Unit 4, Issue 12, pg. 256

Is Hate Speech in the media directly affecting our culture?
Once again, I thought that the author of our textbook did not find adequate articles to explain whether hate speech is affecting our culture.  For example, the "yes" article does not use his target audience effectively.  Instead, he alienates certain people and does not use convincing main points to argue that hate speech is affecting our culture.  He cites the usage of videogames as an agent that promotes the usage of hate speech.  For example, the player becomes the violent hero.  He further questions how and why our culture has become so mean spirited, and as a result, he explores the culture of our society's addiction to violent video games.  In addition he analyzes how modern day politics uses hate speech in debates and presidential elections as a way to exercise power over the opponent, and to display his superiority to the other canidate. I completely agree with this statement.  For example, when Senator Barbra Boxter went up against her fellow Republican Canidate Carly Fiona, both sides used hate speech to try to gain control of the debate.  I think I can say with confidence, that most of the audience was tired of using slanderous hate speech in the debates, and instead, just wanted to hear the facts.  The "no" article examined the content of web pages of 4 extremist groups that use persuasive techniques to gain acceptance on their stance, and that these websites fall back on old laurels instead of using out right hate speech, while downplaying the message of hate in their main messages.  The author goes further to even question if hate speech should be legal.  The article really does not thoroughly discuss this question, but kind of discusses the question in a half hearted manner.  I personally noticed irony in the "no" article with his "black sheep comment" in the concluding paragraph, while he was discussing white supremacist hate groups.  I think that hate speech defiinitely affects our culture, and is displayed in the media, whether it be on television, radio, or online.

Unit 1 Issue 4, p. 67

Does Media Cause individuals to develop negative body images?
While reading this particular issue, I found aspects of it be rather subjective within their concept of "being-as-object".  I thought that the author was trying to convey that women are being looked at as objects.  Instead the author might have been misunderstood to have an opinion of the being of the woman to be subject, when I strongly believe that this is not the case.  The media does have some influence in how girls view their own body image, but a lot of it does in fact come from external sources, such as men.  Whether it be due to men feeling imasculine in front of wholesome and curvy women, or men's body sizes shrinking because modern day jobs consisting of non-manual labor, their is definitely a dilemna with lots of men believing that women are "fat", when in fact in most cases, they are in reality, not fat at all.  There is a modern problem and theme in our society of the fear of fact.  It is a contemporary problem of the modern world .  The question I have to both of these authors is this: is the ad driving the image?  Or is the image driving the ad?  I think that both questions are valid, and both have factors and an impact in how women develop negative body images.  In addition, there are also problems in defining what it means to be healthy.  There are people in society who are overweight, and do have a reason to be concerned, while there are others who are way too skinny and have lost touch with reality in what it means to be healthy.  There is also a convergence of roles in this problem, it is now affecting both women and men.  Even athletes are subject and not objects to the issue.  It is an issue that is indeed fueled by the media, but by no means is the media the only outlet to blame this problem of people in modern day society, facing problems with negative body images.

RA # 3

RA # 3

My topic is regarding the Dove Ad commercial, which is a response to other competitive companies such as Jergen’s and Olay, that do not show “true beauty” on their commercials.  Due to my interest in advertising companies, I thought that the specificity of the Dove Ad would be a great topic to conduct my research project on, considering that this particular Dove Ad is a response to its other competing skin care companies which include, but are not limited to Jergen’s and Olay.  My question to the sample size of 50 people that I would conduct my research on would be:  After viewing this ad, are you more hesitant to buy skin care products other than Dove?  There already is existing literature on the Dove Ad campaign, both criticizing it and supporting it.  I would like to submit my research project in the format of being a worker for the competing company of Dove, and address what my research has found, and how our company should revamp our “ad campaign”.

Hypothesis:  I am arguing that ad companies are going to loose money for the release of this dove ad commercial, and that once people see the dove ad, they will be more hesitant to buy the competing skin care lines of Jergen’s and  Nivea, because the Dove ad commercial is “outing” these companies for air brushing models skin, and creating a “false image” of what is real.  For example, Nivea’s false promise of getting rid of unwanted cellulite from their “miracle cream”, or Jergen’s false promise of a young and tan healthy glow that can hide the presence of wrinkles or acne. 

Plan of Action:  I would show the ad to only women, because these advertising companies are addressing their commercials to only women.  I want the sample size to be unbiased, in the sense that I incorporate women of all races, and have the age range be between 14 and 60.  Because all three of these companies are trying to sell products that eliminate acne and wrinkles, or other various signs of aging and cellulite problems, the age group is going to be wide, but will not include young girls or very old women, because these ad companies do not target those very young and old age groups. 

Method:  I will show the dove ad commercial to my sample size, and then show them the ad commercials of Jergen’s and Nivea, and ask them which skin care line they were most inclined to buy.  Before showing them the ad, I will also ask what skin care line, if any, that they used before.  I will let them know that all three ads were released around the same time :January of 2009.  All three ads are relative competitively, because each ad was released during the same month and year, which shows how Dove responded to previous ad campaigns of Jergen’s and Nivea, trying to make a “less bad” commercial.   The survey will be on paper, but I will pull up all 3 ads on youtube, that aired on TV, starting on the month of January 2009.

Results Summary:  The results will be in the form of a graph, which will visually show how these women responded.  It will be easy to understand, and will show the correlation of how the sample size responded to the competing skin care lines of Jergen’s and Nivea, after they saw the Dove ad commercial in comparison to the other two skin companies advertisements.   

Conclusion:  The results mean that the Skin Care Companies will need to respond to this dove ad commercial if my hypothesis is correct.  For example, Nivea and Jergen’s can revamp their ad campaigns by using the idea of persuasion and skepticism to work in tandem against dove so advertising can do its job in a competitive market; therefore, ads represent the seller’s self-interest due to the unremitting consumer interest in health: “We want healthy girls”.  There is overwhelming evidence that unregulated economic sources dictate that much useful information will be provided by and ONLY brand advertising.  Using this fact, Jergen’s and Nivea can generate a great deal of information in a few words, responding to the Dove ad campaign.  For example, changing the commercials for the goodness of healthy girls and positive and realistic body image commercials through informational sparseness: We can promote healthyness and real beauty AND still hire naturally skinny and flawless skin models that might be one percent of the population, but they are still real and beautiful none the less.  The bottom line is that these companies just have to be more careful on the models that they choose, and careful not to use airbrushing and drastic touch ups.  Viewer’s natural emotional desires will STILL want to look like that, even though most people do not, and we can also call out other name brand skin care advertising that have not changed their commercials in response to the dove ad, and still have commercials that facilitate that “fake” and “unreal” woman on their commercials.  In conclusion, it will refute the naïve idea that advertising will only emphasize the seller’s virtues.

