Who said that muckraking was dead; it's just taking a new form that's all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMcRDDuubjQ
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Muckraking
Muckraking is one of those things where most people have heard about it but don’t really know exactly what it is. I would define muckraking as a style of investigative journalism that seeks to expose incidents of political corruption, government wrongdoing, or social injustice for the purpose of altering public policy. Basically all this is just fancy lingo for journalists who seek to bring up the dirt on either the government, high ranking individuals, or companies in order to get change it for the better good. But exactly how successful is this practice and how exactly is it done????
There are three distinct paths to political action through muckraking. Journalists may write up articles about public policies in order of engaging the public, or to bring the situation to light. This will hopefully spark a reaction that will call for change. This was done a lot with corruption, child labor, public health and safety actions throughout history. Journalists will also write an article in hopes of urging politicians to make change. What better way to get something done than through an elite politician? The last way that journalists employ muckraking is through teamwork. Journalists team up and coordinate stories to gain support of various political activities.
There you have it, it’s easy to understand why muckraking is successful if you know how it is used and what it is. But the question that still remains to be answered is how does muckraking actually work. Here is a great illustration given to me through Professor Dewitt:
Policy consequences
Journalistic Investigation ----> Publication ----> Public Opinion ---->Policy Initiatives
This model is such a great illustration because it portrays accurately a starting and ending point. Muckraking begins with investigative journalism. As discussed earlier, this is done in order to change political attitudes or public policy. The next step is publication—In order for people to hear the message, it has to be published. What good is good investigative journalism is no one sees it? The next step is public opinion- how the public feels about the investigative journalism. Does it spark anger, sympathy, apathy, sadness, or nothing at all? If the public isn’t moved by the investigation then the politician ns aren’t going to do anything about it. This leads us to our next step, policy initiative. This is where the policy begins to take root and things begin to get done.
At the end of the day, there is a lot of work that goes into investigative journalism. It fits perfectly into the hard news scene and is even appreciated by the public. Why then does it seem that there is less and less investigative journalism than in the past? In my opinion it’s because there is such a demand for soft news and quick reporting that the journalists aren’t pushed to investigate. Let’s face it, all good things take time, and time just isn’t what reporters today have. Hopefully the media industry will notice how important muckraking is to us as a nation, and all the good things that can come out of it.
There are three distinct paths to political action through muckraking. Journalists may write up articles about public policies in order of engaging the public, or to bring the situation to light. This will hopefully spark a reaction that will call for change. This was done a lot with corruption, child labor, public health and safety actions throughout history. Journalists will also write an article in hopes of urging politicians to make change. What better way to get something done than through an elite politician? The last way that journalists employ muckraking is through teamwork. Journalists team up and coordinate stories to gain support of various political activities.
There you have it, it’s easy to understand why muckraking is successful if you know how it is used and what it is. But the question that still remains to be answered is how does muckraking actually work. Here is a great illustration given to me through Professor Dewitt:
Policy consequences
Journalistic Investigation ----> Publication ----> Public Opinion ---->Policy Initiatives
This model is such a great illustration because it portrays accurately a starting and ending point. Muckraking begins with investigative journalism. As discussed earlier, this is done in order to change political attitudes or public policy. The next step is publication—In order for people to hear the message, it has to be published. What good is good investigative journalism is no one sees it? The next step is public opinion- how the public feels about the investigative journalism. Does it spark anger, sympathy, apathy, sadness, or nothing at all? If the public isn’t moved by the investigation then the politician ns aren’t going to do anything about it. This leads us to our next step, policy initiative. This is where the policy begins to take root and things begin to get done.
At the end of the day, there is a lot of work that goes into investigative journalism. It fits perfectly into the hard news scene and is even appreciated by the public. Why then does it seem that there is less and less investigative journalism than in the past? In my opinion it’s because there is such a demand for soft news and quick reporting that the journalists aren’t pushed to investigate. Let’s face it, all good things take time, and time just isn’t what reporters today have. Hopefully the media industry will notice how important muckraking is to us as a nation, and all the good things that can come out of it.
The Untold Story about Journalists We Love and the Politicians We Hate…
In today’s times it would be nearly impossible to separate the media and politics; you can’t have one without the other. Even though the two may be as inseparable as peanut butter and jelly, it still is nice to know what makes them that way. My years at Kennesaw State University (Mass Media and Politics) have taught me that there are 3 distinct ways that the media (journalists) themselves use politicians and actually become political actors.
The first way that the media and politicians feed off each other is through journalists acting as surrogates to the politicians. The journalists actively participate in a situation in order to shape government action. Think of it this way, you’ve heard the expression “if you want something done you have to do it yourself,” well it’s true. If the journalists want to try to shape government action, they may sit in at a rally, participate in a demonstration, etc, in order to get their point across. Basically they’re just using their job to promote their beliefs…. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.
The second way that journalists try to take on the role of political actors is through inside scoops. This is done more on the part of the politicians through inside information leeks. Sometimes unhappy government officials will leak information through hungry, eager journalists. This then gains the support of the journalists and media—we all know that it is never a bad thing to have the media on your side. In the end, all this really does is allow the government officials to gain access to the public that will in turn build their support base.
