Matt Bialick
September 29th, 2010
Fox primary: complicated, contractual
The current situation with Fox News has been evolving over time. They have become a News super power. They have taken over and created many stations, making them a large percentage of TV news. Fox has been showing and promoting their Republican view, but now actually paying possibly presidential candidates. I found this article to be really good and right on subject with our current discussions. They have control and pay upcoming candidates to promote and give the public select coverage. Fox will give the people they promote easy questions and promise not to throw in hard ones. This limits the candidates actual first thoughts and personality. Also they will limit their people to only being interviewed on Fox run shows. Sarah Palin was asked recently to do a interview, she said to ask Fox. Who didn't allow her. They have exclusive interviewing rights over her now. They have control over her and others, this will definitely put a twist on the next presidential elections. Fox promoting certain people not only shows more of the Republican side to the public, but also makes it harder for other Republicans to run against the Fox promoted candidates. The other candidates will receive less recognition and publicity. A example I think of with this problem is like a prestigious company using a relative of applicant as their main reference. Parents and family members usually have the same morals that they have taught to there children, and believe their kid is great for that. This is like how Fox pays people to do and say what they want, and trying to tell everyone that their view is right. They should make laws to stop the joining of possible political runners and news companies. Fox has found away around this at the moment, but hopefully they and other companies will limited in the future.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Can Media Regain Public Trust?
Matt Bialick
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics & Society
9/28/10
Can Media Regain Public Trust?
The media can only regain the public’s trust if the media changes, or future generations are uninformed. As of now, not all the public has lost trust in the media. Also new generations will allow the public’s view of the media to change. In schools and in younger generations, we easily see that news that is fake and biased. When we take a look at our classmates, we all know the same information about which TV shows are biased, and which websites are trustworthy. I do not assume that everyone in the public is as up to date with the medias problems as we are. At a young age we have know friends who have posted fake youtube videos, and seen the fighting and opposite views between MSNBC and Fox. There are still people who are just now watching youtube, or still only watching one news channel. I think that younger generations understand how to search for better sources and not fully trust the media. I think in the future, the information we are currently learning about the media will stick with us. We will double check sources to get the truth about what the media is saying. The older people will probably never fully wise up to the media’s lies and bias’s. The public regaining trust in the Media depends on the information we teach our future generations. If future generations stay informed, and the media unchanged, the public will not regain their trust. If we don’t discuss the media with future generations, the kids will grow up never knowing to second guess what they hear.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Will Evolving Forms of Journalism Be an Improvement?
Matt Bialick
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics & Society
9/20/10
Will Evolving Forms of Journalism Be an Improvement?
I think that evolving forms of journalism are a improvement. The articles in Taking Sides may be only a few years old, they are outdated. Internet sites are important because they now give you information you want. You have the choice of a specific place, or Internet sites such as AOL actually show you select News coverage. It is based upon what you’re interested in, and what you want to see. This is beneficial because you can focus on what you want to read, you don’t have to pick out a few articles from the thick Newspaper. The Newspaper can give you a broad view on a lot of issues, but with the internet, you can get a large amount of information on specific issues. Personalized News sites can give you the local News, weather and traffic. News is straight to the point, making the information you receive relative and helpful. I think that the best part of this evolving journalism is the specific content you can receive. If you go to a News website strictly for, lets say Bay Area commercial fishermen, they can find important information specific for them. Things like offshore weather or fish activity is completely irrelevant for 99% of Bay Area residents, yet most important to the fisherman. It allows people to not waste their time or money with a printed newspaper only getting a small amount of helpful information from it. It’s easier to type in what your looking for on a search engine, versus scanning the front and back of a Newspaper. David Simon feels the evolving, or evolved forms of journalism is terrible. He feels that many things have contributed to the downfall of fine journalism, but having reporters in the field, investigators, editors, and good photographers all cost money. He dislikes how the internet gives the stories away for free. He states, “And how anyone can believe that the industry can fund that kind of expense by giving its product away online to aggregations and bloggers is a source of endless fascination to me” (Taking Sides 222). In response to that, what is better than a story reported by directly from the source? I think that today’s people rather hear news direct from the source, not second or third hand from Journalists. For example, I rather see photos taken from American soldiers in Iraq, and hear how they feel, instead of a reporters most likely late taken photograph and a less gritty comment on it. Without editors and fancy camera work free and low budget news coverage gives us less polished stories. The Internet works so well today because people want first hand stories. They also want to choose how much and what they are reading, the modern reader is able to choose the specifics.
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics & Society
9/20/10
Will Evolving Forms of Journalism Be an Improvement?