Do Video Games Encourage Violent Behavior

       This particular reading assignment was shorter than usual and the "yes" and "no" arguments were similar in the sense that its arguments tried to "debunk" the common myths about video games.  The arguments on each side were more opinionated rather than purely primary source related.  In other words, they were more like a meta-study; a study of studies that consits of looking at studies already done, and coming to conclusions about them.  The arguments were secondary sourced opinons that really did not help readers gain insight on the issue at hand because both sides were using the same material!  For example, on pg. 99 the author did not even reference his statistics!  Basically, I was hesitant to take a side because both sides were very biased and used invalid info; just opinions. 
       I am curious to understand why the author of our textbook used these writing pieces for this topic.  My best guess for these writing pieces being selected would be due to the fact that there are too many varialbes with videogames to make a conclusive and valid study.  With that being said, perhaps the authors of our textbook could not find solid articles writing for or against videogames encouraging violent behavior. 
       However, before and after reading this piece I firmly believe that video games do in fact encourage violent behavior.  Even though my belief is based on mere opinion, I do not really have a lot to go off of, considering both of the stances on videogames in this textbook were merely only opinions as well!

Is Advertising Good for Society? p. 129

Is Advertising Good For Society?

       John Calfee argues that advertising is good for society, in the sense that advertisements offer basic information, that can serve the audiences in an unbiased way, so that they can become better educated about pressing issues at hand.  Dinyar Godrej argues that advertising is bad for society on the premise that advertising does not tell us anything about new products, instead it acts upon our emotions in many ways; creating anxiety and culturally and politically shifiting our society in ways we thought advertising never could. 

       John Calfee's main point is that advertising can benefit consumers!  Drawing on various examples from tobacco companies and kellogg's all bran advertising initiavitve, he points out that ad campaigns can function for the public's interest.  The persuasion and skepticism of the audience provides a natural environment for a competitive market that allows consumers and competitiors to borrow information for their own purposes.  In addition, Calfee points out that advertising can use additional information from outside sources, which further endorses his point that audiences are getting more infomration out advertisements, rather than big corporation companies trying to blatantly sell their product.  Advertsing companies are now using an increase in independent information.  Thirdly, he aruges that advertising can be a pervasive phenomenon that can benefit our society at large- extending beyond the interests of the advertisers themselves.  He gives the example of advertising for soap and toothpaste; which has dramatically improved our public hygeine and has prevented teeth from falling out.  Calfee comes to the conclusion that these health problems were alleviated by the advertisers themselves, and that there is overwhelming evidence that unregulated deconomic foreces dictate that much useful information will be provided by brand advertsing and ONLY brand advertising.  Fourthly, he aruges that competition makes advertising and context vague yet precise, in the sense that advertisers have the great ability to communicate so much  in only a few words.  Again, Calfee draws upon examples deep from the past, citing VW beetle's ad campaign during the fuel crisi of the 70's "Think Fast".  Advertising and context also relies on information from other soucres and informational sparity when dealing with competitors, yet competition in and of itself, provides audiences with more information than the actual selling of the advertiser's product.  Finally, Calfee calls on "less bad advertising", to bring attention to audiences the notable faults of their product; however, the ad companies are doing this for a reason!  Nonetheless, Calfee points it out as another way to be more informed in society.

       Dinyar Godrej says that advertising has started to rob our souls with the disproportionate corporate power due to people getting smart about commercials "fraudulent claims".  Advertising companies our now playing on our evolutionary wired brains; they are after our emotion!  For example, companies use images to engage us in our wildest fantasies and dreams; creating a sociological emergency where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  The companies, draw on emotion and anxiety to convince you that you NEED to buy the product now.  Much effort is now being placed in neuromarketing, to channel our emotions, and our brain to buy the product.  We as an audience, might not buy the product at that second, but subconsciously, it has been implanted in our head that we NEED certain things, when in reality, we might not actually need them.  Therefore, Godrej says that our biggest tool against these corporation-owned companies is a constant reality check.  In addition to these companies bombarding our brain with bias and unnecessary information, the companies are changing the culture we are apart of; affecting how NewsPapers and TV show's such as CNN are run.  One study found that 40 percent of the 'news' content of a typlical newspaper originated in press releases, story memos and suggestions from PR companies.  Godrej further argues that she is "further tired" by the ad comapnies consistenly conservative values, when they know about the social, economic, and environmental issues at hand, and their deciseveness to "dismiss" them regardless...  For example, even though McDonald's food is helping to increase the obesity and diabete's epedemic in the world, they try to cover up these statistics by creating Ronald McDonald houses, which accoomadate families with sick children.  McDonald's did not just want to create Ronald McDonald houses, rather this was all apart of their campaign to scheme audiences to eat their food. 

       Personally, after reading both positions and analyzing the pre and post script on the issue, I feel that advertising can be good for society, but is not.  In this day of age, we have to critically analyze the issues of corporate power, mind control, deceptive advertsing, and creating desire and emotion for people to buy things that they really do not need.  And even after knowing that the ad industires know about all of these issues, the ad industry has responded by creating "quick problem-solvers" to what their ad's have created!  Perhaps they do this so that they themselves can police and dictate their own industries, rather than accepting regulation from the outside world.  Even though advertising can be a good thing and give information and benefits to society, it has done the opposite.  I personally feel that the bad has outweighed the good in this particular issue, changing how culture, society and politics are run!  However, the biggest tool we have against the ad industry is just keeping oneself in check with reality.  That is the the most helpful advicee I gleaned from reading this particular issue.