Government officials can also shape political action by framing the news as well. The media and the government official team up and report the news to us in a particular way. This is turn totally slants the information and the message as well. This is where I personally have a problem. It’s ok if the journalists use the media to get what they want through acting as a surrogate. It’s even ok to me that the government uses the media to get what they want through inside information leaks. What I have a problem with is the inside corruption effecting me as a citizen. How much are we going to let the media and politicians get away with before something is done?
The first way that the media and politicians feed off each other is through journalists acting as surrogates to the politicians. The journalists actively participate in a situation in order to shape government action. Think of it this way, you’ve heard the expression “if you want something done you have to do it yourself,” well it’s true. If the journalists want to try to shape government action, they may sit in at a rally, participate in a demonstration, etc, in order to get their point across. Basically they’re just using their job to promote their beliefs…. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.
The second way that journalists try to take on the role of political actors is through inside scoops. This is done more on the part of the politicians through inside information leeks. Sometimes unhappy government officials will leak information through hungry, eager journalists. This then gains the support of the journalists and media—we all know that it is never a bad thing to have the media on your side. In the end, all this really does is allow the government officials to gain access to the public that will in turn build their support base.
Government officials can also shape political action by framing the news as well. The media and the government official team up and report the news to us in a particular way. This is turn totally slants the information and the message as well. This is where I personally have a problem. It’s ok if the journalists use the media to get what they want through acting as a surrogate. It’s even ok to me that the government uses the media to get what they want through inside information leaks. What I have a problem with is the inside corruption effecting me as a citizen. How much are we going to let the media and politicians get away with before something is done?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
MORE EVIDENCE!!!!!
This should give you some inside perspective on some of the cases that we have been discussing. Think of it as comic relief to all the serious discussion.
For all you Mock Trial people out there…. NYT v. Sullivan
For all you Mock Trial people out there…. NYT v. Sullivan
Control, What Control???
Since we have already discussed what the media can and cannot do, and what exactly allows them to do it, I think discussing the media itself would add to the benefit of the discussion. The media as discussed earlier has very few restrictions on what they can and cannot say. If they are not maliciously attacking someone with false accounts, or threatening our national security the basically have free reign. But how do they convey what they want to say. They have two forms of communication—uncontrolled and controlled media outlets.
Controlled and uncontrolled media outlets refer to the media communication channels used to convey messages about an organization to its publics. A good example of controlled channels would be things such as leaflets, brochures, emails and websites. They are controlled in the sense that they are created and delivered to the audience by an organization. Never at any time does the organization lose control of the message. Think of it as a one way street, the city can control where the people driving down that street go, they don’t have a choice to change lanes or back-up if they wanted—no control.
Uncontrolled media outlets are channels that refer to the media, that are used to broadcast messages that an organization can only hope to influence. Think of channels such as press reports, feature articles and TV programs. These types of channels are delivered to the press, but they can be influenced by the way it is presented and therefore perceived by the audience. There is no control here. This in turn gives the media even more freedom. How much freedom are we going to give the press before it goes too far??????
Controlled and uncontrolled media outlets refer to the media communication channels used to convey messages about an organization to its publics. A good example of controlled channels would be things such as leaflets, brochures, emails and websites. They are controlled in the sense that they are created and delivered to the audience by an organization. Never at any time does the organization lose control of the message. Think of it as a one way street, the city can control where the people driving down that street go, they don’t have a choice to change lanes or back-up if they wanted—no control.
Uncontrolled media outlets are channels that refer to the media, that are used to broadcast messages that an organization can only hope to influence. Think of channels such as press reports, feature articles and TV programs. These types of channels are delivered to the press, but they can be influenced by the way it is presented and therefore perceived by the audience. There is no control here. This in turn gives the media even more freedom. How much freedom are we going to give the press before it goes too far??????
What do you mean TMZ can’t be sued??????
“To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.” - James Madison
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that there are only certain instances where the right to freedom of the Press is revoked in order to protect the greater good. The first instance is actual malice—libel cases. Can someone say whatever they want about someone and get away with it—the court believes that this is almost a free statement.
The Supreme Court takes the First Amendment very seriously. Since they have complete control over their own docket, it always seems as though they are particularly inclined to take cases that involve First Amendment Rights. I believe it’s because these cases make such an impact—who doesn’t want to make an impact on history. All this aside, in the cases of Near v. MN and New York Times v. Sullivan, the court faced instances of the media publishing defamatory comments about specific individuals. Both times that the court ruled that prior restraint cannot be implemented because actual malice must occur with no prior knowledge that the information published is false. They also ruled in Near v. MN, that politicians and public figured are held to a higher standard of libel. Proving libel is extremely hard to do--- try convincing a judge or jury of what someone else thought or knew prior to publication. It’s cases like these that allow companies like TMZ to exist. You don’t think that some of the celebrities would love to sue TMZ for something they have said about them. If you pay close attention to what the people on TMZ say (Yes, even the long haired stoner guy) they always say that the person “appears” to be doing something , or “seems” to be doing this. That’s because of the threat of libel, if they say that they “appear to be doing something” then they are not showing actual malice. Tricky but all apart of Freedom of the Press and libel.
