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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

V Chip

I think the v-chip is not that effective. Parents have to step up and use it more often for it to be useful.
They are possibly a little too preoccupied to take care of this very needed v-chip.
*Who am I kidding?...I don't think the parents have to put a v-chip on their tv. It's up to the media to be careful in what they say and do...and quit being so vulgar.

What happened to the good ol days when married couples slept in separate beds, you never heard a cuss word...etc!

Shrek, the movie, even ties in funny little secrets/jokes for the older group of watchers!!

What is up with that? I love it...but what if the kids understand the jokes? That's not right!
Anyway...I'm excited about today's presentation!

V-chip

I'd like to think that the V-chip is an effective way of protecting kids from inappropriate content, but it's not. I just see alot of ways of getting around it. The most important one being that some parents don't even know they exist and some don't know how to use it. Kids these days are alot smarter than we think and are definitely smarter than us when we were that age. If they don't watch it at their own homes, who's to say that they can't at a friend's house???
I think that ratings and the v-chip could regulate what kids watch but to my understanding it's not widely known. With parents' hectic schedule, I don't think that they would all actually take time to figure out how to work the v-chips, which shows to censor, etc.
If I was a parent I would probably try the v-chip but I would not rely on it solely.

"Daaaaaaaad!!! V-Chip! V-Chip!!!"

As the two blogs stated, the V-Chip is only as effective as the parents using it. I think the criticism is accurate, and that the V-Chip is probably not user-friendly enough to appeal to all parents who want to regulate what their children watch. I don't think the TV ratings affect what kids watch because a child is not going to shut off a program he or she wants to watch simply because it's been forbidden by the parents based on an arbitrary rating system. When I was younger I would only want to watch programs more (The Simpsons), if my parents had forbidden me from watching them. Since many parents simply use the television as a babysitter for their children anyway, and usually don't watch programs with them, I think the V-Chip is probably not effective, and raises another, larger issue about lazy parenting in a digital age.

Wikipedia

I have used wikipedia alot of times but that doesn't necessarily mean that I consider it as a credible source. It gives me a pretty good idea about what something is and then I go from there. I don't think that we should use wiki as our sole source of information especially when it comes to papers we write in class and all other important documents that we happen to work on.
I think it's useful but not very credible. Just like what everyone else has mentioned, we don't know who's posting what and where they even get their information.
Going back to the question...yes i would use wiki for one of my papers. I wouldn't cite it but i would look elsewhere for more information as well.

Wiki

I would not use or cite information from wikipedia for one of my papers or essays. I do not think it's a credible source, and I also believe that my professor would feel the same way, hence don't use the source.

This doesn't mean that wikipedia doesn't have good information and isn't reliable. I think it usually provides a good overview of what you need and can be informative. However, if you don't look elsewhere at other sources to verify and gain more insight that's your own fault. I don't think this just relates to wikipedia, it's everything. You can't just take one person's or one website's opinion/information. You should gain more perspective.

Wiki Diki Dock

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. Anyone can post anything about any topic and you have no idea if that person is an expert in the topic or your average squirrel. It might be good to look at it for information, but you need to find better sources to verify it.

THIS POST WAS APPROVED BY THE WEBMASTER OF WWW.GREGORYPSHERMAN.COM

Wikipedia

More often than not in a paper, I use Wikipedia to gain a quick, broad, and general understanding of the topic before I go off and actually research it. As far as citing something in a paper, normally what I do when there's a fact that I feel I need to reference, I'll find out where the author of the Wiki got their information, and cite that source, rather than the Wiki itself. I have little doubt there's a bias by most professors about the credibility of a Wikipedia entry, and I feel that most professors view it as a lazy research tool and a cop-out from finding a real source.

As far as the credibility of Wikipedia, I think the Web site is pretty straightforward, and most users can get a good sense of what's reliable and what's not. Most of the noteworthy articles on Wikipedia have detailed outlines and notations, and the site's administrator's will flag or remove most articles that have not passed their screening process. Much like with the Gatekeeper presentation, it really is up to the consumer or user to decide what he or she deems credible.

WIK

I like using wikipedia... however, I don't think it is 100% credible. Most of the information is true. At least I always thought. But after reading Monica and Jared's websites...I realize that wikipedia can be changed by anyone and everyone.

Who wants to consider something that can be changed by the public truthful? I sure don't!

I don't have much else to say on this topic...but I hope to get a better understanding after the presentation tomorrow!

WIKIPEDIA

Conceptaully, Wikipedia is the ideal web site. This is a site in which anyone can access any information they desire from the perspective of human beings without a corporate bias. While anything can be posted on this cite and appear true, it is a fact that the site may provide false information. But, as a whole I would call Wikipedia a pretty realiable source. Every time I have had to use the site, I have been provided with adequate information. I sometimes run across sentences or phrases that appear to be a bit opinionated, but these are not hard to spot. I use Wikipedia as a source to understand the basic knowledge of a particular subject or person. I do not rely on the specific details wikipedia provides. But if I am just wanting a quick understadning of what something is or who someone is, Wikipedia is great.
I would cite this website in a paper when referring to something that is simple and not to detailed, but I would not use it as a major source in a paper. This is simply because the margin for error is a bit higher with this site than a scholarly journal for example. This is not a bad thing for the site, just a cautionary action. Statments and articles in scholarly journals are 100% proved true, while wikipedia, as i said, is not. A teacher may be less willing to take information from Wikipedia seriously than if it were from a scholarly journal or magazine. When writing a paper i am concerned with making it entirely accurate. Wikipdeia though is a great tool for gaining instant knowledge on a particular subject.

Fair Use ETC..

Fair use and parody is definitely a good excuse to get out of a libel suit that is approaching.

I understand that ppl think everyone should all create original material ON their own...HOWEVER...how much fun would that be?
NONE!!!

I don't know about everyone else...but I like hearing an older song turned new witha new beat!

Where would SNL or MADTV be without parody and fair use? WE like making fun of ppl....who doesn't? It's hilarious. I mean...to an extent...
Jokes are made to be funny...and parody is FUNNY!

Fair use...let's us take something that is "so-so"...and turn it into something HILARIOUS with the right person!!!

MUSIC

I can see why many pple think making music online available to the public can be cost worthy to the artists...but I, however do not.
I think all in all getting music out there for everyone to hear can help the artist and his/her sales.

If I listen to an artists album online ...decide I like it....then my chances of going and buying the CD are greater(that is of course...if I like MORE than just one song).

In a way online music helps the consumer and the artist. It helps the consumer...b/c we may only like 1-2 songs of a particular artist...so why waist all my money on the whole $17 CD when I'm only going to listen to those 1-2 songs?

Fair Use

As well as the last topic, I agree with a few of my classmates. I personally don't understand how fair use and libel go together. I always associated fair use with copyright. The only way you can get out of libel is by telling the truth? I could be wrong. Dr. Kerr would not like to see senior Journalism students making this error. This being said, I am some what interested to see this presentation tomorrow.

Fair Use

I will start by mentioning that my presentation will focus more on copyright than libel so blame my intern for that one.

Meanwhile, you will have to wait for my discussion on Fair Use and copyright in the media. Not going to give away my speech in the blog.

THIS POST WAS APPROVED BY THE WEBMASTER OF WWW.GREGORYPSHERMAN.COM

Online porno I mean online music

I remember using Napster back in high school and I was able to get all my favorite songs without having to pay for it at that time. But it did get me to listen to new music and new artists and I eventually went out and bought a CD from music I first found on Napster.

I think that ITUNES will benefit independent artists in the future because it will help them reach a broader audience.