Midterm

RA: 2; Response to Survey

       In this digital age where information is so readily available at the tip of our fingers, conducting a survey to see "just how informed" the American public is, specifically residents in the Bay Area, towards topics that include the local governor's race, and what type of media, if any, they pay attention to, would be a great way to asses how informed the bay area citizens are, in a day and age that is flourishing off of accesible information, in all aspects of life.  My personal survey consisted of five questions that were either true or false questions, or one word answers.  I decided to create the survey in this sort of structure due to the ability to quanitfy data in a much easier manner.  The topics in the survey regarded the local governor's race, the indivduals political party affiliation, and what new's broadcasting company they were most likely to watch if they had to pick one.  My hypothesis was that the people who answered my survey would be somewhat politically informed, in the sense that they knew where they stood on certain issues, but they might not know the background of the election canidates, and how the candiates would run their policies if elected to be the Governor of California; therefore, on a scale of one to ten, my guess would be an eight.  My second hypothesis is that those who are of the same political party of their parents, are also most likely to watch the same broadcasting news network on television.

       The exact questions that I asked were these listed below:

True or False.  Was Meg Whitman the CEO of Ebay?
True of False.  Did Jerry Brown ever run for a presidential election?
On a scale of one to ten?  Ten being the most informed, how politically aware are you of the campaign issues facing Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown?
Are you of the same political party of your parents? If so, state the party.
If you had to pick one news broadcasting company out of the five listed here (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC), which one would you most likely watch?

       The assignment was to create 5 questions regarding the common theme of the last unit read in Alexander and Hanson's book, Taking Sides, which to an extent, touched on the topic of whether people were more informed in a digital decade where almost anything and everything is accesible.  To expand on the theme of citizen's accesiblity to information, the survey was created in order to try and determine if people, specifically, Bay Area citizens, were well informed on the governor election canidates, and whether their own political party affiliation affects which broadcasting network they watch.  The last two questions of my survery were designed to uncover whether people were independent thinkers, and if they purposely sought bias news, to further validate their own political opinions. 
      As mentioned before, the actual survey itself was five questions long and required answers that were brief, and able to quanitfy as results, in order to gain a proper conclsuion of the two hypotheses' that I formed.  The survey questions were printed out on paper in numberical form, just as you can see above, with space for people to write their answers.  I surveyed forty people, which might lead to an inconclusive study due to the minimal participants involved.  One of the reasons the study only consisted of forty people, was because of the lack of availability to a large scale amount of people willing to take the survey.  Some people I asked claimed they were too busy to take the survey, while others did not want to take it due to embarassment, even though I said the survey would be anonymous!  I did the best that I could recruiting people to answer the questions, and I have to say in all honesty, that it was personally hard for me just to obtain the minimal amount of forty people.  Although agreeing with the assignment given, anything less than forty would not have been a conclusive unbiased study.  Also, when asking people to take the survey, I made sure to get people from differnt communities, neighborhoods, and tried to have gender be equally distributed amongst the participants.  In my opinon, I thought that making these efforts would even further prove my hypothesis, and if anything else, it would provide for a more unbiased study.
      
       My results were partially correct.  Hypothesis one was disconfirmed to an extent, so I would personally feel that more research should be conducted, and that the sample size should be increased.  85% of the participants answered correctly to question number one, regarding Meg Whitman being the CEO of Ebay, while a mere 45% answered correctly to Jerry Brown running for Presidency.  The average mean of the forty participants regarding political awareness was that of a 6.5, which was lower  than I predicted (I predicted an 8).  75% of the participants said that they were of the same political party afflilation in respect to those of their parents.  The majority of participants watched MSNBC or FOX, which comprised of 75% of the 40 people.  While BBC and CNN were the less popular and viewed broadcasting companies.  My hypothesis second hypothesis was confirmed in that those who were of the same Political Party of their parents, watched the same news broadcasting network of their parents.  Personally, I would find it extremely interesting to go a step further in this study to determine a) if republican voters watched FOX and if b)democrat voters watched MSNBC.  However, unfortunately this cannot be determined in the study that I conducted.
       The results that I obtained can mean a number of things, but considering my sample size of participants was extremely small, who knows how bias this study may be.  Overall, it is my assumption from these results that the only reason the participants answered so well on question number one id because Meg Whitman has more income to generate on ad campaigns that are flooded in between any and every TV show, which would explain the participants knowledge of her job as CEO at Ebay.  Question number two was not answered as well, and I also blame this on the lack of funding regarding Jerry Brown's campaign.  Even though the participants did answer well on the first question, it does not validate that they are politically aware citizens, and even the participants themselves said they were just over average on a scale of one to ten regarding their own political awareness.  My second hypothesis was correct, which means that parents have a strong influence over their children.  But in a day in age where information is so easily accesible, one would think the children would do reserach on their own for how they feel on certain issues.  I can go as far to say that the children that affiliate with their parent's political party watch the same news broadcasting company, but I think it would be necessary to solely focus on this issue at hand.  Overall hypothesis one was incorrect, and hypothesis 2 was correct to an extent, due to the fact that the sample size was small, and I could have asked a more detailed question.  I believe that those participants who are republicans would be more likely to watch FOX and those particpants that were democrats would be more likely to watch MSNBC.  In this day and age where infomration is EXTREMELY successful, my findings have been that people are not more politically aware than they were twenty years ago, and that even though there is more information out there, it can be filled with bias and untruthfulness.

RA # 2 Survey Questions

1. True or False.  Was Meg Whitman the CEO of Ebay?
2. True of False.  Did Jerry Brown ever run for a presidential election?
3. On a scale of one to ten?  Ten being the most informed, how politically aware are you of the campaign issues facing Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown?
4. Are you of the same political party of your parents?  If so, what party.
5. If you had to pick one news broadcasting company out of the five listed here (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC), which one would you most likely watch?

Unit 6, Issue 18, pg. 364

Are people better informed in the information society?