The next and only exception to freedom of the press is national security. This makes sense seeing that the media can’t publish any information that would be damaging to our country. Could you imagine the uproar is the NYT published an article telling in detail when and where some of our secret ops soldiers were going to be, ummmm not cool. The key word in this exception is damaging, not embarrassing. The Court faced this type of question in New York Times Co. v. United States. In 1971, some classified documents called the Pentagon Papers fell into the hands of the NYT and they planned on publishing them. These papers would undoubtedly embarrass the national government and Richard Nixon sued for prior restraint. The court ruled that the Government had not met that burden, so the prior restraint was not justified. So embarrassment does not count as danger, the big man goes down and NYT wins.
In the end, these cases have taught us a valuable lesson. Don’t piss off the media because it would be very hard to stop them from coming after you; key word being hard, not impossible. There are still protections from the media (libel and national security) the only problem is the difficulty receiving those protections.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that there are only certain instances where the right to freedom of the Press is revoked in order to protect the greater good. The first instance is actual malice—libel cases. Can someone say whatever they want about someone and get away with it—the court believes that this is almost a free statement.
The Supreme Court takes the First Amendment very seriously. Since they have complete control over their own docket, it always seems as though they are particularly inclined to take cases that involve First Amendment Rights. I believe it’s because these cases make such an impact—who doesn’t want to make an impact on history. All this aside, in the cases of Near v. MN and New York Times v. Sullivan, the court faced instances of the media publishing defamatory comments about specific individuals. Both times that the court ruled that prior restraint cannot be implemented because actual malice must occur with no prior knowledge that the information published is false. They also ruled in Near v. MN, that politicians and public figured are held to a higher standard of libel. Proving libel is extremely hard to do--- try convincing a judge or jury of what someone else thought or knew prior to publication. It’s cases like these that allow companies like TMZ to exist. You don’t think that some of the celebrities would love to sue TMZ for something they have said about them. If you pay close attention to what the people on TMZ say (Yes, even the long haired stoner guy) they always say that the person “appears” to be doing something , or “seems” to be doing this. That’s because of the threat of libel, if they say that they “appear to be doing something” then they are not showing actual malice. Tricky but all apart of Freedom of the Press and libel.
The next and only exception to freedom of the press is national security. This makes sense seeing that the media can’t publish any information that would be damaging to our country. Could you imagine the uproar is the NYT published an article telling in detail when and where some of our secret ops soldiers were going to be, ummmm not cool. The key word in this exception is damaging, not embarrassing. The Court faced this type of question in New York Times Co. v. United States. In 1971, some classified documents called the Pentagon Papers fell into the hands of the NYT and they planned on publishing them. These papers would undoubtedly embarrass the national government and Richard Nixon sued for prior restraint. The court ruled that the Government had not met that burden, so the prior restraint was not justified. So embarrassment does not count as danger, the big man goes down and NYT wins.
In the end, these cases have taught us a valuable lesson. Don’t piss off the media because it would be very hard to stop them from coming after you; key word being hard, not impossible. There are still protections from the media (libel and national security) the only problem is the difficulty receiving those protections.
Freedom of the Press—A Little Background
When discussing freedom of the press I believe it is imperative to know a little background first. One cannot talk about something if there is no basis for the discussion to begin with. Freedom of the Press was given to us through the First Amendment. In the beginning, there was a lot of disgruntled citizens in part because they felt that the Constitution lacked the power to protect them from the government—i.e. civil liberties. To give the people what they wanted, the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and implemented on December 15, 1791. Along with many protections from the government, the First Amendment guaranteed its citizens Freedom of the Press.
The question to be discussed is what exactly is freedom of the press. How much freedom do we have, and who regulates that freedom. All of these questions have been brought up at some time in our nation’s history and it has been up to whom other else than the Supreme Court to decide.
Thomas Jefferson once said that "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.” The right to freedom of the press can be defined as the right to publish newspapers, magazines, books, etc. without government interference or prior censorship. This particular little snip-it of the Constitution has created some huge rifts in our nation’s history. If the Constitution allows freedom of the press, it is no secret that the media is going to push that freedom as far as they can, and whenever someone tries to challenge their freedom the solution is simple—take them to court.
There have been a slew of Freedom of the press cases in our nation’s history. Just to name a few are, New York Times Co. v. United State, Branzburg v. Hayes, and New York Times v. Sullivan. All of these cases have basically ended up reinforcing the same decision. Each case reiterated that there are only a few exceptions to stopping Freedom of the press (actual malice—libel, and national security). Other than that freedom of the Press reigns supreme. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? This question calls for another blog…..
The question to be discussed is what exactly is freedom of the press. How much freedom do we have, and who regulates that freedom. All of these questions have been brought up at some time in our nation’s history and it has been up to whom other else than the Supreme Court to decide.