THIS POST WAS APPROVED BY THE WEBMASTER OF WWW.GREGORYPSHERMAN.COM

Music

I personally don't believe that online music programs like iTunes and Limewire have harmed the industry. Like a few of my classmates, I believe it has helped. It makes it easier and faster for music lovers to access and download their favorite artists. That to me is the only thing that has changed. The recording artists record no differently but they may promote themselves slightly differently now that they know and understand the internet. They use it to their advantage. If it will change anything in the future, it'll change how they release the music from a promotions stand point.

iTunes

Online music sharing has definitely changed the recording industry. It has probably had both negative and positive repercussions for the industry, but personally I think the effects have been mostly positive .

The most positive aspect to come out of online music sharing, as I see it, is that it has given a voice to almost anyone. Many struggling bands or up-and-coming talent now have the opportunity to get their music out there and available to the public. It's an amazing opportunity for artists and they can take full advantage of it through the Internet and online music sharing.

Another advantage is that you have quick and easy access to different music from around the world. It is difficult to find music from Australian artists in America, however, online music sharing bridges that gap and makes Australian music just a click away.

The negative repercussions of such a novelty is that sales could possibly decline. As it states in our text that we read earlier in the semster it is hard to detect whether or not this statement has any value, but it is well known that it is definitely a possibility. If online music sharing is available then why go out and buy a CD. Not only does that take time and effort but it costs money. However, there's the argument that file sharing increases audiences and therefore the music indusrty receives greater sales. I don't think either side of the argument can prove they're entirely correct, and I presume only time will tell.

Online Music

I really dont think that online distribution like Itunes has made the recording industry worse. I can't really say that it has made it all better eitherll I know is that it doesn't do as much damage as a lot of people think or say. In a lot of ways it probably has caused the decline in sales among the artists, but online distribution has made alot of records popular. There's always someone who is going to break the "rules" and deviate from the "norm."
This might not be something that record producers or artists want to happen but it will happen. I don't think that producers or artists will ever be out of jobs. I think that in the future there will be some kind of compromise and online distribution will not be so rampant because alot of music might just be more available for everyone's use.

Fair Use

I am not sure that libel and fair use go together, in fact I'm sure they don't. So I will just comment on fair use in order to stick to the topic (it is fair use isn't it??).

Anyway I think fair use is definitely justifiable when referring to copyrighted material, and I will even go further to say I think some of the restrictions upon fair use should be lifted. Especially after reading the section in our book, imagineering, I believe that we should have less restrictions over copyrighted works, etc. and more freedom. (Especially when it comes to educational purposes.)

I guess the idea of copyright makes sense but I think at times it restricts knowledge. This is a negative aspect of copyright, and could be alleviated if the law wasn't so tight on copyright. I like the idea of a somewhat free marketplace of ideas, where copyrighted works can be built upon and elaborated on.

Music Industry

From my own experiences, the online music industry has actually helped the recording industry make a more ideal consumer out of me. Aside from how easy it is to dirty your computer with a slew of viruses, adware, and spyware that can be embedded in .mp3 files, the constant threat of RIAA lawsuits for pirated music has instilled a healthy and robust fear and apprehension toward iTunes, Limewire, or any other file-sharing program on the Internet. Not only that, but for me at least, it would take little for online music consumption to get out of hand. By avoiding downloading music myself altogether, I've actually found myself going to purchase more music than I did when I actually did download. Spending $12.99 all at once is a lot easier, and a lot safer on my wallet, than the idea of constantly clicking for $.99 songs. However, I also consume music a lot differently than most consumers. I buy just as much used vinyl as I do new CDs, and it makes a hell of a lot more sense to pay $3.98 for a used, 12-inch copy of Live at Fillmore East than it does $18.99 for a new one, regardless of how important the extra Elvin Bishop track is to me. The online music industry has actually de-revolutionized music from my perspective - while practically everyone scrambles out to buy Apple's newest, Jetson-like iPod, I'm perfectly happy sitting at home like a Flintstone watching the grooves spin by.

FAIR USE

I beleieve that fair use is a "valid exscuse" to get out of a libel suit. Not only do i believe this, i know this. Someone can be rightfully sued for libel if they violate copyright laws. Legally, copyright law is not violated if fair use is properly applied or present. Therefore, fair use is a "valid exscuse" to get out of a libel suit. It is pretty cut and dry. It is valid, because the law says so. Is the law a good one or is this law fair? Well, that is an entirley different question. But in terms of its validity, the answer is yes, it is valid.

MUSIC INDUSTRY

Online music sharing with programs such as itunes has defintely changed the music industry. The ability to download music on the internet without a doubt is a big blow to record sales for musicians. When thinking about this topic I initially feel bad for the music industry and all of its hard working musicians because itunes, limewire and other music sharing programs have taken away from a big part of what the industry once was. Upon further examination however I think it is a good thing for the industry. This is because of the fact that it is much easier to access and listen to a particular musician or band's music via the internet. A consumer can listen to a song on the internet, decide if they like it and if so they can purchase the CD online, or at the store if they want to support the band that way. If they are just looking for some free music they of course can download the CD, but this may inspire them to go see a live show. While these music file sharing programs may call for a muscian to play more live shows we must ask, is this really a bad thing? Heaven forbid an artisit must do some touring to make bank. Millions upon millions of dollars are still just as available for musicians, they just may have to work a little more or get a little more creative to earn the big bucks. In an industry full of artistic expression how how is that?

Fair Use and Libel???

I'm really not sure what the question here is asking, because qualifying something as "parody" to invoke Fair Use doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Fair Use is a principle invoked in defense of copyright, not defamation. Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin Co. involved an issue of copyright, not whether or not a "statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of [in this case a book]" (Wikipedia definition of defamation). Based on the way Greg posed the question in the e-mail, if Fair Use were to be invoked at all in a libel case, it would probably be using either the defense of opinion - which allows for claims that are inherently not falsifiable - or the defense of fair comment on a matter of public interest, which allows for "statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest," even if the statements are "logically unsound."

Again, Fair Use is a principle invoked in defense of copyright, not defamation. There's a lot more I'd like to say about this, however, out of respect for Ralph's request that the blogs not be used for tirades against individual people, I'll hold my tongue.

Video News Releases

I don't think that VNRs are ethical. Simply put, it is using the work of others and claiming it as theirs. These videos are created for publicity and not for informational purposes for the public. VNRs are used for advertising purposes. I think it is wrong to make people think otherwise.
At first i didn't think that VNRs really existed until I read the articles and the statistics. It does create lazy jounalism. I was shocked to find out that this is not only done to cut back on costs for editing because larger markets do this also.
It's stuff like this that makes journalists look bad. If news stations can't even do what they're supposed to do, then what exactly are they doing. It just seems that there's always a short cut to everything. It's just pure laziness.

VNRs

No VNRs are not real news and aren't ethical. Being an editor for a TV station in OKC, I see some of the packages that we put on the air since I edit them and dont believe that VNRs are real journalism.

Sort of like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays aren't a real baseball team.


GO TIGERS BEAT THE SKANKEES!

Video News Releases

No, I don't think that VNR's are ethical journalism at all. According to the Wikipedia summary of "Journalism Ethics and Standards", VNRs are unethical based on something from nearly every category of the foundations of ethical journalism. Ethical journalism is supposed to be objective, and "unequivocal separation between advertisements and news. All advertisements must be clearly identifiable as such." I watched a segment on the the Web site from FOX 25 in Oklahoma City, which framed a VNR from Chemistry.com as a news story with a lead-in and wrap-up from the anchor, and yet the VNR was nothing more than an advertisement for the dating Web site. It was not labeled as a VNR or ad, and the viewer was given no identification that it was not news done by KOKH. The fact that the package contained no identifiable footage, and was as generic as possible was he only way a viewer might have been able to tell it was a VNR. Also, according to the Wikipedia entry, "pictures, sound, and quotations must not be presented in a misleading context (or lack thereof). Simulations, reenactments, alterations, and artistic imaginings must be clearly labeled as such, if not avoided entirely." Since the piece was produced by the public relations arm of Chemistry.com, the scenes of a couple talking in a coffee shop were obviously staged, and yet there was no identification of any kind that indicated that what the viewer was seeing was not an authentic, spontaneous date.