              Hanson and Alexnader's book Taking Sides, decided to explore the current information age, and whether people are actually more informed or less informed.  Linda Jackson, amongst her other colleagues Alexander von Eye, Frank Biocca, Gretchen Barbatsis, Yong Zhao, and Hiram Fitzgerald, all advocate that specically, low income youth who used the internet more, had higher scores on the SATS and higher GPAS.  The study that they conducted further suppports the growing eagnerss in the world that the Internet may have just been the greatest communicative tool invented, in the sense that one the many reasons of the tool's credibility is that it will level the "educational playing field" for youth in low income houses.  In contrast, Mark Bauerlein advocates that people are not better informed in this "high speed information decade" (p. 364).  He finds this new digital age to be an "empty promise"(p. 364), in th esense that digital tools such as the TV and the Internet, distract kids from reaching their potential in school, resulting in a less infomred public in topics such as economics, politics, and varying, subjective local issues.  Both authors are trying to answer the same age, old question that has been around for generations, "Is the ability to communicate faster equivicable to the quality of the communication experience in and of itself" (p. 364).  Even though this is a great question to ask, the question has been around for generations, specifically when the world came out with news papers, radios, televisions, and now the world wide web.  However, in this new digital age, certain elements have appeared that have not been present in the past, including the plethora of excess of information, and if that excess information "truly informs". 

       Jackson and her colleagues seek to address this "age old problem" by trying to demonstrate the potential of the internet to enhance educational outcomes of low-income families.  Although her survey did conclude with that of a successful result, her survey was extremely subjective, in that the citizens of the United States do not only consist of low-income youth.  Her study offered three explanations for four out of the five hypotheses' that were confirmed.  First, the variability in the 16 schools that participated in this study, had access to great computer and software programs.  Secondly, the inability of the 140 students teacher's did not incorporate their lesson plans with this online techonoly offered, which could explain why the majority of student's academic perfomrance in mathematics did not change, while SAT scores and reading comprehension showed a dramatic improvement across the board.  Third, even though the study was conducted over a 16 month period, this was nearly not enought time for student's to gain adequate information on how to use technology in an effective manner, which could have further promoted the low-income youth's academic performance.  From these three points, Jackson gathered that the use of the internet improved cognitive skills, including visual intelligence, spatial, iconic, and image representations skills (p. 366).  Moreover Jackson states, "Having a home computer as been associated with ghihger test scores in reading, even after crontrolling for family inome and other factors related to reading and test scores" (p. 367).  However, Jackson's main point is that the future of our Country rests in our children, and considering that 30% of the United States Youth Population lives below the poverty line, the internet could be an extremely useful tool in order to get youth a better education, and possibly a better job futuristically in this Country.  As I said before, Jackson's study was extremely subjective, and very detailed.  Through this complex study, she found one conclusion that was inescapable from the readers that read her article: "The internet showed the potential to enhave academic achievement" (p. 365).  Hanson's and Alexander's book Taking Sides agrees with this statement due to the blatant fact that other studies have been "equivocal" (p. 365) to the one that Jackson conducted.  Personally, the judgements that I tried to make myself particularly aware of was that of the validity and reliability of the study, and if this finding that Jackson made is inescapable and should be taken seriously in the sense that our local, state, and country should provide tax benefits to further fuel the internet being a great and reliable source for lower income youth, which do in fact comprise 30 percent of the overall youth in the United States, and our the future of our country's well being. 

       Mark Bauerlein argues that the availability of the digital age only further promotes the "over achhieving" children to only be focused on success and anxiety (p. 376).  With anxiety, Bauerlein argues that students will do anything to get an "easy A".  Even if it means relying on easily accesible websites such as wikipedia which contain terrible secondary source information.  To get an A with honor, takes time, responsibility, and integrity.  Bauerlein points out the strucutural settings of highschools are partially to blame for this, driving students into a competive frenzy, which makes schools a "hotbed for Machiavellian strategy" (p. 377).  When Daivd Brooks toured Princeton and interviewed students, his conclusion was this, "Just get the grades, they tell themselves, ace the test, stduty, study, study.  Assignments become exercises to complete, like doing the dishes, not knowledge to acquire for the rest of their lives.  The innfer life fades; only the external credits count" (p.377).  Although this may sound like torturous work, the surprising fact about all of data is this: when students were asked how much time they spend studying each week for each class that they were enrolled in, 90 percent of them said they spent a REDICULOUSLY amount of 5 hours or less, which led to the embarssing consequence of statistical evidence that students retain information that is scatterted and underanalyzed (p. 378- 379).  These findings can refute the main stream norm that is usually televised on TV shows stating how "over-worked" and "extremely stressed" students are.    In addition to this, there is problem that may be more imminent than student's lacking capability to retain unscattered analyzed information which is this: even due to increased techonoly and information available to the American public, young Americans today are nomore knowledgeable, fluent, inquisitive, or up to date on any type of social, economical, or political event in the world.  And if for some reason they do obtain information on issues such as these, the information provided from the digital era can more than likely be biased or false!  "The autonomy as a cost: the more they attend to themselves, the less they remember the past and envision a future" (p. 381).  The ability to not analyze and fully comprehend information that these students are obtaining falls into dangerous waters in the sense that democracy thribes upon a knowledgeable citizenery, not just citizens who can recite random theories, a democracy needs citizens that can think for themselves, and have a broader knowledge that extends from they have learned from websites such as Wikipedia; they need to analyze what they are learning, and not just try to strive for that "easy A".  But in a structural system of highschools, where there is a breeding ground for "mainstream" thought, who can blame them?  An existentialist, would say take responsibility for your own actions, and make sure you get the valuable education you deserve, and use this digital age as a way to further increase your analytical knowledge. 

       Personally, I do not entirely agree with both authors.  With the birth of the digital age, has come along a mixed sense of optimism and pessimism.  The ability to retrieve information drastically quicker than you could have 20 years ago, is a great accomplishment for this world, and deserves recognition in the sense that citizens not just in the United States, but in the World, can have access to information they never thought they could before.  But with any great accomplishment, comes its downsides.  Lots of information not just on the web, but on TV as well has bias information, and information that might not necessarily be true.  In addition, it makes a person "more lazy" in obtaining information, and one might not strive to obtain that primary source information.  Jackson does have a point that the internet can definitely benefit low-income youth, but at the same time, her study was so subjective, it really cannot predict whether easy access to information is a benefit or a drawback.  Baurelein made some valid points as well.  Students are focused on cramming information in their heads, and receiving it from websites, radios, or TV shows that might not be reliable.  The result is a person who cannot think for themself or think analytically to the best of his or her potential.  I do howevever believe that he is a bit of an alarmist, and I think that the easily accesible information in this day and age has more benefits than drawbacks.