Thomas Jefferson once said that "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.” The right to freedom of the press can be defined as the right to publish newspapers, magazines, books, etc. without government interference or prior censorship. This particular little snip-it of the Constitution has created some huge rifts in our nation’s history. If the Constitution allows freedom of the press, it is no secret that the media is going to push that freedom as far as they can, and whenever someone tries to challenge their freedom the solution is simple—take them to court.
There have been a slew of Freedom of the press cases in our nation’s history. Just to name a few are, New York Times Co. v. United State, Branzburg v. Hayes, and New York Times v. Sullivan. All of these cases have basically ended up reinforcing the same decision. Each case reiterated that there are only a few exceptions to stopping Freedom of the press (actual malice—libel, and national security). Other than that freedom of the Press reigns supreme. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? This question calls for another blog…..
Friday, November 27, 2009
Evidence!!!!!
While I’m still on the elections kick, I thought what better way to round out the discussion on Elections than showing some commercials to back up what I have been talking about.
Here’s a 2008 ad by Barack Obama, (Again what is the policy here?) I’m getting character traits and negativity but not (PLATFORM!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gp
A perfect example of what a catchy slogan can do for a politician…….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMms91gX94I
This last one doesn’t even need a video, why because I couldn’t find any Libertarian Ads……
Here’s a 2008 ad by Barack Obama, (Again what is the policy here?) I’m getting character traits and negativity but not (PLATFORM!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gp
A perfect example of what a catchy slogan can do for a politician…….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMms91gX94I
This last one doesn’t even need a video, why because I couldn’t find any Libertarian Ads……
Elections????
We as a nation have recently been through arguably one of the most influential Presidential Elections of our time. Our country was experiencing a devastating recession and maybe on the verge of a depression. The people of our country elected Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th President of the United States. Apparently the people of America felt that he was the right person for the job. But the more important question at hand is how they came to that conclusion. Did the media influence the election, were people properly informed on the policies, and did the right man get the job?
First and foremost, since this is a media related blog, it is imperative that I examine the media’s influence on the 2008 election. Was the Election biased, and did the people receive enough information to make their decision. The debate today still rages on about bias in the media. Democrats will argue that it is biased in favor of the Republicans and the Republicans will argue vice versa. Whether it is biased or not is a completely different blog post. I’m more worried about the voters themselves being affected by the media.
Journalists have stated that they try to produce balanced coverage for all major candidates. I ask what is exactly meant by major? If it is our duty as Americans to elect someone for the job as commander and chief, shouldn’t we be introduced to all options? What about the Independent or Libertarian candidates? What if the country were better off with a Libertarian or Independent? The sad truth is we will never know because those parties get very little to know coverage at all during the election times. I personally believe that it is because the media’s ultimate goal is to get higher ratings than their counterparts. There just isn’t that much pizzazz in the Libertarian party (Democrats and Republican coverage = higher ratings). This is the sad truth in politics folks.
This sad truth leads me to my next question, are people well enough informed about the candidates to make a sound decision. When you ask most people this question they would say that they are. Then you ask them why they voted the way they did and they give you all of the redeeming personal characteristics or qualities about their choice. Then you ask what they think of their candidates policies and they sit and stare at you with a blank look on their face. I feel the problem with the media’s presidential coverage is the amount of time spent of qualities and characteristics of the candidates and not enough of the policies. If the vast majority of voters can’t tell you anything about the candidates policies, then obviously they aren’t getting focused on hard enough. In my opinion qualities and characteristics should be a factor, but not the ultimate factor. A candidates platform should be the determining factor in their election. I love Robert Downey Jr. but wouldn’t elect him as President. I would elect someone who has ideas and beliefs that I believe would make the country better off.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how much I rant and rave about Presidential Election coverage and voters ignorance, it isn’t going to change. The media dominate the Election coverage and endorse one of two parties; too bad if you’re an Independent or Libertarian. Even the coverage of Democrats and Republicans is less than acceptable. It seems that with each and passing election, the personal characteristics of the candidates gets more coverage than their actual ideas and plans for the country.
First and foremost, since this is a media related blog, it is imperative that I examine the media’s influence on the 2008 election. Was the Election biased, and did the people receive enough information to make their decision. The debate today still rages on about bias in the media. Democrats will argue that it is biased in favor of the Republicans and the Republicans will argue vice versa. Whether it is biased or not is a completely different blog post. I’m more worried about the voters themselves being affected by the media.
Journalists have stated that they try to produce balanced coverage for all major candidates. I ask what is exactly meant by major? If it is our duty as Americans to elect someone for the job as commander and chief, shouldn’t we be introduced to all options? What about the Independent or Libertarian candidates? What if the country were better off with a Libertarian or Independent? The sad truth is we will never know because those parties get very little to know coverage at all during the election times. I personally believe that it is because the media’s ultimate goal is to get higher ratings than their counterparts. There just isn’t that much pizzazz in the Libertarian party (Democrats and Republican coverage = higher ratings). This is the sad truth in politics folks.