VNR's are unethical, and they absolutely do create lazy journalism. However, the real people at fault should be the news directors and the stations who knowingly use VNR's as a part of the broadcast. They're taking the easy way out, and further damaging the reputation and integrity of the news media...an enterprise a large portion of the American public already doesn't trust to begin with. While they may be convenient, have a high production value, and make the jobs of reporters and programmers alike easier, Video News Releases and prepackaged "news" do much more of a disservice to real journalism than they do good.

VNR'S

The concept and purpose of a Video News Release is pretty cut and dry; to promote a certain idea or product on television with the intent of attracting viewers to what is being promoted. Another term for this is a commercial. While a VNR is longer and more detailed than a commercial, it is still propaganda used to persuade the general public. The difference of course between a VNR and a commercial is that VNR's are aired as if they were part of the newscast. This is where the problem with VNR's rests. VNR's, appearing as significant and relative news, allow an individual to think that what is being promoted or discussed is newsworthy on that particular day or time, when in reality it is just another advertisement. This is wrong for several reasons. First, it is deceiving to the viewer. If I as a viewer was deceived by a particular station I would not trust that station. If I do not trust a station I will not watch it for news. In theory television stations wouldn't worry about deceiving me because after all, they make it seem like part of the broadcast. But, lets be honest, a VNR is not to difficult to spot. I'm sure I've let a few slide by me in the past and believed them to be relevant news, but I seem to remember quite a few times where I have busted a station with their strictly promotional and relatively lame VNR's.
I do not think VNR's are ethical journalism because I do not think it is journalism. It is advertising. Is it unethical to make the public think it is journalism? Yes. The general public relies on the news for the most timely, relevant, and significant stories of the day. There is no need to trick the public. If a station finds the money these VNR's provide them with as such a necessity then they can air them, as long as they notify the public that it is a paid advertisment. Doing this would not by any means detract a viewer, it would just let them know what exactly they are watching. Their interest can still be gained and the goal of the VNR could still be reached. Personally, I think VNR's should be left out of newscasts all together even if they are properly identified. The 30-60 minute blocks dedicated to news on a station should be exactly that, news. But if VNR's are necessary, they should at least be acknowledged prorperly in order to maintain an audience's trust.
I do not think that VNR's create lazy journalism. I see more of a problem with the fact that they allow the financial side of broadcast news to interfere with relaying the news. Stations who air VNR's during their broadcasts are giving the message that they care more about receiving money than giving me the viewer the news. I am not denying the significance of advertising and moeny in this industry, however am I saying that if not balanced properly, the focus of a news programs objective (which should be relaying news to the public) can be easily lost. Newscasts are for news and commercials are for advertising. Combining the two just adds confusion and frustration.

Sensationalism

I don't think that sensationalism hurts the reputation of the media sources. I think that sensationalism is just their strategy to get people to tune in. Every business has a strategy and this is just their way of getting people's attention.
Yes, sometimes it's frustrating when they make things seem a lot bigger than it is, but it doesn't really hurt anybody, for the most part. It's just really cheesy but it is what it is.
To me, news sensationalism is making things seem bigger or more latebreaking than it really is. To me it's just a strategy.

Coming from the perspective of an everyday normal person, I do not think sensationalism harms the reputation of a news source. I don't think regular people (people who do not have a strong background in media) even think twice about sensationalism. They see a news story and are attentive sometimes because it's sensationalised. I don't think they realise it is, and so they wouldn't think otherwise about it not being reputable. I know I can relate to this because prior to being so engaged in the media world I would have not picked up on such issues and sensationalism was not really apparent to me.

News sensationalism to me just means you are extravagant when presenting a story. There is also an element of drama which I guess is supposed to draw viewership and attention. I really don't have any favourite examples because I don't watch news a lot, and if I do I'm giving attention to the detail not to how the story is presented.

SENSATIONALISM

I believe that news sensationalism, like anything, can be both a good thing and a bad thing. In a cut throat competitive market, media corporations must do what they have to do to attract viewers, which usually requires breaking stories and covering issues that people find unique and interesting. The more significant or appealing a story appears the better the chances for a positive viewer response. In this sense, sensationalism is a good thing. As long as the media sources do not fabricate or "kill" the story. Once a media source crosses the line from making a story attractive to lying or quite frankly becoming annoying with their obsession, all credibility is lost and the source can be thrown into the same category as any tabloid magazine.
News sensationalism, I think, is making a story more attractive by highlighting the shocking or sexy parts of a story and glorifying them. This can get obsessive. Once this happens the news value tends to go way down. One of my favorite examples is in sports media with Terrell Owens. ESPN covered every little disruption of the Cowboys receiver they could making into national news, when really it was generally stuff that did not matter to the game, the team or the fans at all. For a while it attracted many viewers, but by the end of the season even hardcore Sports Center junkies were a little beaten down by the obsession.

Celebrity News

I honestly can't say if celebrity (gossip) is news. What seems news to some might not be for others. It interests me but might not interest others, but I also don't put it on the same level as other news concerning the rest of the world.

Just to put it out there, people in Africa or India who are starving or people who are dying in the war could probably care less if Justin Timberlake and Cameron Diaz are still together. To some people, it does matter...I don't know why but it does.

I consider myself a pretty intelligent, unselfish person but I still find myself watching Access Hollywood or E! plenty of times. Heck, my father who's been retired from the Air Force who i would never caring about celebrity gossip was reading UsWeekly and People magazine just last week.

I don't think that celebrity gossip is irrelevant because entertainment has become part of our culture, but I do think that we could go without it, and I'm sure the celebrities could too.

News sensationalism

News sensationalism most certainly does harm the intergrity and the reputation of a media source. I personally believe if they take it so over board that it just turns the general public off. The celebrity gossip stuff that the 24-hour channels run is a great source of evidence. They take a problem, report it and then exploit it. Anna Nicole Smith could either be smiling in her grave because of the attention or she coud be crying because even after she's gone, they (the media) won't leave her alone. My personal definition is a media outlet extending its reach with glorified extremely loud content to obtain shock-value.

Celebrity News or Gossip?

I'm going to keep this short and to the point. Celebrity blogging is not news, in my opinion. I don't care who is dating whom, who shaved their head, or who adopted ANOTHER kid. I'm sure some of the stuff out there is factual...but for the most part I don't think it is.
I think news is factual information that the world/nation NEEDS to know about. I don't care that much about celebrities and their riches. I like to read it sometimes...but just for entertainment...not news.

"You Provide the Prose Poems, I'll Provide The War." - Charles Foster Kane

Yes, I think news sensationalism harms the reputation of the news source. This might be because it's fresh on my mind from Laura and Cory's presentation, but I think about the culture of celebrity blogging, and how that pilfers over to the 24-hour news channels. The more I see the sensational details of the excessive celebrity stories, the less reputable I find the news source to be. To me, news sensationalism is the practice of exaggerating facts or knowingly twisting the truth in such a way that makes the stories more entertaining, with the overarching intent of driving up revenues. Obviously the Spanish-American War comes to mind, but also Natalee Holloway (and any instance of a Pretty White Girl Syndrome kidnapping), and Monica Lewinsky scandal a decade ago, especially when one considers how it was parodied in the movie "Wag the Dog." News sensationalism harms the reputation, it almost always occurs in order to drive up sales and profits, and spans three different centuries of news coverage.

Celebs

Celebrity gossip blogs do not meet my definition of news. For me, news is something more than knowing where Brittany Spears ate her last meal. I want to hear information that is impacting to our nation and our world. However, there is obviously a demand out there for this celebrity gossip so I guess it could be constituted as news. But personally I think it’s nothing more than meaningless gossip.

