Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Violence
I think the media should air a lot of content when it comes to violence. (Although I think there should be a level of consideration to viewers who are not at a mature age) I think it's reasonable to expect some violence in the media if it's reality. For example, I don't think there's any harm in showing the violence happening in Iraq, because people need to see this. This is what's going on in our world and if you don't disclose it no one will know. When it comes to things like the recent events in Virginia, you need to take into consideration the families of the victims and also Cho. I bet he is loving the fact that we are giving so much media attention to him and his video, rather than to the victims of his rampage. I think we should expect a level of violence in the media, if it's happening in our world, people want to know about it.
Monday, April 30, 2007
10 Things I [Love/Hate] About You...
The Five Things I Appreciated About "The Gay"
1) The modern facilities, and the up-to-date, if not cutting edge equipment that the college provided. After hearing Katie Curcio describe how CBS News in New York still uses Beta tapes, I felt a whole lot better about my education.
2) The quality of most of the professors is second-to-none. While I never got to know all the professors in the College, the Dana Rosengards, the Fred Blevinses, the Peter Gades, and the Robert Kerrs of the college totally made the experience of going to school here worth it. If every professor was as wonderful as these four were, I'd have deliberately flunked courses just to stay in the college.
3) The commitment by the college to continue to think bigger and better, and not be content with the status quo. Only three years removed from an expansion that would keep some schools content for decades, OU is breaking ground tomorrow on new facilities that will arguably out-pimp some of the finest JMC schools in the country.
4) The comfy couches in the lounge. Many a peaceful nap have been had on those over-stuffed earthly delights.
5) The fact that we were allowed to choose an emphasis and focus solely on that, without a lot of other superfluous and nonsensical busy work in order to flesh out a more generalized journalism degree.
All that being said, now my 5 complaints about what the College could've done to accommodate me more.
1) More of an emphasis on curriculum that caters specifically to radio. People may argue that radio is an antiquated medium, but with the innovations in both technology and management structure, radio is anything but. I would've liked to have learned the various automation softwares - Prophet, NexGen, AudioVAULT...as well as other software editing applications, such as Vegas or ProTools. There's far more out there in the radio industry than just Adobe Audition, and the college should reflect that.
2) For three years, I felt like my advisers were absolutely worthless. Every year, without fail, I figured out my schedule on my own, knew exactly what to take and when to take it, and the only reason I even bothered to go into Student Services was because it was required in order for my stops to be removed. With trying to get a dual-degree, it just further complicated the process, and I wish I would've been left to myself, with the option of seeking someone out if I had questions.
3) Why is KGOU not a part of the journalism college? That being said, I'm almost glad it isn't, because the station is able to operate successfully independent of Gaylord and under the jurisdiction of OCCE and the University of Oklahoma Outreach. I've seen and heard how the WiRE is neglected by the college, and am glad the same pitfalls don't exist with KGOU.
4) I wish the college did more to facilitate independent student production. I've had a lot of great ideas for various video and audio projects that I would've loved to pursue for both personal and professional reasons, and feel that as a student who has successfully demonstrated both responsibility and competence with the equipment, I should be allowed to go after these endeavors. I understand that equipment is limited, but with the Gaylord family in our pockets, and the unlimited monetary recruiting potential of President Boren, shouldn't we benefit from that somehow?
5) Adding onto that, the bureaucratic red tape that exists with the cage, which professors outside the broadcast sequence should be made aware of. We were required to make a video presentation for Mass Comm Law, and thank God one of my partners was in ENG, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to rent a camera, because my class schedule did not clear me for it. I'm sure this is a minor fix, but the faculty and staff should work hand-in-hand to ensure that all of the students who may ever need to use the college's equipment have the opportunity to do so.
1) The modern facilities, and the up-to-date, if not cutting edge equipment that the college provided. After hearing Katie Curcio describe how CBS News in New York still uses Beta tapes, I felt a whole lot better about my education.
2) The quality of most of the professors is second-to-none. While I never got to know all the professors in the College, the Dana Rosengards, the Fred Blevinses, the Peter Gades, and the Robert Kerrs of the college totally made the experience of going to school here worth it. If every professor was as wonderful as these four were, I'd have deliberately flunked courses just to stay in the college.