This sad truth leads me to my next question, are people well enough informed about the candidates to make a sound decision. When you ask most people this question they would say that they are. Then you ask them why they voted the way they did and they give you all of the redeeming personal characteristics or qualities about their choice. Then you ask what they think of their candidates policies and they sit and stare at you with a blank look on their face. I feel the problem with the media’s presidential coverage is the amount of time spent of qualities and characteristics of the candidates and not enough of the policies. If the vast majority of voters can’t tell you anything about the candidates policies, then obviously they aren’t getting focused on hard enough. In my opinion qualities and characteristics should be a factor, but not the ultimate factor. A candidates platform should be the determining factor in their election. I love Robert Downey Jr. but wouldn’t elect him as President. I would elect someone who has ideas and beliefs that I believe would make the country better off.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how much I rant and rave about Presidential Election coverage and voters ignorance, it isn’t going to change. The media dominate the Election coverage and endorse one of two parties; too bad if you’re an Independent or Libertarian. Even the coverage of Democrats and Republicans is less than acceptable. It seems that with each and passing election, the personal characteristics of the candidates gets more coverage than their actual ideas and plans for the country.
How Do Politicians make the news?
How do politicians make the news; this is a question that I ask myself often. I mean, really what determines who gets on the news and who doesn’t. Everybody knows that all politics really are is who you know. Is media really the same thing? Do journalists and the media itself discriminate on who gets more air time. I would undoubtedly say yes.
Since establishing good relationships the media helps ensure that the politicians messages will be reported rather than condemned, what then helps the politicians stay on the news once they make it there. They may have all the connections in the world, but if the people aren’t buying the story the press isn’t going to cover it. There message in my opinion requires several aspects that will make the news and keep it there.
In the end the ultimate goal of a politician’s message is to appeal to the people and get their message across. Any marketing person would tell you that the best way to accomplish this is having a key phrase or slogans to go along with your message. This helps people bring their own ideas or meanings to the situation. When people hear a slogan or see an image that represents politicians, the message automatically becomes real and convincing. This is why sometimes the simplest messages and symbols become the most successful tools for promotion or advertising.
Once the politician’s message is in place, it is up to the media to pound home the message to the people. This is where the buddy buddy system between politicians and the media comes into play. The politician could have the best slogan in the world, but if they don’t have a good relationship with the media, then their catchy slogan or symbol will not be heard or seen.
Message Credibility also plays a huge role in determining how effective the politicians message is. Do you always wonder why politicians will give their speech’s from a dramatic setting, such as the oval office, deck of an aircraft carrier, or white house; it’s because these types of places give the message validity. Validity means everything to people, it’s a sad world when both the media and government know that and use it against us.
All is all, I think I’ve discovered the secret to political success. If I want to be heard I need to make friends with the media, get a catchy jingle, use the media to deliver my catchy jingle, and use historical landmarks, and political environments to make people believe that I’m the real deal. Hummmph…… I think I’ve figured it out people, watch out Capitol Hill, here I come.
Since establishing good relationships the media helps ensure that the politicians messages will be reported rather than condemned, what then helps the politicians stay on the news once they make it there. They may have all the connections in the world, but if the people aren’t buying the story the press isn’t going to cover it. There message in my opinion requires several aspects that will make the news and keep it there.
In the end the ultimate goal of a politician’s message is to appeal to the people and get their message across. Any marketing person would tell you that the best way to accomplish this is having a key phrase or slogans to go along with your message. This helps people bring their own ideas or meanings to the situation. When people hear a slogan or see an image that represents politicians, the message automatically becomes real and convincing. This is why sometimes the simplest messages and symbols become the most successful tools for promotion or advertising.
Once the politician’s message is in place, it is up to the media to pound home the message to the people. This is where the buddy buddy system between politicians and the media comes into play. The politician could have the best slogan in the world, but if they don’t have a good relationship with the media, then their catchy slogan or symbol will not be heard or seen.
Message Credibility also plays a huge role in determining how effective the politicians message is. Do you always wonder why politicians will give their speech’s from a dramatic setting, such as the oval office, deck of an aircraft carrier, or white house; it’s because these types of places give the message validity. Validity means everything to people, it’s a sad world when both the media and government know that and use it against us.
All is all, I think I’ve discovered the secret to political success. If I want to be heard I need to make friends with the media, get a catchy jingle, use the media to deliver my catchy jingle, and use historical landmarks, and political environments to make people believe that I’m the real deal. Hummmph…… I think I’ve figured it out people, watch out Capitol Hill, here I come.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Bias.... Again
In an earlier post I talked about a dominant liberal bias in the media. Now I would like to discuss the Biases in the news itself that matters most. What exactly makes the news biased? I think that the biases in the media can be broken down into four distinctive areas.
The first area of bias in the media I think is personalization. Since the news market is so competitive, the journalist do whatever they can to get higher ratings. Ratings have become the one and only goal of news stations. It’s not getting THE story to the people; it’s getting A story to the most people. Personalizing Journalistic bias gives preference to individual actors and human interest over institutional, social, political contexts. They personalize issues, institutions and events in order to win over viewers. Depending on what audience the station is looking for, the personalization will go towards one side or another-liberal or conservative.