These gossip blogs seem like a good way to get information out to people, and I’m sure at times the stories are factual, but I wouldn’t take anything they say on there too literally. The people posting on these sites are not professional journalists who are held accountable for their work. These people are under no code of ethics so anything could be written.
The idea that these gossip blogs make into ‘real news’ is part of reality. There is obviously a big demand to hear about this stuff or at least it generates interest so the media puts it out there for us. I think it shouldn’t take up as much news time as it does and we should be reporting on issues that are affecting our lives.

CELEBRITY NEWS

While many people say that celebrity gossip reported on television is irrelevant to society and not considered real news, it is hard to debate the fact that what is reported is news. I understand that it may not be the most significant news to this society, but these reports are telling stories about current and past issues that have gone on with certain individuals primarily in the entertainment industry. This can be compared to SportsCenter on ESPN which broadcasts sporting news daily. It may not be the most significant news out there on a given day, but it is reporting what went on in that particular industry, thereby making it news. As far as netwroks that are not specifically targeting one industry such as E or ESPN, I feel they should not focus on celebrity gossip stories as much as the other guys, but it is not wrong for them to do so in a moderate fashion. After all, if it wasn't getting ratings they wouldn't be airing it. This means that the general public has an interest in these stories. Does this mean we as the general public are mixed up in how we value news? Maybe. But if this is the news we demand, it is the news we will receive.

celebrity news aint real news

All I will say on this one is that when who is the father of Anna Nicole's baby is major real news, then I might consider celebrity news to be real news.

Ya right who am I kidding. That will never be news.

....Now back to watching Peyton Manning on SNL....

Celebrity Gossip? or News?

First off, since this seems to be a personal preference type thing, I don't see celebrity news or gossip blogs as a source of news. I have no interest in it and I don't recognize blogs as a source of news. I don't think they're creditble unless they're sponsered by someone or some corporation that is creditble.

Now that doesn't mean that all celeb news is total crap because they're real people to. They just happen to be in the spot light. So if something drastic or life changing happens that involves them...then it definatly deserves headlines on local and cable news. What I do not believe in though is the constant running of celeb stories like CNN and Fox News did with the Anna Nicole death. That bothers me. The fact that we can go weeks hearing and talking about the same topic is insane. It makes one think and ask the question: "Is there not anything else more important happening in the world today?" That is the part of "News" today that kills me. The constant drilling of one subject which usually has something to do with a celebrity whether it's Britney Spears, Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole.

Celebrity "News"

Unfortunately, based on nearly every definition (and believe me, I looked to find otherwise) on the site, the celebrity gossip in question meets dictionary.com's definition of "news." However, based on my own personal definition of news, it does not qualify.

I define news as information I need to know or actively seek out that directly affects my life, for better or worse. If there's an consumer recall on a 2004 Ford Focus ZTS, then that qualifies as news for me, because it's something I most certainly need to know. My life is no better or no worse based on whether or not I'm aware of Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun wedding. And that's not just a stab against celebrity gossip, either. On the complete flip side of that, almost every story I've ever run across about the war in Iraq has in no way affected me, and my life is no different because of it. What I define as news are occurrences beyond my sphere of experience that directly affects or makes a difference in my life.

I also looked up the precise definition of "reputable", in order to make sure I understood the second question properly. The definition I found was "held in good repute; honorable; respectable; estimable." Based on that, then to me, sites like TMZ, Perez Hilton, and pretty much everything on the TV Guide Channel since it started to suck are in no way reputable. I don't respect writing or programming like that, and if I run across it by accident, I usually find a way to get out of that situation as fast as humanly possible. I've never been able to fathom celebrity culture, and why the details of certain people's lives have to constantly be under the microscope based upon (usually) their ability to perform one socially irrelevant act. Celebrities like Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith I have an even harder time understanding...two women who have contributed absolutely nothing of value to society, yet are constantly having their lives splashed across newsstands because they're famous for being famous. A huge percentage of women want to be them, a huge percentage of men want to be inside them, and anyone smart enough to see through the smoke and mirrors of celebrity journalism has to suffer as a result.

How do I feel about "news" from the celebrity blogosphere ending up on "real news" channels? I think it's probably one of the worst things to happen to journalism in the past 30 years. One of the first things I remember about Anna Nicole Smith dying was the fact that we had CNN on in the KGOU News Bullpen, and I turned to a co-worker and commented that you would've thought a president had died the way there was hours upon hours of uninterrupted media coverage. I think back to Watergate, and how responsible journalism had the power to bring down a president. I can't imagine something like that happening today, because more of America cares about whether or not Lindsay Lohan is in rehab than any story that has actual substance.

If anyone is to blame for this, it's the vast number of news consumers who constantly demand more and more Meredith Vieira falling-on-her-ass or whether or not Joss Stone is wearing panties. Go back to bed America, and we'll continue to distract you with mindless, meaningless celebrity "journalism".

Advertising and Sports

Like everything else in our society, advertising has both negative and postive effects on sports. Personally i don't see anything wrong with advertising being plastered all over baseball stadiums, basketball courts, soccer fields, etc. It has become the norm this day and age.

I feel that advertising is what keeps some sports alive. Like we discussed in class, sporting teams who don't have a good record or maybe reputation need advertising for funds because ticket sales would not be enough to pay for the team's expenses.

On the other side, it could be negative when the players try to advertise themselves. All the stunts that most football players do on and off the field differ but all of it is just an act of publicity. Most go farther and beyond than others, but I feel the competition amongst the players are getting ridiculous. It's almost as if they will do anything (beat their wives, do drugs, brawling even at games,etc.) to be noticed and to be a part of the media.

Overall, I do think that sports need advertising. It creates competition amongst products being endorsed, creating more revenue. It's just always going to be a part of sports.

Sports & the Media

Without media coverage of sports and without the constant flow of advertisements that surround sporting events the professional world of sports would seize to exist.

Advertising funds so much of professional sports, in fact it almost solely supports sport as a profession. Athletes earn so much money, because there is so much advertising. I do not think this is a bad thing at all, especially from an athlete perspective. I like advertising because it means money and earning a living doing something you’ve worked so hard at and doing something you love.

The extended coverage of sports, in my opinion, is something society desires and therefore the media provides it. Yes, it has given some constraints to sports, however I think that’s a part of being a professional athlete and you learn to adapt to those changes. On the professional tennis tour you now have to give a quick live interview directly before you walk onto the court to play your match. This could be quite distracting and annoying for players, but they learn to deal with it. It is an aspect of being a professional athlete.

Sports and Media

While it can appear that advertising in sports may slow the game down or take away from the excitment of the game, I think that its effect is in fact the opposite. Sure the game is interrupted by commercial breaks and in stadium promotions, but without these the players would not be witness to thousands of fans pouring their heart and soul into every play. Without the advertising the players wouldnt play in the nicest facilities in the world. Without the nicest facilities in the world and the energetic crowds, these players would not play on the same level. The high profile identity and life a professional athlete takes on is not all glory. They have to work 10 times harder to stay around. Advertising makes it possible for the fans to witness these athletes in the best possible conditions.
In regards to athletes acting like prima-donnas, it of course is understood that not all players are like this. The ones that are however do get a majority of the spot light. This is not wrong. These players deserve this money. They work all day every day for the majority of the year entertaining millions of fans. They must compete against the best in the world and any consistent streak of imperfection will jeapordize their career. They are not representing a random company or association. They are members of one of the most profitable business' in the world; sports. You can't blame them for reeping the benefits. There are professional athletes. Not role models. They shouldn't have to be role models. They can be. They certainly have the capabilty to be such. But they are employees of a professional sports team and that is all. They earn there money and they deserve it. As long as the advertisers keep on giving they will keep on taking. What's wrong with that?