      

RA # 1

       Dear Rupert Murdoch and John Prescott Ellis,
Let me say first, that I applaud you on your mission to generate "fair" news, as it says on your website.  Because we live in a democracy, your news corporation allows us the freedom to understand and analyze what is going on in politics and society, and I truly applaud you for that!  I understand that with every news company, the good must come along with the bad, and I wanted your corporation to read this letter because FOX might get higher viewership and ratings from the opinion that I want to share with you today.  I am writing you today because it has come to my attention that the news you choose to cover can at times, be biased.  I do not want you to discard this letter just because I am writing to criticize your broadcasting company, instead I truly hope you can gain insight from what I have to say about the issue that you cover on TV, online, and in your newsletters.  I have been a fan of FOX for quite some time, in fact, I receive your newsletter in the mail!  As a concerned citizen regarding the direction that your corporation is moving in, I think that FOX should have more liberal commentary, to draw in other viewers.  In this letter, I hope for your corporation to improve, and perhaps you will gain more insight on what some of your viewers want.
       In order to gain a complete view of how FOX delivers and covers its news, I decided to critically read the FOX newsletters that are sent in the mail on a weekly basis.  I read online articles, watched your TV shows, and read your newsletters avidly for two weeks straight.  What I found did not really surprise me after an article I read on FOX's contract with GOP canidates to exclusively interview with their network.  In fact, this exact article was what sparked my interest in trying to find a way to get rid of FOX's biased image.  Although, FOX is one of the most highly rated news companies, it has gained that prestige with poor reporting, biased coverage, and shows that viewers may watch just to become even more outraged with the makings of this company.
       Interestingly enough, FOX's main slogan on their online website is "fair and balanced".  Unfortunately this is DEFINITELY not the case...  Over a series of two weeks, specifically the first two weeks of October 2010, Fox's newsletters main headline was on the Republican GOP canidates.  I am not entirely sure if these main headlines were due to their exclusive contract with four of the main republican future canidates for presidency, or if these were the stories that the news corporation thought were most pertinent to the American public.  Although this is my own person opinon, I do not think that FOX news is adhering to its "journalistic integrity", and is just trying gain more viewership for its broadcasting company due to the "imitation of success".  In addition, it does not necessarily help when shows such as the O'Reiley Factor and the Glenn Beck show openly admit that they are a "die hard" republicans.  For example, during Glen Beck's show on October 5th, he explicitly said that America has lost its authenticity and he is 'proud' to be a republican.  Secondly, Bill O'Reiley has always publicly stated that he is a republican on his show and on other talk shows such as the view, BUT during the two week period that I "critically" watched his shows, he made no mention of it.  Instead, he just talked about Obama's health care policy failing, and that Obama has made us more in debt than the Bush Administration had.  Obviously, his opinions are conservative and right-winged.  Interestingly enough, there are NO shows that have hosts that are openly democratic.  To me, this is explicitly showing that FOX news is not trying to have substansive coverage, rather they are relying on biased political statistics and even more biased commentary on heated political and social issues, in order to get high viewership, and as a consequence, generate more income for their network.  Going back to FOX's main slogan "fair and balanced".... In what way are these aspects of the corporation fair and balanced?
       In analyzing the actual television broadcast of FOX news, I noticed the same trend in the sense that the main headlines were usually concerning about what the republicans are doing in the political spectrum.  For example, on the Glenn Beck show, when he had a campaign at the Lincoln Memorial paralleling Martin Luther King's civil rights movement to what the republicans are trying to accomplish for the 2012 election campaign.  His speech did not make any sense at all, and was clearly targeting the aspect of republican canidates being superior to democratic canidates in the sense that he was making trivial assumptions that the God- loving republican candiates were the people who were going to take this country in a positive direction.  Just to further my opinion on Glenn Beck, he was the man who on his show, publicly said that gay people were not born naturally that way, "they were made".  As a political correspondent, I thought that this statement was extremely inappropriate. 
       While viewing the website, the bias theme was yet again confirmed.  The main tabs located on the websites home page was very US focused, and each article that I personally read, was bias in the sense that they only explained the United State's side of the story, instead of going further as a news company and interviewing and asking how other countries felt about the stance that the United States was taking on various issues.  News companies such as BBC and Al Jazeera make it a point out of journalistic integrity to show both sides of the story.  Even though BBC and Al Jazeera to cover the United States more than other countires around the world, their stories have primary facts and cover BOTH sides of the story, and let the readers or viewers decide how to feel on whatever issue is presented.
       In summary, I think the FOX news broadcasting company needs to restore its journalistic integrity and stop focusing on getting high viewership, and a high influx of money as a consequence.  If every news broadcasting company focused on maintaing journalistic integrity, and state just primary facts, I think that the world's opinon of the United States would be dramatically different; in a positive way!  My advice to you FOX news, "Start the trend!"  You will increase your viewership by adding liberals, and maintaining your conservative audience.  This is a win-win situation, if you construct your broadcasting company in a less bias way, and make smart moves in the news anchors, political shows, and articles that you decide to cover.  If every news corporation was fair, they would gain the viewership of both liberals and conservatives, while keeping that controversial edge, and using it in a positive way!