Dramatization is the second area of bias in the mass media. News stories are often portrayed as sensational events (or crises), with a spotlight placed on controversial characters and emotional scripts. Basically drama and entertainment sells and the news don’t. People are used to being entertained. There are thousands of entertainment channels available to the public, why does the news have to be entertainment as well? That’s because again, the news is a business and entertainment sells, not information. This is one quote that I really liked from the author Lance W. Bennett, “Every news story should, without any sacrifice of probity or responsibility, display the attributes of fiction, of drama. It should have structure and conflict, problem and denouement, rising action and falling action, a beginning, middle, and an end. These are not only the essentials of drama; they are the essentials of a narrative.”
Fragmentation is the third area of biases in the media. This basically means that the news is packaged as unique isolated events. Instead of stories, the news becomes self-contained episodic capsules isolated from each other in time and space. There is no connection between anything. People can’t relate the news to anything else they see because of the news fragmentation tactic. By using the fragmentation tactic, the news uses their other personalization and dramatization tools to promote their soft news stories. The news is no longer about social, and political events around the world, it is about separate episodic issues.
Authority Disorder is the last form of biases. This is basically a who done it and who do we blame biases. People love controversy and scandal and the news uses their authority disorder tactic to give it to them. Bias with a preoccupation toward questions relating to social order and whether authorities are capable of establishing or restoring it is their authority disorder tactic.
Well we’ve established the fact that bias exists in the media, and now we know exactly what they use to deliver their bias.
The first area of bias in the media I think is personalization. Since the news market is so competitive, the journalist do whatever they can to get higher ratings. Ratings have become the one and only goal of news stations. It’s not getting THE story to the people; it’s getting A story to the most people. Personalizing Journalistic bias gives preference to individual actors and human interest over institutional, social, political contexts. They personalize issues, institutions and events in order to win over viewers. Depending on what audience the station is looking for, the personalization will go towards one side or another-liberal or conservative.
Dramatization is the second area of bias in the mass media. News stories are often portrayed as sensational events (or crises), with a spotlight placed on controversial characters and emotional scripts. Basically drama and entertainment sells and the news don’t. People are used to being entertained. There are thousands of entertainment channels available to the public, why does the news have to be entertainment as well? That’s because again, the news is a business and entertainment sells, not information. This is one quote that I really liked from the author Lance W. Bennett, “Every news story should, without any sacrifice of probity or responsibility, display the attributes of fiction, of drama. It should have structure and conflict, problem and denouement, rising action and falling action, a beginning, middle, and an end. These are not only the essentials of drama; they are the essentials of a narrative.”
Fragmentation is the third area of biases in the media. This basically means that the news is packaged as unique isolated events. Instead of stories, the news becomes self-contained episodic capsules isolated from each other in time and space. There is no connection between anything. People can’t relate the news to anything else they see because of the news fragmentation tactic. By using the fragmentation tactic, the news uses their other personalization and dramatization tools to promote their soft news stories. The news is no longer about social, and political events around the world, it is about separate episodic issues.
Authority Disorder is the last form of biases. This is basically a who done it and who do we blame biases. People love controversy and scandal and the news uses their authority disorder tactic to give it to them. Bias with a preoccupation toward questions relating to social order and whether authorities are capable of establishing or restoring it is their authority disorder tactic.
Well we’ve established the fact that bias exists in the media, and now we know exactly what they use to deliver their bias.
Bias, what bias?????
Bias, What Bias????
There have been many arguments of late of which way the news is slanting. Is it too liberal or too conservative? Proponents of both sides would argue this differently. Conservatives would tell you there is a liberal bias, and the liberals would tell you there is a conservative bias. Either way, it would be hard to say that there is no bias at all. I recently did a debate arguing that there is a dominant liberal bias in the media. Most of the information that I came across showed a dominant liberal bias.
Me leaning a little more towards the conservative side would have to agree, but not agree fully. Yes there are tons of liberal media outlets out there, and yes it seems like all of the major ones do lean toward the left. But there are a couple out there that fulfills the needs of Conservative Americans. Fox News is one that always comes to mind when talking about conservative news.
When thinking about this, I thought that this was a little unfair. One shouldn’t have to go to Fox News to find negative news about the liberal party. When the Van Jones story aired, I waited and waited to find it in the headlines on all the major news stations. Fox news is the only one that aired anything about it. The Recent Jimmy Carter incident—only found it on Fox. One can’t argue that most of the news stations are liberal, and they sad thing is that they don’t try to hide it either. Google for one openly endorsed the Clinton Administration and refused to show ads supporting the Republican Party.
I’m not going to get into a statistical war with anyone. I’m sure both sides have facts, graphs, and data supporting their argument. So this is what I’m going to end with. I personally feel that there is a strong liberal bias in the media that can’t be ignored.