Gatekeepers

Gatekeepers now are those who decide what we are allowed and not allowed to see on the internet. They basically have all the power.
The gatekeepers of the future are going to continue to control the internet...especially news sites that are made to inform us on what is going on around the world.
I agree with Brian, when he says that the gatekeeper of the future will be the actual news consumer...I do, however think that future will also be in the hands of the owners of media itself.
They will more than likely be in charge of what goes on the air and the internet.
I'm not exactly sure, of course, what the future will hold...but I do have an idea.

We know the Gatekeeper. Who is the Keymaster?

The gatekeepers are those who allow us to intake information. They are the creative minds that tell us what we can see and what we can't basically since they have the power to send things over the airwaves. The future gatekeepers are really here now. They're the ones controlling the Internet websites. Especially the ones that have the power to show us what we really need to know or what they think we need to know. The major news corporations like CNN or the BBC, have a huge hand in that. The problem of course is filtering and from where I sit, the only person that can filter through useless crap like wrist slitting teenager blogs or emo band smut is YOU! You have to be your own Net Nanny. You have to believe whatever you think is creditable. If a loser teenager with no life is credible to you...then that's the knowledge you'll receive and be ridiculed for.

Are You the Keymaster?

With regard to the traditional media outlets (print, television, radio, town crier), I see no reason why the gatekeepers won't remain the same. The media owners, news directors, and editors will all have some say in what content the general public sees or doesn't see. However, with regard to the Internet, and especially the blogosphere, I actually realized today that the gatekeeper of the future will be the actual news consumer himself.

I was researching today for articles to use in Waddle and my presentation for Thursday, and ran across a blog that looked like it was written by an intoxicated chimpanzee with cerebral palsy. And while the information contained within said blog related to our presentation topic, I was immediately skeptical of the site's credibility because of the presentation, and the author's poor grammatical skills and choice of big, colorful fonts made me cringe before I read a word. Once I read the information, my hesitation proved valid, and judged for myself that this Web site wasn't worth the cost of the electricity to power my monitor for those 45 seconds. When I ran across an uninterrupted stream of information on the Internet, I assessed the presentation, compared the information to other sources I knew proved reliable, and made a decision about that site's value to me. I became my own gatekeeper, and this isolated incident showed me that with the right amount of education and media literacy, the consumer is fully capable of making informed, intelligent decisions about the media he or she consumes.

Gatekeepers of the future

The Gate keepers of the future are going to be website administrators and other other domain managers since most news and information will be found online. Since there are very little censorship issues with online media outlets, people can get fully uncensored news (such as in Iraq).

This blog post was sponsored by www.gregorypsherman.com

Gatekeeping

The future of media gatekeeping lies in the hands of media owners. Just from our past discussions and from our text, media owners prevail over anything. They are above everybody else so their opinions are what's going to matter.

The media owners will not only be in charge of what goes on air but also of what's going to be on the internet. I think with certain controversial issues at hand, they will be more strict about the content of the internet. Soon, it won't be easy to post blogs because they will be afraid that the public is more opinionated and/or educated.

I think that the media owners will start to filter the media content more closely if they see that the public's opinions start to stray away from theirs.

Gatekeepers of the Future

I believe that the media gatekeepers of the future are those that pursue the internet as the main source of communication. As we all know, the internet is rapidly taking control of the media. This is viewed as a phenomenon and a possible revolution for the American public because of the ability for anyone to post anything they want. This in theory would mean that the gatekeepers of media would essentially be the general public. But this is where I disagree. While the internet and its freedoms is becoming a large source for media news and stories as the years go by, it will become as regulated as tv or radio. Not to be a total pecimist, but with as much control as money has in this day and time, it will start to change the internet medium as it increases in popularity. Big corporations will begin to by large parts of the internet and they will subject their big media bias' on the net. It is true that the internet has an ability that tv or radio did not, and that is easy accessibility for most Americans. But can this hold strong? Can this issue of money vs. freedom end without money prevailing? In this day and time, I don't think so. But so far, the internet revolution is our best chance.

Fairness Doctrine

I think that the Fairness Doctrine was good in theory, but in todays society I fear that it would be too much to ask. I do not disagree that the American public is searching for some type of control in the material they are fed by the media, however the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't quite achieve what we are looking for. We are looking for the truth. Which means any guidelines being enforced may interfere with that. While we could assert certain values or goals in what we receive from the media, I hate to to tell journalists what to right. Instead what we need is a bit of a journalistic revolution. We need the media to realize what they are cuirrenlty feeding us and that it needs to be changed. Once they adopt the desire to truly educate us on the real news, the better off we will be. I feel that it is this realization and this realization only that can positively make a difference.

Fairness Doctrine

I, probably like most people, think the fairness doctrine should be brought back. However, I don't know if it is possible.
Everyone agrees that certain news stations, cable, even radio are biased in the media world.
Way back in the day the Fairness Doctrine was able to help some of this...but in today's world of "EVERYONE WANTS TO BE THE ONE AND ONLY BIG SHOT"... so I don't know how we would come about enforcing it.

I think that our society needs a rule, like the Fairness Doctrine, to help protect the public and their interests.

Even though...this is what I would think...I don't think it is possible in this day and age.

Problem with Truthfulness

I do believe there is a problem out there in the journalism world, when it comes to telling the truth. Many journalists/companies find that telling a fib or white lie in the news to get more views and higher ratings is acceptable. I, however, DO NOT!

Maybe journalists do need licenses that CAN be revoked if they do some "wrong-doing" in their field of work.

Feldstien says...just because we are given the freedom of speech, doesn't mean we have to use it as a freedom of irresponsibility.

The media does have a group called the "watch-dogs"...but is it enough? I don't think so! I think, as journalists, everyone should follow their code of ethics to the fullest.

I guess I like the fact of blogging for information on what's going on around the world. I never thought that way before this class...but I have learned a lot.
I think that through blogging...we can talk about the news instead of just getting it shoved in our faces every day at 5 6 and 10.

Fairness Doctrine

I think we definitely need the Fairness Doctrine. It's hard as it is that the media is biased. Without the Fairness Doctrine, only one side would be heard and it would be unfair. With controversial issues, I think that opposing views is necessary for the public.

I think that Gene Racz made a good point in his article "Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will keep the airwaves more balanced"when he pointed out that there is a misconception that the FD would require shows to be internally balanced or that viewpoints would have to be broken down along the 50/50 lines. This is not what it is requiring. It simply prohibits the stations from broadcasting one single perspective everyday, without presenting the other side of the story.

I agree with Racz that reinstating the FD would keep airwaves more balanced. This will be a great tool to keep the public informed about controversial issues and it might even help them think independently.

Fairness Doctrine

I think the Fairness Doctrine could work today, although I am not sure exactly how it would be enforced in today’s society. If a Fairness Doctrine were to be enacted how would you regulate it? And, who and what would fall under this Doctrine?

I think the idea of a Fairness Doctrine is legitimate, and the concept is worthy, but having to communicate within such rigid restrictions seems unfeasible. I think it would be unreasonable to expect today’s society to communicate on balanced grounds. And even if this Fairness Doctrine was re-established how are you going to regulate the balance of information? Who decides what is balanced and what is not?

Falsifying News

I don’t necessarily think that falsifying and making up stories is a problem in today’s society, however stories can and generally need to be manipulated in some shape or form, which could be interpreted as falsifying information.

I acknowledge that manipulating stories is a problem; however, I do not foresee how we can get around this issue. In my opinion the only way to counteract this problem is to get your news from a variety of reliable sources in order to gain a well-rounded perspective of the news and a more detailed account of what is happening in the world.

I think journalists today have a moral obligation and understand that materializing stories is not ethical, and if they do it, they will get caught. This is why I think that falsifying information is not a problem, but not to say that manipulation isn’t. I think there is a major difference between the two and manipulation is what society should focus on.