Issue of Global Warming on FOX versus MSNBC

       I decided to look at the issue of global warming from two very different news sources: FOX and MSNBC.  Global warming is an extremely contorversial issue that can most likely be determined whether one is republican or democrat.  Republican's lean towards global warming being a false issue where as democrats lean towards global warming being an iminent and extremely important issue.  I thouht it would be interesting to look at an issue that is usually decided upon according to political party affiliation.  Being as FOX is more of a right winged news corporation, I predicted that they would have articles trying to prove that Global warming was not an issue of importance.  By contrast, MSNBC is an extremely left winged news corporation, so I assumed the news corporation would have articles promoting the urgency to act upon the issue of global warming, and promote such slogans as "going green".
       Not to my surprise, my thoughts were confirmed.  FOX news used the example of the summer of 2010 being unusually cool, and that if global warming were actually ocurring, this would not be the case.  They went on to further state that since the beginning of the Earth's creation, there have been many temperature changes, and that this might be one more temperature change that our earth is going through.  Moreover, they dismissed the idea of "going green" projects, saying that the projects were draining our treasury, and were causing an increase in taxes. 
       MSNBC was an avid supporter on the issue of global warming.  Although they did not out right say that they supported and believed in global warming, they showed many stories on the dying polar bear population due to the ice caps melting.  Polar bears hunt on the ice caps, and without the ice caps being a hunting ground for polar bears, the bears will starve and their species will eventually become extinct.  In addition, they have interviewed Al Gore on his award winning movie an Inconvenient Truth.  FOX never interviewed Al Gore, and never covered the significance of many animal speicie's going extinct because of this temperature change.
      Nightly, I watched both of these news broadcasting companies on the issue of global warming.  If they did not air anything regarding it on TV, I went online to see articles that journalists working for each company had posted about global warming.  The news corporations took such different stances on an issue that should be only giving primary information on the subject, and not trying to sway viewer and reader's opinions on the issues by horserace and hoopla.  The only job of news corporations should be to provide substansive coverage in a non-bias way.

Fox Primary: Complicated and Contractual!

       When I finished reading this article, I'll admit I was a bit outraged about what the Fox News Corporation is doing!  This "imitation of success" ideal is taking on an entirely different meaning, and Fox News is going above and beyond what is appropriate!!  When does integrity play into the situation regarding having a balance between news coverage, and a responsibility to report ALL the facts?  Regardless of however subjective my opinion may be, these contracts are a slap in the face to honest journalists trying to report facts without bias.  Although this article did admit that Pat Buchanan did host CNN's "crossfire" in the 1990's between his GOP primary campaigns, his role on this network was completely different than the four GOP canidates that are signed in contracts exclusively to FOX.  Pat Buchanan comments, "We're in a dramatically different era now."  Personally, I would have to agree; however, this new era is not an improvement to the previous eras of News Corporations, and I am extremely frightened for the citizens of America in this day and age because our views and thoughts of American and World politics is in danger of becoming increasingly isolated... What happens if FOX GOP canidates refuse to participate in interviews with the "Big Three News Networks"?  And I thought we were isolated before this! 
       The article was extremely well written and gave me startling and shocking insight that I would not have obtained otherwise.  Here are the facts that made me so outraged...

• Fox's popularity amongst conservatives is one of factors contributing to the FOX corporation having four potentially serious Republican canidates as paid contributors
• this is frusterating to all sides!
• ex: competitors of the network
• ex: figures within its own news division
• ex: rivals of "Fox Canidates" aka other republicans who might want to run for the '11 election such as Mitt Romney
• FOX now has deals with every major potential Republican presidential candiate not currently in elected office
• main GOP contenders are contractually forbidden to appear on any TV network besides FOX
• presents uncertainty to how other news organizations can cover the early stages of the presidential race
• ex: C-Span Political editor Steve Scully said that when they tried to have Palin for an interview, he was told to get FOX's permission... which was ultimately denied by FOX due to her contract
• ex: Producers at ABC, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC all reported similar experiences
• At Issue: Basic Matters of political and journalistic fairness and propriety!!
• FOX enjoys an unparalleled platform from which they can speak directly to primary voters through these GOP canidates
• Canidates get to send unflitered message in a friendly environment
• ex: FOX opinion hosts typically invite GOP canidates to offer their views on issues of the day rather than press them to defend their rhetoric or records as leaders of the party
• canidates have every reason to delay formal announcements of canidacy!
• Contract is VERY STRICT
• ex: promoting a book is only way to get around contract
• Fox says, "it doesn't relax exclusivity provisions"
• Scully who works for FOX says the corp has never had to deal with this before
• Not just GOP Canidates that are not signed with FOX who are angry...
• people within network who are growing increasingly uncomfortable
• ex: interviewing canidates who are on their same payroll!
• no word from head of FOX corp regarding how journalists are supposed to treat "their colleagues"
• Harsh reality: no reporter has any say in this decision... except to quit FOX
• ex: how do reporters interview canidates who are not employed by fox?
• Non-fox hopeful canidates claiming unfairness!
• ex: aide of non-fox canidate, "I wish we could get that much airtime, but, oh yeah, we don't get a paycheck"
• Jim Dyke predicts issue will gain stream after midterms
• when declaration of running for presidency is made, is FOX contributing to GOP candidates long before the actual declaration was made?
• Buchanan previously worked with Roger Alies (FOX News Chairman)
• Buchanan feels Alies has every incentive to keep Palin exclusive to network
• ex: Buchanan states, "He knows he's got a real stable of talent andthat people are attracted to FOX news in part because that is where they can see Sarah Palin."
• again... imitation of success!!
• again... main goal: high audience viewership!
• Exclusivity to Palin worries political and media community
• Palin has repeatedly attacked the media as "lamestream"
• her contract could be a strategy to de-legitimize traditional news outlits so as to avoid ever facing any accountability beyond fox
• ex: Palin states, "What would we do without FOX News America?  We love our FOX News, yes" (statement voiced at speach is Louisiville, Kentucky)
• could affect voter count for Palin (an increase unfortunately...)
• GOP may suffer in General Election if canidates avoid speaking to mass audiences of the "Big Three Networks"

      

