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.

"The Take" Writer/Producer Naomi Klein

I helped Ralph film Naomi Klein's speech to an introduction to mass communication class on Thursday afternoon. I found her speech to be very interesting. She began by staying her credentials and explaining what all she had done in the journalism field. I think the class enjoyed hearing all of the possibilities that they could accomplish soon.
When she dove into her topic she began a passionate speech about the privatizations of the government. She spoke about global issues of government and business mergers. I think all of her information was very interesting and also sparked a new debate that more journalists should work for. The documentary she worked called "The Take" on was screened Thursday night.
Overall I found Klein's theories strong and important. Her take on economics and government was very in depth and also right on the mark. All of her claims were backed by specific examples, even when asked an off the wall question by a student.

"Out of Place: From Exile to Flexible Citizenship" Review

I too attended Maria Gabriela Nouzeilles' session "Out of Place: From Exile to Flexible Citizenship" and had similar feelings about the presentation. With a late start caused by what seemed to be technical difficulties, I thought that Maria was a bit flustered and was simply reading through her notes trying to get her presentation done on time. I had trouble understanding what she was saying but the video helped me as well to figure out what exactly it was she was trying to get across. The world of broadcast media breaks down walls to communication and allows nation as well as world wide interaction.
Maria discussed how broadcast media can send messages from one part of the world to another, or from one culture to another. It is broadcast that allows us to share our experiences, opinions and ideas with whomever we wish and this needs to be appreciated. The main point of this presentation was to remind us that broadcast media gives us the ability to communicate with the world and this is a big advantage. Communication and social barriers are being knocked down with broadcast media and it us up to us to use this tool to eliminate them completely.

"Out of Place: From Exile to Flexible Citizenship"

On Thursday morning, I attended "Out of Place: From Exile to Flexible Citizenship," with host Maria Gabriela Nouzeilles. I had a hard time understanding what the whole presentation was about. I also, as some of my classmates have stated, had a hard time with her because of her accent. I also found myself asking my neighbors what she was talking about. Sadly, it wasn't until the questions part of the presentation came about that I got a small grasp of what she was talking about. What I was able to get out of it was that electronic media like the Internet and accessable travel has made the world more globalized. Making it easier for people to go other places and yet get pushed around and receive a hard time because of being from a foreign place. Her video showed this. However, the electronic media opened the door to new places, knocking down barriers that would otherwise be left alone.

Thursday morning I attended Gabriela Nouzeilles's lecture "Out of Place: From Exile to Flexible Citizenship." While her argument was certainly difficult to grasp because of her heavy accent, and the fact that I had to leave before the lecture concluded due to a class conflict (though no fault of my own, the lecture did not start on time due to technical difficulties), the main argument I was able to discern from her presentation is that electronic media is able to break down barriers that would otherwise exist between people of different backgrounds. This was especially apparent in the video that she presented, in which a multitude of different people responded on camera to questions. While the language, social class, and economic background affected their answers (the ones I could understand, at any rate), every person interviewed understood the purpose of the camera as a communication device, and the universal idea of electronic media as a communication tool. Nouzeilles's point is that even though religion, politics, and ethnicity create societal divisions, electronic media as a communication tool is an idea that is universally understood.