Fairness Doctrine

I'll keep my post short. I don't think the FD would work today just because most political campaigning these days involves mud-slinging and personal attacks between the 2 (or more) candidates whether it be for President of the United States, or for President of the National Squirel Foundation.

It worked during the old school days of political advertising where opposing candidates spent air time telling people why they would be a better candidate for the position whereas these days candidates only say why their opponent shouldn't be elected.


This post sponsored by www.gregorypsherman.com

Fairness Doctrine

While I certainly believe the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea, and would love to see some kind of policy instated so that the public can be presented with all relevant sides of an issue that would be essential for their understanding of any given story, I honestly don't see how it could work today. Cable news, talk radio, politically-charged bloggers, and Ann Coulter have all risen because of the belief held by a majority of the people (not individual persons, but people - think about that scene in Men in Black where Tommy Lee Jones is trying to convince Will Smith to join MiB...and he responds to Will's skepticism with "a person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, stupid, and you know it."). There is a widespread belief among a majority of the people that because these pundits openly declare their biases, you can trust their insights more - and therefore, they must be practicing responsible journalism. While nearly everyone in our class, and probably anyone in the Gaylord College who survived Dr. Gade's class, can point out the falacy of this idea without so much as averting their eyes from Agent J running down a sephalapoid, the people, by and large, have little idea as to what makes good and responsible journalism good and responsible. The Fairness Doctrine looks great on paper, and certainly seems like a reasonable approach to media to all who have studied it, it would never fly. Cable news, talk radio, politically-charged bloggers, and Ann Coulter have all made their bed and are suckling off the tit of openly-biased journalism, and I can guarantee that every single one of them would be damned to change it. It's going to be business-as-usual up against the breast of irresponsibility, so nuzzle up, buttercup.

Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine should be brought back. I do believe that it would help and work in today's media. If you turn on the television, people would claim just as we have in class that certain stations and networks have bias'. So, one glorious way to attack that problem would be to institute a rule that would require those networks to serve in the public's best interest by presenting them with pieces of information that is not only informative but honest and balanced. It would give the average American a look at both side insted of just one. This would broaden our horizons and give the people a reason to think and choose.

Holding the Media Accountable

While I would certainly never go about advocating the falsification of news stories, I'm reluctant to agree hands-down that it's a widespread problem. Aside from the Jayson Blair-New York Times fiasco, and Dan Rather's reporting on President Bush's military service, very rarely does one hear in the media about the falsification of stories. I consider myself a fairly well-informed person, and when I actually have the time to sit down and gather news properly, I try to consume it from several different mediums. I usually read at least one credible newspaper, watch one of the network newscasts as well as the local affiliate from a different network (in Oklahoma, I tend to watch the affiliate I believe has the best weather coverage...that's important to me here), and I browse a few national news sites. From everything I've ever observed, barring a few isolated incidents, the media tends to work properly far more often than it doesn't. The misconception that it's a widespread problem stems from the fact that bad news is far more interesting and profitable than good news. Why should journalists report on business-as-usual? The article noted that 61 percent agreed with the statement that spawned this blog, so I can't fathom what any self-respecting journalist with a shread of common sense would hope to accomplish by falsifying a story. Why would you jeopardize the reputation of your livelyhood when nearly two-thirds of the nation already distrusts you to begin with?

With regard to the second statement of the post, I don't believe that journalists should be licensed, but I do think there should be more scrutiny with regard to their professional output. Jayson Blair, the New York Times reporter mentioned above, in his book Burning Down My Masters' House: My Life at the New York Times, argued that his lapses in honesty were the result of a drug problem and mental instability? One would think that a simple background check would've been able to determine that Blair was a short stint in rehab away from plugging a bestseller on Oprah. I really liked the idea of an ombudsman, as mentioned in the article, and think that a mechanism of checks and balances beyond a simple fact checker would go a long way toward curbing the few isolated incidents of outright journalistic fabrication.

Holding the Media Accountable

Do I feel that falsifying stories is a problem in American? My answer is a simple no. I think the media and the people who decided to take in their content does a sufficent job themselves weeding out the crap and believeing the stuff that is right. This is why we have editors. Editors that check the stories before they go on air or before they go to print. If stories were to make it past the editors and then were cleared...then I would place the blame not just on the journalist but the editor too. However, I don't feel that Journalists should have a license that can be revoked because I feel that would in some way go against the first amendment. Just because the journalist is irresponsible doesn't mean his right to free speech should be taken away. The American public and his editors will do that for him the right way by not reading his garbage. The government should not be aloud to step in.

"It's not them, It's us" (Response for Presentation 1)

Despite consistent claims that the American media is often bias, the majority of Americans believe what they see on television or read in the paper. In this day and time however, I think it is understood by most that everything they hear from the media is subject to bias. Because of this, people know not to take every specific detail of a story literally. Instead, it is best to understand the basic premise or point of the story and then form personal opinions. There will always be two sides to a story, and personal analysis is always necessary. But, there is one thing we as the general public can not control. That is what actually makes news.
Often times Media corporations make decisions to air or write a story that is much less relevant or significant than other stories. For example, many of the cable news stations in the past month have been focusing a large amount of time to the Anna Nicole Smith story. This story has taken up a large amount of their air time, and as a result has taken time away from stories and issues that are more relevant and significant to society. This is more of a problem than purposely making up or falsifying stories, however it is essentially the same thing. The media is making up what is important. They make the public think that stories, such as the Anna Nicole Smith story are top priority, when in actually it is pure entertainment, not news. They are falsely conveying what is important. They are ignoring issues that we as a nation have the right to know.
This is definitely widespread. But is it a problem? Personally, I think it is wrong because I think we should be informed about more significant issues. But, the media is obviously doing it for a reason. The reason is ratings. Society is buying in. As long as the general public shows more interest in these kind of stories, the "entertaining" stories will take precedence over real news. So it is hard to say it is a problem, since it is what society wants. If we as a nation decide that we will not tolerate this type of "news" any longer than the media will adapt to our preferences. That's what media corporations do. They tell stories with the purpose of attracting an audience. The problem lies in our pacifism to demand real news and our addicting interest in entertaining stories. Journalists report the stories they are told to by their employer. The employer chooses the stories based on what will be best for the station or company. It is a job. Therefore, journalists should not have licenses that can be revoked. It is a free country and we can decide who we want to listen to. Media corporations do not hide their bias'. They are quite obvious in fact. So, when an audience tunes into a certain station or reads a certain newspaper, they know what to expect and what to believe. If a restaurant owner knows that the food they are serving in their restaurant is bad for you, but they don't tell you or make it seem like light or healthy food, should their ownership be taken away? No. It is their job and they will do what it takes to make profit. The same is true for journalists. They will do what they are told because they want the paycheck. This is just a fact in the world we live in and as long as we are aware of that, we can pick and choose our news accordingly. As stated in the article, if we want news that is not tampered with desire for ratings or money we can turn to the Internet. But, even on the Internet you will have to pick and choose who to believe and what is significant.

Pressure vs. Needs

I just think that it's sad to think about the fact that when it comes down to it, the media is mostly trying to benefit themselves. I sometimes wonder the content of the news, especially local news. I mean half of the things they put on there just makes you wonder..."And we care bacause...???

I feel like they're not putting the public's needs above everything. It's about the publicity and what makes the rich and powerful happy. What they put on air probably doesn't affect or relate to most of the public viewers.

Is there a way of changing this? Probably not alot, because as we all know... the rich and the powerful always prevails. So, as long as they're in the position that they're in...they will be in control. It's a sad thought, I know. Our system is pretty much corrupt I think.

