and our beliefs. It signifies Mayer's belief that we cannot do our part unless those ahead of us are willing to cooperate.
The music video reinforces this reading. It also has some added features. The whole video is shot in black and white. I think this is reflective of Mayer's mood. He is disappointed and frustrated with how things are right now. However, the actual instrumental part of the song is upbeat. This shows that Mayer is hopeful that things can change.
The video also says that our generation has a different way of expressing ourselves. Rather than just speaking out, the people were spray painting their messages on billboards where they would get more attention.
One particular line in the song, fits in perfectly with what we discussed in Mass Media and Society:
And when you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cause when they own the information, oh
They can bend it all they want
In this verse, Mayer is referring to two key issues. First, that the media industry is owned by five or six powerhouse companies including Disney, Time Warner, and News Corporation. With so few people controlling what we see, we are not given as many different viewpoints or as much information.
Mayer's point about bending information ties in with O'Shaughnessy and Stadler's idea that one of the ways media works is to construct and re-present reality. A majority of what people know they did not experience first hand. A lot was provided to them through media.
If our only knowledge of Afghanistan is what we see on television or in the news, we only know what those in charge of the media felt was important for us to know. Our idea of the reality of Afghanistan is going to be very different from the idea of reality of someone who has been to Afghanistan.
People have to be cautious of the media for several reasons. When newspapers or television shows are trying to make money, they won't necessarily show what's important. They will show what sells. Therefore, people have to be a little questioning of the media. If they take everything they see to be truth, they will have a very distorted idea of reality.
Also, there are many different readings for any text. People need to understand that not everyone see things in the same way.
Friday, September 21, 2007
FCC considers restrictions on media mergers.
A recent article in the Chicago Tribune discussed recent hearings by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is considering placing tighter restrictions on it's media-ownership rules. The rules would make it more difficult for organizations to create large media empires.
Restrictions on media ownership would come at an important time. Currently media moguls like Time Warner, Disney and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation own several different outlets, including newspapers, book publishing companies, television stations and movie studios.
When only a few companies own a majority of the news and media outlets, it limits the amount of information we receive. Those companies have more control and power to decide what the public sees, as far as news and entertainment.
Restrictions on media ownership would come at an important time. Currently media moguls like Time Warner, Disney and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation own several different outlets, including newspapers, book publishing companies, television stations and movie studios.
When only a few companies own a majority of the news and media outlets, it limits the amount of information we receive. Those companies have more control and power to decide what the public sees, as far as news and entertainment.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
'I believe in you, and I believe in your destiny...'
I believe that you are contributors to this new civilization.
I believe that you have inherited from your forefathers an ancient dream, a song,a prophecy, which you can proudly lay as a gift of gratitude upon the lap of America.
I believe that you can say to the founders of this great nation "Here I am a youth, a young tree whose roots were plucked from the hills of Lebanon, yet am I deeply rooted here, and I will be fruitful.
These are the words of Khalil Gibran, a Lebanese-American philospher and poet and the inspiration of students and staff at the new Khalil Gibran International Academy in New York City.
An article in the latest issue of The Economist reports that the Academy opened this week despite protests and scrutiny from fellow citizens. The school will teach Arabic and Middle Eastern history and culture which has some people uneasy.
According to The Economist some who oppose the school have "muttered that it will be a training ground for terrorists."
New York operates almost 70 dual-language public schools, howeve, Khalil Gibran International Academy is the first to offer Arabic. Because the school has a focus on the Middle Eastern culture, some people are worried that the school will spread the belief of Islam to its students.
This article ties into Mass Media and Society particularly well with our discussion about language and how it is not neutral.
The Arabic language and the religion of Islam can be sensitive issues with Americans today. Generally, they are seen in a negative light, because of events of the past six years. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 marked the real beginning of an uneasiness even fear of the Islam religion.
As O'Shaughnessy and Stadler state in Media and Society, an introduction, "Language always carries some associations, connotations, or values with it." (65)
For Americans, the Arabic language might evoke fear and anger, particularly when discussing the Islamic religion. However, for Muslims, that very same topic may be considered sacred.
The power and struggle model of language can also be seen here. According to the text, "Language meanings are not fixed and can be struggled over by different people, and by different social groups. Historically, such struggles have been very important, particularly those that occur between different ethnic groups." (68)
In the case of the Khalil Gibran International Academy, many are worried about the education students will receive there, because they have only seen a negative side of Islam. They do not understand Arabic or the traditions of the Middle Eastern Culture.
This school could go a long way in teaching more than just its students, but maybe the country as well.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Blockbuster...Netflix...now Vudu?
In the New York Times today, they introduced a new movie service called Vudu. It is basically your own personal video store. Connect the product to your television and your internet cable line and for $400.00 you have access to 5,000 movies that will download within minutes.
This is important, after all, because we cannot be expected to drive all the way to the video store to rent a or movie, or wait one or two days to get one through the mail from Netflix. You could download the movie onto your computer, but then who wants to watch a movie on that tiny screen?
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy movies as much as the next person. But is this really necessary? It's a great idea, but how hard is it honestly, to order a dvd online and wait for it to arrive? If you're really that impatient then just drive to the movie store!
Vudu doesn't have a monthly fee, but you do have to pay to rent each movie, and they only stay on the product's harddrive for 24 hours. What happens if I get interrupted? I have to rent it again to see the ending, I could buy the movie for that price.
The critic who reviewed the product referred to the Vudu's scroll wheel remote as a breakthrough. Seriously, a breakthrough? It's a remote control! A breakthrough is finding a new treatment for some deadly disease or catching a suspect in a serious crime. A scroll wheel on a remote control is not a breakthrough.
Technology is great and I have no doubt that the creators of the Vudu are very intelligent. There are better things they could use that technology for than creating more and more products to make American's lives easier and more convenient. Besides, the Vudu will be out of date in five years anyway.
This is important, after all, because we cannot be expected to drive all the way to the video store to rent a or movie, or wait one or two days to get one through the mail from Netflix. You could download the movie onto your computer, but then who wants to watch a movie on that tiny screen?
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy movies as much as the next person. But is this really necessary? It's a great idea, but how hard is it honestly, to order a dvd online and wait for it to arrive? If you're really that impatient then just drive to the movie store!
Vudu doesn't have a monthly fee, but you do have to pay to rent each movie, and they only stay on the product's harddrive for 24 hours. What happens if I get interrupted? I have to rent it again to see the ending, I could buy the movie for that price.
The critic who reviewed the product referred to the Vudu's scroll wheel remote as a breakthrough. Seriously, a breakthrough? It's a remote control! A breakthrough is finding a new treatment for some deadly disease or catching a suspect in a serious crime. A scroll wheel on a remote control is not a breakthrough.
Technology is great and I have no doubt that the creators of the Vudu are very intelligent. There are better things they could use that technology for than creating more and more products to make American's lives easier and more convenient. Besides, the Vudu will be out of date in five years anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