I think that evolving forms of journalism are a improvement. The articles in Taking Sides may be only a few years old, they are outdated. Internet sites are important because they now give you information you want. You have the choice of a specific place, or Internet sites such as AOL actually show you select News coverage. It is based upon what you’re interested in, and what you want to see. This is beneficial because you can focus on what you want to read, you don’t have to pick out a few articles from the thick Newspaper. The Newspaper can give you a broad view on a lot of issues, but with the internet, you can get a large amount of information on specific issues. Personalized News sites can give you the local News, weather and traffic. News is straight to the point, making the information you receive relative and helpful. I think that the best part of this evolving journalism is the specific content you can receive. If you go to a News website strictly for, lets say Bay Area commercial fishermen, they can find important information specific for them. Things like offshore weather or fish activity is completely irrelevant for 99% of Bay Area residents, yet most important to the fisherman. It allows people to not waste their time or money with a printed newspaper only getting a small amount of helpful information from it. It’s easier to type in what your looking for on a search engine, versus scanning the front and back of a Newspaper. David Simon feels the evolving, or evolved forms of journalism is terrible. He feels that many things have contributed to the downfall of fine journalism, but having reporters in the field, investigators, editors, and good photographers all cost money. He dislikes how the internet gives the stories away for free. He states, “And how anyone can believe that the industry can fund that kind of expense by giving its product away online to aggregations and bloggers is a source of endless fascination to me” (Taking Sides 222). In response to that, what is better than a story reported by directly from the source? I think that today’s people rather hear news direct from the source, not second or third hand from Journalists. For example, I rather see photos taken from American soldiers in Iraq, and hear how they feel, instead of a reporters most likely late taken photograph and a less gritty comment on it. Without editors and fancy camera work free and low budget news coverage gives us less polished stories. The Internet works so well today because people want first hand stories. They also want to choose how much and what they are reading, the modern reader is able to choose the specifics.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Meta Concepts
Matt Bialick
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics & Society
9/16/10
The video I chose was a video I found about celebrities loving Obama. I found this particularly interesting because it did not discuss anything important for a President. I dislike how celebrities always voice their view in political matters, and get involved, yet they are not qualified. This video shows Hollywood stars saying, "I'm voting for Obama". These videos and celebrity support are the meta concept of hype. Instead of dealing with substantive coverage, they use hoopla. This is used to help the people attempt to connect with the person being promoted. If the celebrity agrees with someone, the public wants to agree too. This video shows people laughing, smiling and having a good time, Obama seems friendly, and kind. I really dislike celebrities voicing political and important views, because I see people are actually influenced. I hear people repeating what they heard from Angelina Jolie, or George Clooney. Why should we trust actors, of all people. This video has pretty much all the most popular celebrities. A range, from Tom Hanks, who pretty much no one dislikes, to Chris Rock, introducing Obama followed by a relaxed handshake. A video like has people relate to the comedy, making Obama look like a relaxed, cool guy. I think people don't spend time to think about, is what I want from a President, a cool guy that celebrities support? Or, something which may be more important, like his qualifications, view on economy, healthcare, defense, and education plans. The reason why hoopla and hype are used so often, is because it works. Many people rather vote for someone they want to hang out with, vs. someone who will be a good President.
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics & Society
9/16/10
The video I chose was a video I found about celebrities loving Obama. I found this particularly interesting because it did not discuss anything important for a President. I dislike how celebrities always voice their view in political matters, and get involved, yet they are not qualified. This video shows Hollywood stars saying, "I'm voting for Obama". These videos and celebrity support are the meta concept of hype. Instead of dealing with substantive coverage, they use hoopla. This is used to help the people attempt to connect with the person being promoted. If the celebrity agrees with someone, the public wants to agree too. This video shows people laughing, smiling and having a good time, Obama seems friendly, and kind. I really dislike celebrities voicing political and important views, because I see people are actually influenced. I hear people repeating what they heard from Angelina Jolie, or George Clooney. Why should we trust actors, of all people. This video has pretty much all the most popular celebrities. A range, from Tom Hanks, who pretty much no one dislikes, to Chris Rock, introducing Obama followed by a relaxed handshake. A video like has people relate to the comedy, making Obama look like a relaxed, cool guy. I think people don't spend time to think about, is what I want from a President, a cool guy that celebrities support? Or, something which may be more important, like his qualifications, view on economy, healthcare, defense, and education plans. The reason why hoopla and hype are used so often, is because it works. Many people rather vote for someone they want to hang out with, vs. someone who will be a good President.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Does Fake News mislead the Public?