There have been many arguments of late of which way the news is slanting. Is it too liberal or too conservative? Proponents of both sides would argue this differently. Conservatives would tell you there is a liberal bias, and the liberals would tell you there is a conservative bias. Either way, it would be hard to say that there is no bias at all. I recently did a debate arguing that there is a dominant liberal bias in the media. Most of the information that I came across showed a dominant liberal bias.
Me leaning a little more towards the conservative side would have to agree, but not agree fully. Yes there are tons of liberal media outlets out there, and yes it seems like all of the major ones do lean toward the left. But there are a couple out there that fulfills the needs of Conservative Americans. Fox News is one that always comes to mind when talking about conservative news.
When thinking about this, I thought that this was a little unfair. One shouldn’t have to go to Fox News to find negative news about the liberal party. When the Van Jones story aired, I waited and waited to find it in the headlines on all the major news stations. Fox news is the only one that aired anything about it. The Recent Jimmy Carter incident—only found it on Fox. One can’t argue that most of the news stations are liberal, and they sad thing is that they don’t try to hide it either. Google for one openly endorsed the Clinton Administration and refused to show ads supporting the Republican Party.
I’m not going to get into a statistical war with anyone. I’m sure both sides have facts, graphs, and data supporting their argument. So this is what I’m going to end with. I personally feel that there is a strong liberal bias in the media that can’t be ignored.
The News Just Isn't What It Used To Be
The news isn’t what it used to be….
We have all heard are parents or grandparents say this throughout our lives. We are all sitting around the TV listening to the six O’clock news and then a headline pops us about Brad and Angelina. With a look of disgust, someone says it- the news isn’t what it used to be.
But is it true; I would say that with full confidence that no, it is nowhere close to what it used to be. First to further this discussion on old vs. new news, it is imperative to define what the media actually is. I would define it as group of individuals and organizations that deliver communicative content. Communicative Content are the main words here. The communicative content that the media delivers is what makes the difference in the media of old vs. the media of new.
News can be broken up into two separate divisions: hard news and soft news. Hard
News is the news that our parents and grandparents are used to. It can be categorized as serious content that is useful to public policy . It is timely and gives us responsible coverage of important current events. Most of us reading this might be a little taken aback. News isn’t news without the flashy headlines and the intriguing stories right; wrong. This is exactly what news is supposed to be in the first place. The news we are used to today is soft news. This is the type of news that contains less serious subject matter. It is personality-based and filled with human interest stories. Lifestyle documentaries and celebrities fill much of the stories that are conveyed to us.
Why has the news changed so much over the years? One of the biggest reasons that I can think of is the idea of a market economy. The news is a business after all, the news marketplace is more diversified not with a plethora of new channels available. With all of the competition out there, the news stations need to focus on a target demographic. This has its drawbacks, one of which being excessive business control and consolidation. This causes less diversity, and few viewpoints in the news being delivered .Profit pressures “news” as a commercial product rather than a public service” is now on the rise, and worst of all internal corporate censorship.
In the end, your parents were right. The news just isn’t what it used to be. With the economy becoming a bigger issue by the day, it looks like the old news isn’t coming back for a long time.
We have all heard are parents or grandparents say this throughout our lives. We are all sitting around the TV listening to the six O’clock news and then a headline pops us about Brad and Angelina. With a look of disgust, someone says it- the news isn’t what it used to be.
But is it true; I would say that with full confidence that no, it is nowhere close to what it used to be. First to further this discussion on old vs. new news, it is imperative to define what the media actually is. I would define it as group of individuals and organizations that deliver communicative content. Communicative Content are the main words here. The communicative content that the media delivers is what makes the difference in the media of old vs. the media of new.
News can be broken up into two separate divisions: hard news and soft news. Hard
News is the news that our parents and grandparents are used to. It can be categorized as serious content that is useful to public policy . It is timely and gives us responsible coverage of important current events. Most of us reading this might be a little taken aback. News isn’t news without the flashy headlines and the intriguing stories right; wrong. This is exactly what news is supposed to be in the first place. The news we are used to today is soft news. This is the type of news that contains less serious subject matter. It is personality-based and filled with human interest stories. Lifestyle documentaries and celebrities fill much of the stories that are conveyed to us.
Why has the news changed so much over the years? One of the biggest reasons that I can think of is the idea of a market economy. The news is a business after all, the news marketplace is more diversified not with a plethora of new channels available. With all of the competition out there, the news stations need to focus on a target demographic. This has its drawbacks, one of which being excessive business control and consolidation. This causes less diversity, and few viewpoints in the news being delivered .Profit pressures “news” as a commercial product rather than a public service” is now on the rise, and worst of all internal corporate censorship.
In the end, your parents were right. The news just isn’t what it used to be. With the economy becoming a bigger issue by the day, it looks like the old news isn’t coming back for a long time.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Bamboozled by the Mass Media
With technology being what it is today, almost everyone in America has access to the media. Whether it be the internet, television, newspapers, or the radio, no one can deny that it is there for the taking. But with all of this access to the media, are we actually getting information or infotainment? Millions tune into the major news networks everyday to watch the news. But really, are they tuning in to get information or infotainment?