Credibility in Question

I think that making up stories isn't widespread in the news media...yet. I think that it's definitely on it's way though. The way I look at it, I feel that journalists will never run out of things to talk about, but they will run out of INTERESTING and/or COMPELLING stories sometimes. I personally don't think that alot of the stories we see in the media are made up because they know that sooner or later, someone will find out the truth and that would just hurt them worse. I think, no matter what, journalists still have their values, or at least I hope they do.

I guess if you consider the Hollywood gossips to be news then that's a totally different story...I think that almost 75% of those are made up, but then again I don't consider that news. I think the problem is not falsifying, but withholding some reallly important information. Just from the videos we have watched in class, I feel that alot of "corporate" people don't want us to know everything.

Blogging for Feb 27

I agree with most of the blogs on this topic.

The pubic needs a lot but not as much as the market place tries to throw our way. The media is a very overpowering phenomenon...it's main concern, in my opinion is how much profit they are pulling in .
On behalf of the public, we want to know the truth and...we want the facts straight out...no bullshit.

The media, I hate to say this...but it's pretty true, exaggerates a lot of material just for more viewings.

According to our reading...many media sources are biased..leaning toward the right or the left. I think it is in the publics best interest to decide which side they are on...and then listen to both sides.

People can't always just listen to one side or the other...they have to get the full effect by hearing media information all the way around.

Both sides can do more to help out the public or the market place and the way they influences the media.

Pressure vs Needs

I agree with some of the other posts, that the pressures of the marketplace are inevitable and will control our media system for a very long time. I do not see how we can avoid this problem, because the media, like almost everything in this world, are driven by profit.

So in order to attend to the needs of the public it would be crazy to think that we could alleviate the pressures of the marketplace upon the media. Instead we need to be thinking how we can meet our needs with the current system.

I think somebody already addressed this in their post, but what needs to happen is that people need to realize that the media does give in to the pressures of the marketplace and therefore the information that we receive can be bias. As soon as the public realizes that, if they have enough initiative they will use various other sources in order to get a better understanding.

To me this seems like the best alternative for combating a bias media, however like our reading stated many people only go to the sources that agree with their own bias. So I think it is up to the individual to seek sources that disagree with our own bias so we can get a more balanced view of information and events.

Pressures of the Marketplace vs. Needs of the Public

Reading this chapter basically just reaffirms everything that we have been discusing over the past couple weeks. Like other members of the class, I also agree that the media is built purely for profit and that our government is ran by BIG money as McChesney claimed.

For anything to change, the money factor has to be pushed aside and that's just not going to happen willingly. Advertisers and investors have way to much at stake for that to happen. Some good citizen with a lot of money is going to have to step into an important government roll (i.e. the Presidency!) to put a stop to it and promote change. Yes the media needs to be regulated to get the type of Journalism the Fairness Doctrine calls for but it won't happen until someone puts a stop to the J.R Ewings of the world calling in their markers. Way too much money at stake

On a more personal note. I really don't think the public cares. Yeah they'll always say that the news sucks or that the radio just plays the same crap over and over again but when you ask them to stand up and fight...I guarantee that you're not going to get 25o million William Wallaces to fight for freedom the industry needs. I doubt you'd even get a 1/4th.

Pressures of the Marketplace vs. Needs of the Public

Media is a business, and is absolutely fueled by profit. I have no doubt in my mind of this statement, and have witnessed it firsthand on a very micro level. It's a thought that keeps me up at night every once in awhile when I worry about how I'm going to find a job and stay afloat in such a competative, yet equally financially unrewarding industry. With the readings we've done over the past month, I'm starting to feel that I've got a pretty good grasp on the pressures of the marketplace.


But what about the needs of the public? I started thinking about this a little bit when we were discussing media literacy, and decided to give it some more in-depth thought this time around. We keep talking about "the public." But it seems to me, especially when reading the McChesney book, that this mysterious "public" really only consists of media professionals. How do these issues really matter outside of an FCC hearing, a media conglomerate's boardroom, or JMC 4653? I started thinking about my dad. A civil engineer who manages worldwide construction for Texas Instruments. An intelligent man, with opinions on what matters to him. Someone I'd, and I'm sure many others would as well, consider members of the greater "public." Yet I've never seen any proof or had any reason to believe that FCC regulation, media ownership, or newspaper consolidation affect his day-to-day life in any manner whatsoever. If there's an agenda or a bias behind the newspaper he reads or the television he watches, it doesn't stop him from or hinder the process of going to work every day, providing for his family, paying his bills, or sending his kids to college.


So how informed does "the public" need to be? As McChesney said in his discussion of US foreign policy and media coverage leading up to several key 20th Century war, history repeats itself. And similarly to what I said about the media at the beginning of this post, the media is a profit-driven industry, and I'm a profit-driven person. Regulation, deregulation, insidious liberal agenda or vast right wing conspiracy...unless I see a noticible decrease in my paycheck after graduation, lose a job, or have to significantly alter my standard of living, the "conflict between the pressures of the marketplace and the needs of the public" doesn't exist for me except on paper. As narrow-minded and selfish as that approach may seem, and as much as I anticipate thinly-veiled criticism involving comparisons between myself and an ostrich, it's a practical outlook for how I plan to live my life. Until this conflict affects my day-to-day life in a tangible fashion, I see no reason to attempt to resolve something that, for me, does not exist.

Pressures of the Marketplace Vs. Public Needs

When trying to resolve or simply understand the conflict between the pressures of the marketplace and the needs of the public it is important that we recognize what exactly these pressures and needs are. The pressures of the marketplace include generating profit, pleasing advertisers and sponsors, and giving a story the particular spin or "bias" that most closely fits the specific media corporations standards and values. This means that an issue covered by the media most often will be chosen and told from the perspective that meets the needs of the marketplace. The needs of the public are to be informed about what is going in in the world, to receive a realistic view, and to have access to the most relevant and signifcant information. This thereby creates a conflict between the two. So how can we resolve this? Can we resolve this?I do not know if there is a cut and dry resolution, however I do think there is a way to make progress.
The media and corporate world today is too dependent on advertisers and influenced by governement too much to rid bias from society. It is inevitable. Certain news sources will take certain spins and implement their corporations news values. This will not be changed any time soon and because of that, the public must come to temrs with it and understand it in order for their needs to be met. Once the public realizes that news is going to be given from all different perspectives, they can change the way they interpret the news. If for example an individual needs to find out what happened in the news on a particular day, they will have to gather information from several sources, and then compare stories to see what is most significant and most true. Another alternative is for someone to pick the news media source that they most trust or relate to and make the decision to believe the news they report. While bias is common in most news media today, the fact is some are more reliable than others. If we as the public want certain needs met, we have to comply with what the marketplace offers.
The needs of the public can be fulfilled through the news media, it is just not as easy as it once was. An individual now must either investigate a story or an idea by subjecting themselves to several different spins or by making the conscious decision to trust one news outlet. If this process is done in a well thought out and knowledgable way, the ability to meet your needs can be obtained.

Media Literacy/Bias

When an individual understands the concept behind media literacy they will quickly learn also about media bias. With each broadcast medium using different strategies and spins to reach its viewer, the general public must focus strictly on the issue being discussed instead of the particular angle given by the media. If we allow ourselves to be sucked in to their pojnt of view, then of course we will buy it. If we simply use the media as a source of whats going on in the world and develop our own opinions about it we can overcome their bias.
While it is true that certain stations adapt particular formats and styles that only report one type of news or condescending viewpoints, it is not until we realize this is the way it is and it is going to change that we can form our own opinions. I think that media bias is unavoidable. It can not be changed. The bias we experience in media is the same bias we experience in other aspects of our life. For example if I am told a story by a couple of friends about a date that they went on, I would hear two sides of the story no matter how the date went. The girl would tell me what she wore, what he was wearing, where they went, and her current feelings about the guy now. The guy would tell me he had fun and he may see her again. I received two totally different views about the same date. This is just the way people are. Different people have different views and if they have the opportunity they are going to discuss them. The way media spins stories may often have to do with governmental influence or money, but this too is a part of this nation. Media is a big industry and will be influienced for the rest of time. The key to escaping these bias is by playing the same game. Hear the story, know the facts, and form your OWN opinion. If you understand that there is a bias and are informed about what it means to be media literate, this isn't such a hard task to accomplish.