Unit 3, Issue 10, p. 150-172

       Unit 3, Issue 10 debates whether the media can regain public trust.  "The Pew Research Center for People and the Press found that only 29 percent of people surveyed believed that the news generally gets the facts straight, and only 18 percent believe that the press deals fairly with all sides of an issue.  Yet, despite their disillusionment with the press, 71 percent of people see the press as a necessary watchdog on the government" (p.150, Alexander, Hanson).  Although a majority of people do not rely on the media as being a credible and unbiased source, most people do continue to follow the media to stay current on political policies that our country is endorsing.  However, as the decade has moved forward, the media has been completely revolutionized with increasing cable chanels, and the introduction of the internet, which has been a breeding ground for blogs and an increased voice on how the media is failing in its prestige and credibility of journalism.  In this issue, authors Michael Schudson and John Hockenberry discuss whether or not the media can in fact achieve the goal of regaining the public's trust.  Schudson argues that the news is essential for a democracy, and that the journalists "in your face" attitude is unpopular with the people of America, but he argues that this attitude is critical to deliver the best news possible.  Hockenberry argues that the news will never regain the public trust due to corporate ownership and obsession with high ratings and high viewership.  Alexander and Hanson, the authors of this entire textbook, encourage readers to ponder about one's own perception of the credibility of the press and current journalism.  As I pondered, I myself have mainly witnessed the media catering certain stories to the public due to the corporations stance on the issue, and the corporations ties it has with certain people and companies.  For example, the GN corporations (Dateline NBC) ties with the Bin Laden family. As a result, the corporation was hesitant to air information on Al Quaeda directly after September 11th, according to Hockenberry.  Instead, Dateline NBC continued the coverage on firefighters in the United States because they thought the response of the audience would be positive due to the familiarity of the situation as opposed to a startling new story on the terrorists that were responsible for September 11th.  The coveted emotional center of the story was reliable, predictable,and its story lines could be duplicated over and over.  The firefighter story line also explains why TV news seems so archaic compared to the advertising and entertainment content on the same network; it is because TV news is not supposed to cover taboo topics!  Networks are built to adress audience size first, and content second, which has made America isolated and less educated about the world than it was 50 years ago.  In agreement with Hockenberry, I believe the media panders to audiences and searches for "feel" good stories that will keep audiences listening and promote that six sigma attitude in the NBC newsroom(p.151, p.168).  On the other hand, journalists and news corporations confrontational attitudes do get the most out stories, but the choice of stories is extremely subjective, and that is where people begin to mistrust the media due to the selectivity of stories, and only covering stories that gain high ratings or high viewership.  For example, when the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were finally covered, the NBC's GE parent company stood to benefit from the news coverage as a major defense contractor.  But I must say on different issues on political policies.... Would people really want to hear about the complexities of a political policy or a certain bill that may or may not be passed?  With covering a high breadth of issues, comes the responsibility of viewers to take interest in them, and on the other hand, it should be the media's responsibility to cover stories without the bias of the corporation-owned news company and its obsession with positive audience response.
       In Schudson's defense, most Americans do mistake offical source's opinions for those of journalists or news corporations such as Dateline NBC reporting the story, and journalists and new's companies are criticized as a result, but it is the journalists and new's companies responsibility to get information not only from "top down" sources, but from "bottom up" sources as well!  And it is also the journalists responsibility to not only use their conventional wisdom that is intertwined with mainstream politics, but to also cover minority politcal policies.  For example, during the 2004 elections, Bush and Gore were primarily covered as opposed to Ralph Nader who was running as well, who had important issues to discuss!  Schudson claims that it was not the job of the press to offer the public a wide range of issues, rather the press should analyze and discuss the issues that the two viable and most popular canidates were presenting.  Personally, I disagree with Schudson's claim here, and I think that he is giving journalists too much praise...  Schudson also mentions that journalists are always there when random events happen, as opposed to social scientists that are not ready to report the issue.  However, isn't it the journalists job to report breaking news stories?  Overall, Schudson does a terrible job of showing how media can regain public trust, and just makes excuses for why journalists are the way they are, and advocating that society needs them, even if they relish in conflict, and have constraints of conventional American Society.  A news system should have certain obligations to society, regardless of the position the journalists are in, and the journalists should report well-balanced stories that do not leave out certain issues or people on the political spectrum.  Even though journalists are reporting to a conventional society will certain sociological norms, it is the journalists job to be accountable and responsible to society, as well as their employers.

Governor's Race for Election

       The current Governor's election of California is taking place as we speak.  Ofcourse, as the citizen's of California go about watching TV, reading newspapers, and surfing the internet, they are bombarded with propaganda from the opposing parties of Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown.  Each canidate slams the other with startling accusations, which leaves the citizens of California not really sure what to believe!  At first, I decided to google both of their names because depending on the popularity of the various sites concerning the current nominees, the ranking of popularity would be apparent on the google website.  Ofcourse, when I googled both of their names, both of their own personal sites popped up first, followed by a wikipedia site that went into depth about each of the canidates.  After checking out both of their own personal websites and the wikipedia's information, I decided to search further and check out common media outlets such as the blog of LA Weekly, the Mercury News, Rasmussen Reports, and the Huffington Post.
       On the personal canidate's websites, there were certain similarites between the two, as well as dissimilarities.  Both websites covered their own personal solutions to California, and provided a biography about their lives, and had a media center.  Besides these basic coverages, the websites were drastically different!  For example, in my opinion, Meg Whitman's website was more organized and well thought out.  Her main coverages were a Biography, popular California issues, a media center, different topics about Californians, and uniting her party and supporters.  Personally I thought it was a classy website that thoroughly addressed how she felt on issues, however bias her website may be...  Jerry Brown's website immediately had a pop-up add asking for donations for personal information before you could see his official website.  Although my opinion was subjective once I was bombarded by this add, I viewed this pop-up add strategy to be a bit tacky...  Brown's website had a home section, a bio, various solutions to California's crisis, a media center, how Californians can act now, a contact for his political party, and even a store! Even though Brown was more forward about asking for donations in an almost desperate sort of way, people have to keep in mind that Meg Whitman is the fourth wealthiest woman in California!!  Although she does not mention that in her website, it is a good fact to keep in mind when deciding who to vote for in this race.
       The site for Wikipedia contained limitted biases, but one has to keep in mind that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any moment in time, and who ever edits the site may be in favor or opposition for the government canidees.  However overall, I thought that it was a highly informative site for both canidates.  For example, Wikipedia talked about Meg Whitman being an American business woman, a republican canidate for Governor, the chief executive officer and president of ebay, and being the fourth wealthiest woman in the state of California.  The website had an adequate analysis of her early life and education, her carreer (ebay and director), political positions (edu, environment, marriage, abortion, illegal immigration, marijuana, voting record, 2010 campaign for CA governor), accolades, ties to Goldman, and her charitable foundation to saving the environment.  For Jerry Brown, Wikipedia mentioned him as being an American politician, attorney general for the state of California, the former governor of CA, and him having a lengthy career in politics.  He was the CA secretary of state, governor of CA, mayor of Oakland, Chairman of CA democratic party, unsuccessful Democratic nominee for US senate and US president.  In addition to all of this quantitative and qualitative information regarding his accomplishments and lack there of, the site also goes into depth about his early life and educaton, legal carrier and entrance into politics, governship (moonbeam nickname), electoral history, '76 presidential campaign, '80 presidential campaign, defeat and return to politics, '92 presidential campaign, radio show host, mayor of Oakland and campaign, his personal life, and his critics.  Jerry Brown's section on wikipedia was much more in depth and negative, but this could have been due to his long political carreer.  Because Jerry Brown's section had more of a negative spin, this observation could be subjective to the information that is displayed on the wikipedia website.  Just to make sure I had all of the facts correct, I decided to browse on the online sites of daily news papers including the LA Times, Rasmussen Reports, the Huffington Post, and the Mercury News. 
       Although I looked at four different Newspapers, they were all shockingly similar!! They all contained horse race and hoopola.  Specifically, they talked about who was ahead in the polls and each canidates campaign money situation,
       Overall, I think that in order to be an informed citizen to vote for a government canidee, one needs to look at various types of media that cover both Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman.  The types of media that I found most informative were Wikipedia, the Canidates websites, and various newspapers.  I found that if you look too much into the online blogs, the information is misguided and taken out of context.  If one sticks to offical newspapers, the canidates websites, and a common accesible encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, a California can be an informed voter ready to decide who to vote for!