The media industry whether we like it or not is a business. They deliver a “product” in order to make money, and appeal to what the people want to gain more revenue. Any business school will tell their students “give the people what they want”. Well, the media obviously listened in business school because they are doing exactly that. But the main problem here is that while in the process of giving people what they want, they have created diminished, mindless news.
People today aren’t as eager for information as they once were. That might sound like a far fetched statement seeing that there are many different kinds of news out there and news watchers have actually increased. But if you actually think about it, once people watch the news and hear a piece of information (or if you want to call it that), they just accept it and move on with their life. Very few people actually hear a piece of information, question it and then go check it out. They don’t care what the truth is or what is actually going on in the world, they just want to be entertained, that all.
As mentioned earlier, there are many different news sources for the American citizen. All this does is create competition in the media business. More competition means you gotta be the best to succeed. How does the media do this? Simple, they try to get the story faster and more appealing to their viewers. It doesn’t matter if the story is true, it’s fast, it’s late-breaking. All this does is feed into the mindless news that people today need like a hole in the head. What’s media if they deliver false news? Forgive me if I’m wrong but I thought the news was supposed to be information on what’s going on into the world. Not rumors that make for good headlines.
Many would argue that false news is better than no news. I would disagree entirely. I would rather know I’m being lied to and find the truth myself, rather than believe a lie. This could lead down a dangerous road if the media is not careful.
Since I’m already on a media rampage, I’ll tell you something else that really gets my goat about the Media and their “service” to the American people. Yea the media today doesn’t care about getting the information correct, true. But sometimes I’ll turn on the television and see Brittney Spears headlines on every channel, even the major news channels like CNN and Fox. I’ll then look at the newspapers and see the same thing. Then I’ll turn to the back page, or read the subheadings and see that North Korea has nuclear weapons. Holy Crap, when did Brittney Spears become more important than nuclear weapons? Again this feeds back into what the people want. The majority of people crave gossip and scandal and do not really care about the news. But in a democracy majority rules. This mindless television has created a huge disservice to us as a nation, and the people who actually care about information, accurate information to be more precise.
So what’s the use anymore? I love the news, I love knowing what’s going on in the world, but if it is almost impossible to get accurate worthwhile information, what do we do? The American people need to recognize the fact that we are being bamboozled here. We get false information because the media doesn’t think we are intelligent enough to realize we are being lied to. When they don’t have anything else to lie about, they add in a scandal, or celebrity break-up. This doesn’t sound like service to me people, I want my money back.
The media industry whether we like it or not is a business. They deliver a “product” in order to make money, and appeal to what the people want to gain more revenue. Any business school will tell their students “give the people what they want”. Well, the media obviously listened in business school because they are doing exactly that. But the main problem here is that while in the process of giving people what they want, they have created diminished, mindless news.
People today aren’t as eager for information as they once were. That might sound like a far fetched statement seeing that there are many different kinds of news out there and news watchers have actually increased. But if you actually think about it, once people watch the news and hear a piece of information (or if you want to call it that), they just accept it and move on with their life. Very few people actually hear a piece of information, question it and then go check it out. They don’t care what the truth is or what is actually going on in the world, they just want to be entertained, that all.
As mentioned earlier, there are many different news sources for the American citizen. All this does is create competition in the media business. More competition means you gotta be the best to succeed. How does the media do this? Simple, they try to get the story faster and more appealing to their viewers. It doesn’t matter if the story is true, it’s fast, it’s late-breaking. All this does is feed into the mindless news that people today need like a hole in the head. What’s media if they deliver false news? Forgive me if I’m wrong but I thought the news was supposed to be information on what’s going on into the world. Not rumors that make for good headlines.
Many would argue that false news is better than no news. I would disagree entirely. I would rather know I’m being lied to and find the truth myself, rather than believe a lie. This could lead down a dangerous road if the media is not careful.
Since I’m already on a media rampage, I’ll tell you something else that really gets my goat about the Media and their “service” to the American people. Yea the media today doesn’t care about getting the information correct, true. But sometimes I’ll turn on the television and see Brittney Spears headlines on every channel, even the major news channels like CNN and Fox. I’ll then look at the newspapers and see the same thing. Then I’ll turn to the back page, or read the subheadings and see that North Korea has nuclear weapons. Holy Crap, when did Brittney Spears become more important than nuclear weapons? Again this feeds back into what the people want. The majority of people crave gossip and scandal and do not really care about the news. But in a democracy majority rules. This mindless television has created a huge disservice to us as a nation, and the people who actually care about information, accurate information to be more precise.
So what’s the use anymore? I love the news, I love knowing what’s going on in the world, but if it is almost impossible to get accurate worthwhile information, what do we do? The American people need to recognize the fact that we are being bamboozled here. We get false information because the media doesn’t think we are intelligent enough to realize we are being lied to. When they don’t have anything else to lie about, they add in a scandal, or celebrity break-up. This doesn’t sound like service to me people, I want my money back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
