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.