3) The commitment by the college to continue to think bigger and better, and not be content with the status quo. Only three years removed from an expansion that would keep some schools content for decades, OU is breaking ground tomorrow on new facilities that will arguably out-pimp some of the finest JMC schools in the country.
4) The comfy couches in the lounge. Many a peaceful nap have been had on those over-stuffed earthly delights.
5) The fact that we were allowed to choose an emphasis and focus solely on that, without a lot of other superfluous and nonsensical busy work in order to flesh out a more generalized journalism degree.
All that being said, now my 5 complaints about what the College could've done to accommodate me more.
1) More of an emphasis on curriculum that caters specifically to radio. People may argue that radio is an antiquated medium, but with the innovations in both technology and management structure, radio is anything but. I would've liked to have learned the various automation softwares - Prophet, NexGen, AudioVAULT...as well as other software editing applications, such as Vegas or ProTools. There's far more out there in the radio industry than just Adobe Audition, and the college should reflect that.
2) For three years, I felt like my advisers were absolutely worthless. Every year, without fail, I figured out my schedule on my own, knew exactly what to take and when to take it, and the only reason I even bothered to go into Student Services was because it was required in order for my stops to be removed. With trying to get a dual-degree, it just further complicated the process, and I wish I would've been left to myself, with the option of seeking someone out if I had questions.
3) Why is KGOU not a part of the journalism college? That being said, I'm almost glad it isn't, because the station is able to operate successfully independent of Gaylord and under the jurisdiction of OCCE and the University of Oklahoma Outreach. I've seen and heard how the WiRE is neglected by the college, and am glad the same pitfalls don't exist with KGOU.
4) I wish the college did more to facilitate independent student production. I've had a lot of great ideas for various video and audio projects that I would've loved to pursue for both personal and professional reasons, and feel that as a student who has successfully demonstrated both responsibility and competence with the equipment, I should be allowed to go after these endeavors. I understand that equipment is limited, but with the Gaylord family in our pockets, and the unlimited monetary recruiting potential of President Boren, shouldn't we benefit from that somehow?
5) Adding onto that, the bureaucratic red tape that exists with the cage, which professors outside the broadcast sequence should be made aware of. We were required to make a video presentation for Mass Comm Law, and thank God one of my partners was in ENG, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to rent a camera, because my class schedule did not clear me for it. I'm sure this is a minor fix, but the faculty and staff should work hand-in-hand to ensure that all of the students who may ever need to use the college's equipment have the opportunity to do so.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Spanking Geraldo, I mean violence in the media
I think that the media should be careful on what they air. Granted I am a lover of blood and gore (not Al Gore) but not everyone is. I think that they should not air a dead body or a murder on the air, but they need to at least show some of the scene or the aftermath. As an editor, I cant show blood or a dead body, but I try to show as much other stuff as I can so that the viewer at home at least knows what happened.
THIS POST WAS APPROVED BY THE WEBMASTER OF WWW.GREGORYPSHERMAN.COM
THIS POST WAS APPROVED BY THE WEBMASTER OF WWW.GREGORYPSHERMAN.COM
Violence in the Media
Living in a democracy I believe it is important to let citizens make their own decisions on what they choose to do and in this case to watch. This is a free country and as a result we can express ourselves however we please. This does not mean that children should be subjected to violence on television or in the movies. Television and music ratings are there to regulate that, but that was last week's discussion. I think that violence in the news is very relevant and absolutely should be shown simply because it is reality. Why would we want to live in a world where the media witholds details from the general public. Using the tragedy at Virginia Tech as an example, while the nature of the murderer's acts as well as his video tape were extremely violent it is important for the nation to witness this so they know what exactly went on and are fully aware that this type of anger and violence is still present in our current society. One may argue that repetitive airing of these incidents may encourage "copycats" or may severely damage the public's psyche, the fact is there are many more American citizens who learn from these acts and are overcome with a desire for change or a will to help sick individuals capable of such violence. Any person that is inspired to repeat violent acts they see on tv or in the movies was a threat to society long before they received "inspiration".
Violence in the movies of course is not real, so one may claim that there is no constructive reasoning for such violent movies or scenes. But the fact is, it is entertaining. People love to see violence in the movies. But this is not because they want to repeat what they see, instead it is because it is an imaginitive world for many people because the majority of people are not violent. It sparks curiosity and excitement. Once an individual reaches a certain maturity they know better than to be influenced by violence in the media. If they do not, then as i stated earlier they most likely would have been a threat to society with or without violence in the media.