Channel One

I was forced to watch Channel ONE at the same time every day in Middle School. I say forced like it was a bad thing...but in all honesty it was roughly 15 min less that I had to listen to my awful science teacher.
I enjoyed watching it...b/c the staff of Channel ONE was much younger than the normal news staff and explained the news in a better way for me to understand at that age.

It confused me when most of the people in class said they were introduced to Channel ONE in High School. I think it is a little too cheesy for older students.

Channel ONE, all in all, was a good thing. I learned about what was going on in the nation/world...etc and didn't have to watch the boring local news with my parents.

I DID IT!

LOL, I finally figured this stuff out!
Have a great day guys!
Morgan

Media Bias

I think the news media (local tv and cable channels like CNN and Fox News) today has become a bunch of crap. A lot of it is influenced by politics and the moron that leads this country.

Most media today is concerned about ratings and always giving us their "two cents" or "extra opinionated" or whenever Nancy Grace starts rambling about whatever. News media today has become "this is what I want you to know about what is going on in the world...." and "it is my opinion that.....".

This is why I dont watch local or national news anymore because it is sensationalism all based on ratings and what the government wants you to see. This is why I get my news from bad outlets like youtube and yahoo news.

My Media Experience

The knowledge I have gained about media bias has all been from my college experience. Coming into college I had no idea of the politics involved in the media. I was relatively naive to say the least, and even now I find myself being surprised when I do see bias in the media.

Coming from Australia, I probably had a different upbringing to most of the college students here. We never learned about the media in high school and I did not watch a lot of television.

Growing up I only had access to three television stations. Although, my parents didn’t really let me watch television. And, it wasn’t until I was living in America that my parents decided to get cable, which equaled more channels.

So… obviously everything I know about television and the media (I know there is other media besides television, but I am just not that into newspapers and all that) is what I have learned in the journalism school. I have heard in my lectures that certain stations have different perspectives, and some have conservative values and the like, but to me if you research the facts and you really want to get the whole story, you can find it, you just have to search so you get ALL sides of the story- something else I learned in class, “There isn’t just two sides to a story.”

Media Bias

When i was growing up I didn't really care much about the news or the media, for that matter. But it was always a part of my everyday life because my parents always watched the news, listened to the radio, etc. In high school, I started to pay attention to it a little bit. When i decided to major in Journalism, I became really interested in the media of course.

I remember professors always telling us that it is the media's job to be fair and unbiased, but that's not always the case.I do feel that the content in today's news is not all about what we need to know, but in fact what the "powerful"people want to put on there. I sometimes think that they don't pay that much attention because they just have to make the "powerful" happy.I don't know but in my opinion the media will stay this way for a while.

The more I become interested in what goes on in the media, the more I find out about this "conspiracy." It just goes to show that the media is biased because it's not about doing the right thing, but doing what's right for them.

Media Literacy Education

Before I came to OU, I had no education in media literacy or did I have anyone pointing their finger at me like a disciplining adult figure telling me that there is a media bias. However, if you watch the news and watch different channels, only common sense would tell you have each member of the media has different goals and different views. Ie. Fox news with their "Conservative bias." Each news channel reports certain aspects of a story differently than their rival. They're aiming at a certain target that they believe is going to make them the most money. Nobody cares about the people anymore and what would be good for the people. It's all about money. Conglomerates don't give a rat's ass if we think there are too many white people on their stations or too many Latinos on their networks.

In Conclusion, I do see that the media has a bias as well as an agenda but it's an agenda based on $$$$. You can either get on the train or step onto the tracks. It's the viewer's option.

"All I Know Is What I Read in the Papers"

I never really gave media bias or media literacy much thought until well into my college career. Sure, I endured the journalistic abortion that is Channel One News during middle school (which, truth be told, the only noteworthy thing that I remember about the show was that it launched the career of that Asian woman on The View) like many others in class, but I never bothered to consider anything close to resembling the 11 points on Ralph's sheet. The pivotal force behind my first examination of media bias was Chuck Klosterman.

For those out of the trivial, pop-culture essayist loop, Chuck Klosterman is a former senior writer for Spin and current feature columnist for Esquire. His second book, Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs, is a collection of essays spanning everything why John Cusack hinders my sex life to the psychological impact of what it means to befriend a serial killer. The 16th essay in this book, with a clever title making it accessable to Oklahomans, is one of the most insightful examinations of media bias I've ever encountered (certainly much moreso than Peter Hart's essay from the McChesney book) for one simple reason: It makes perfect, logical sense, and doesn't rely on preachy rhetoric or a heap of statistics to get it's point across. It's remarkably simple, and makes perfect sense to both the media consumer and the media vendor. It's the Occum's Razor of media theory - the simplest explanation is the right one for me, and the one I subscribe to.

In the hope of conveying my understanding to others, I'm going to exerpt key segments of Klosterman's essay "All I Know Is What I Read in the Papers." Since I couldn't find the text of the essay online, I've embarked upon the ambitious task of typing it out myself. Trust me, it will be worth your while.

"I would never try to convince someone not to hate the media. As far as I can tell, it's a completely reasonable thing to hate. Whenever I meet someone who feels a sense of hatred for a large, amorphous body - the media, government, Ticketmaster, the Illuminati, Anna Nicole Smith, whatever - I fully support their distaste. It's always better to be mad at something vast and unspecific and theoretical, as these entities cannot sue you for defamation. But here's my one..."

BLOGGERS NOTE: When previewing the essay, I lost what amounted to several typed pages of work. I managed to find the bare bones (and I mean scant) arguement of his online, but it doesn't do the whole work any justice whatsoever. So if you really do actually give a baker's fuck, just go out and buy the book.

""Everybody seems to be concerned that journalists are constantly trying to slip their own political and philosophical beliefs into what they cover. This virtually never happens. And I am not being naive when I say this; it really doesn't happen. There are thousands of things that affect the accuracy of news stories, but the feelings of the reporter is almost never one of them. The single most important impact on any story is far less sinister. Mostly, it all comes down to (a) who the journalist has called and (b) which of those people happens to call back first...There is no way the espoused Aryan masterminds who run the world can affect the content of any daily story; they usually have no idea what the hell is going on with anything in the world....I work in the Knight Ridder chain for four years, and I never got the impression that the CEO read anything other than Golf Digest. The media machine is too bloated to "manufacture consent.""

What I've Learned about Bias in Media

Before entering the journalism college at OU I had never sat down and reflected on the bias of media. I had understood the philosophy of "we are all biased" but I never actually applied it to what I was consuming everyday.
I remember in Intro to Mass Communication with Blevens he told us that journalism is meant to be fair and unbiased but that it never is. We have to search for the most amount of truth from the most sources. When I began to study media as a discipline I learned that you have to question what is on the TV. Yet at the same time I learned to believe certain things through my education at OU such as "Fox is biased". Sure I believe that it is, as I'm sure a lot of us do, but what exactly makes it biased? I can admit that I've never sat down to deeply compare Fox to CNN or MSNBC to look for biased information. Even so how do we know that CNN and MSNBC are telling us the truth? The ideology that journalism is biased is a revolving door meet on one side by the inside of the media and big business and on the other side the open minded, liberal journalists each searching for their version of the truth.

I know media is biased. I feel that by educating the public not through news but to help each person to think independently can news truly be a form of public interests. We have to be active news obtainers and look beyond the words in front of us.