Matt Bialick
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics & Societyety
September 14th, 2010
September 8th, 2010
Does fake news mislead the public? I think so, especially with younger audiences. Shows like the Colbert Report, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart show single sided political and news views. Both shows are comical, and appear light hearted. If you look deeper they always have a underlying message. I think the comedy draws people into to feeling like they are not dealing with important issues. Through this comical mask, the shows view sticks with the audience. I think the material shows are discussing are be generally true and actual events, yet younger people wont spend time to review the full details and see both sides. Also, people don't understand when shows like South Park and Colbert Report are mocking something. If these people listen to what is being said literally with out the joking understood. They could adopt the opposite messages the show is actual message. I do agree with Hollander that late night television can be informative to its viewers who often don't watch the news. Yet I think many people get short jokes and not the whole story from these programs. I myself will hear a news jokes on late night television, then use the Internet to find the full story. I think most people do not look at the background and full story of news jokes, this leads to them getting a single sided view. It really depends on the viewer themselves to not be mislead by these shows by searching for the full stories and more information.
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics & Societyety
September 14th, 2010
September 8th, 2010
Does fake news mislead the public? I think so, especially with younger audiences. Shows like the Colbert Report, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart show single sided political and news views. Both shows are comical, and appear light hearted. If you look deeper they always have a underlying message. I think the comedy draws people into to feeling like they are not dealing with important issues. Through this comical mask, the shows view sticks with the audience. I think the material shows are discussing are be generally true and actual events, yet younger people wont spend time to review the full details and see both sides. Also, people don't understand when shows like South Park and Colbert Report are mocking something. If these people listen to what is being said literally with out the joking understood. They could adopt the opposite messages the show is actual message. I do agree with Hollander that late night television can be informative to its viewers who often don't watch the news. Yet I think many people get short jokes and not the whole story from these programs. I myself will hear a news jokes on late night television, then use the Internet to find the full story. I think most people do not look at the background and full story of news jokes, this leads to them getting a single sided view. It really depends on the viewer themselves to not be mislead by these shows by searching for the full stories and more information.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Are news correspondents unbiased? Comparing/Contrasting news stories from different channels.
Matt Bialick
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics & Society
September 8th, 2010
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics & Society
September 8th, 2010
Compare/Contrast News channels.
In my research to find out how news channels viewed and showed their stories. I watched Bill Oreilly from Fox News, as he is a strong Republican. For the other side, I watched the liberal MSNBC show with Chris Matthews. Each channel definitely had their own view on the news subjects, and enjoyed pointing fingers at the other channel. While I watched the shows to view how they generally acted, A common subject which each channel talked about was the Presidential It's a mid-term evaluation for Obama. I have heard about the strong bias and battles that each channel has to promote their own political views. Little did I know that talking trash about the other channels correspondents takes up a lot of the show. Mainly on Bill Orielly had guests on which the main point seemed to be that liberals are stupid. The point of the the Republican side is that Obama has not been a good president, and that liberals put all their eggs in one basket, and failed. On the Obama subject from MSNBC I they showed a video of giving a speech/excuse. It was of Obama saying that everyone is unhappy with the economy, including himself and everyone is working on it. While MSNBC seemed to be slightly supporting Obama and talking about ideas. Fox just bad mouthed liberals. I wrote down some of the things each side said during the show. During The Oreilly Factor, Dennis Miller said, "general consensus of America is we all don't like Obama.", followed by no information or statistics. On a separate subject Bill Oreilly briefly talked about Gore, saying multiple times that he was a dufus, putts and could not get anything done. The starting headline for a Fox a topic was, "Crazy ideas from the far left". Next Oreilly mentions how liberals "don't understand how dumb they sound". Which each channel has in common is trash talking, MSNBC seemed to match Fox with their own low blows and trash talking. During a interview on MSNBC Governor Rendall stated that "The Republican party is now dominated by crazy, fruitloop, wackos." Watching these shows really want to make me watch suggested and supposedly non-bias news channels such as BBC. MSNBC and Fox really didn't give that much information on the topics they were discussing. Each channel would go off on a idea or trash talking completely overshadowing the news stories. For these big name channels they are definitely promoting their views, not through helpful information, but through talking trash.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Are American values shaped by the Mass Media?
American values are being influenced by what the media decides to give to us. We do not shape our media, but the media finds ways to make us feel as if we are. I agree with Schiller much more than with Carey. Schiller does a good job in describing the effect the media plays on American values. Through my eyes Carey seemed to be reciting the definition for communication. The media picks and chooses what the American public sees. From news to crime dramas, companies voice their views and opinions to Americans, providing them with choice A, never mentioning there was also choice B and C. One example Schiller uses is that humans "act as they do but because they believe they are expected to act that way..." (Schiller 7). The entertainment industry plays a massive role on the values of Americans. Americans watch a large amount of tv and movies from a very early age. What they are shown are skinny flawless women, and bulky strong men mixed with sex and drugs. It is easy to see how profits can be made from these views. To list a few types of commercials you see, weight loss supplements, acne control, booze, deodorant, and fast "sexy" cars. While the values have had to have start somewhere, with someone, large companies and the media have taken them and have stretched and distorted them into their own, most profitable views.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)