Violence in the movies of course is not real, so one may claim that there is no constructive reasoning for such violent movies or scenes. But the fact is, it is entertaining. People love to see violence in the movies. But this is not because they want to repeat what they see, instead it is because it is an imaginitive world for many people because the majority of people are not violent. It sparks curiosity and excitement. Once an individual reaches a certain maturity they know better than to be influenced by violence in the media. If they do not, then as i stated earlier they most likely would have been a threat to society with or without violence in the media.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Rich Kids, Debauchary, and Deceitful Charlatans....too soon?
As long as we're talking about media violence...somebody should mention Budd Dwyer.
"This will hurt someone!"
I think the above link should probably never see the light of day over the public airwaves, or cable for that matter, especially when you consider that the press conference aired shortly before noon. That being said, there is a distinct difference between actual violence (like the Dwyer suicide), which should probably never be aired,and pretend violence, which can be found in movies, TV, video games, and essentially any form of media that exists, whether it be fictional or not. A lot of my posts this semester have focused on the responsibility of the news consumer, and how he or she has to be their own gatekeeper in deciding what to consume. I think the same is true in this case. The material and information should be available to those who wish to seek it out, but it is up to these individuals to make responsible choices based on their beliefs and values. The first time I saw the Dwyer suicide, it upset me a great deal, because I watched a very high-quality video of a man taking his own life. On the flip side, however, watching a movie like The Last Samurai or Pulp Fiction, where death and violence occurs that is far more graphic than the Dwyer incident, doesn't bother me in the least because I'm an intelligent person who can make the distinction between fiction and reality through the media he consumes. It's up to the public to show the same diligence. The public has a right to know, but more importantly, the public does not have the right to have information like this withheld from them if they so desire to see it.
"This will hurt someone!"
I think the above link should probably never see the light of day over the public airwaves, or cable for that matter, especially when you consider that the press conference aired shortly before noon. That being said, there is a distinct difference between actual violence (like the Dwyer suicide), which should probably never be aired,and pretend violence, which can be found in movies, TV, video games, and essentially any form of media that exists, whether it be fictional or not. A lot of my posts this semester have focused on the responsibility of the news consumer, and how he or she has to be their own gatekeeper in deciding what to consume. I think the same is true in this case. The material and information should be available to those who wish to seek it out, but it is up to these individuals to make responsible choices based on their beliefs and values. The first time I saw the Dwyer suicide, it upset me a great deal, because I watched a very high-quality video of a man taking his own life. On the flip side, however, watching a movie like The Last Samurai or Pulp Fiction, where death and violence occurs that is far more graphic than the Dwyer incident, doesn't bother me in the least because I'm an intelligent person who can make the distinction between fiction and reality through the media he consumes. It's up to the public to show the same diligence. The public has a right to know, but more importantly, the public does not have the right to have information like this withheld from them if they so desire to see it.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
the v-chip
I do think the v-chip is an effective means of restricting content. I think it does come down to the parents and it's their decision whether or not they will implement it. If they really do want to restrict content they will, and they will find out about the v-chip if they don't already know about it. If they're too lazy to find out about it, that's their fault and they obviously don't care so much about what their children watch.
I would definitely use it if I needed to, but I hope I raise children that do not even look for content that I would not want them to watch. I would hope that my children obey what I tell them and if something is not acceptable I would not have to go to such extremities as to implementing this v-chip.
I would definitely use it if I needed to, but I hope I raise children that do not even look for content that I would not want them to watch. I would hope that my children obey what I tell them and if something is not acceptable I would not have to go to such extremities as to implementing this v-chip.
V-Chip
This system only works if the parents use it. But do parents know it's out there? Would they know how to use it? Those are questions I have. The tv rating system is a good ranking system for parents to have an idea of what would be good for their kids. I do not believe the kids themselves use the system. I think seeing the higher rankings as well as identifying that they have access to those shows will only make them want to watch them more. Kids are curious little humans. But, that's where the v-chip is suppose to come into play. I just don't think parents are willing to screw around with it. Broadcasters should be a little more aware of when kids have good access to tv which means they should be careful about their scheduling. I personally wouldn't use it. I would take responsibility and watch more closely myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)