Unit 3, Issue 10, p. 204-224

Will Evolving Forms of Journalism Be an Improvement?

       Unit 3, Issue 10 discusses whether evolving forms of Journalism will be an improvement or not.  Mark Deuze, Axel Burns, and Christoph Neuberger conducted case studies that analyzed various online new's websites in Austrailia, Germany, and the United States.  Their case studies concluded that the evolving forms of Journalism overall, were a great benefit to society.  In opposition to the new forms of Journalism, David Simon, who gave a great speech in front of congress, closely examines the future of journalism and concludes that high-end journalism is a dying breed in America, and it could not be saved by the Internet and/ or citizen journalists (p.204).  A major shift has been taking place in the past decade, and it is taking traditional journalism and metamorphisizing it into participatory journalism.  Not only has this participatory journalism been created, it has also been taken quite positively from citizens across the world, and is on a steady rise!  Burns, Neuberger, and Deuze offer case studies of three newspapers on different continents that have adopted different approaches to participatory news.  Participatory news has formed an interesting hybrid of the top-down process of traditional journalism, and the botom-up process of ordinary citizen involvement (p. 205).  Overall, it can be said that professional journalists had a rought time adapting to these changes because citizen journalists were now writing news stories, which clashed with the established, traditional journalistic norms of society (p. 205).  However the question still remains, should citizen journalists be informing the public on an equal platform of trained and paid journalists?  Journalism is a full time job that requires full commitment and consisten attention.  Although citizens have the right to express and write their opinion, which is sometimes very helpful, will it degrade the quality of journalism and misinform the public?  And on the other side of the debate, is the public willing to pay for their news in the age of free access to information provided by the internet?

       As the public has steadily declined their trust in news, and this particular decade is one of self-expression and digital media culture, the climate of our world has become one of perfection for an evolving form of journalism.  Deuze, Bruns, and Neuberger have decided to explore the various evolving forms of journalism and confrim their prediction that a new form of journalismm would embrace a cross-media functionality, which would include publishing news across multiple media platforms, and provide an interactive relationship with audiences that might not have ever entered the public sphere (p. 207).  Their predictions mostly correct, excpet for a few subjective exceptions that were different for each form of news journal that was studied.  For example, each model proved successful in specific contexts that they were adressing, but on the whole, they each had their strengths and weakness; their strengths being extremely more substantial than their weakness.  Because each form of journalism was a hybrid of cultural convergence from top-down professionals and bottom-up citizens, it furthered the agenda of the news industry, while providing citizens with news that most importantly THEY thought mattered.  "In each instance a professional media organization (top-down) partners with or deliberately taps into the emerging participatory media culture online (bottom-up) in order to produce some kind of co-creative, commons-based news platform" (p. 208).  The author's approached this study by using a conceptual approach that used similar hybrid forms of journalism.  Most of the hybrid forms combined elements of participatory journalism with the traditional framework of news media.  "In every case, the approach to participatory journalism is a hybrid between institutional or commercial support and community engagement" (p. 209).  Each hybrid form of journalism targeted a specific age group and demographic, and some used the internet, while others used cell phones, newspapers, or magazines to deliver their news to the public.  The German site Opinio skipped subjects such as economy or politics, and focused on everyday living topics and leisure-time activities.  The target group for this news was between 30 and 39 years old.  The Austrailian non-profit news and current events site covers politics and economics that mainstream news or non-mainstream news might not cover.  Although the submission of an article is subject to whether the editors of the website like the article or not, it provides a place to gain new information that you previously might not have been able to obtain from a traditional newspaper.  Even though there were flaws to each hybrid form of journalism, the important part that I gleaned from this standpoint was that these new forms of journalism provided outlets where people could find the information that they wanted!  These forms of journalism were easily accessible and not only could they increase the closeness of a community, but they also gave a formerly average citizens a direct voice regarding how they felt on issues. 

       Although new hybrid forms of journalism are becoming increasingly popular for citizens across the world, many people do not realize the hidden dangers of the evolving forms of journalism.  Simon argues that high-end journalism is dying in America, and unless a new economic model is achieved, it will not be reborn on the web, or anywhere else (p.219).  Even though the internet is highly accesible, and cost-free, it does nto deliver "first generation reporting" (p. 219).  Instead, these internet news sources glean information from mainstream news publications, and reword the information that they had previously gleaned as their own news on their website.  As this continues to happen, readers become more reliant on these online news resources, which reinforces the refusal to pay for traditional journalism news.  I mean, why pay for it when you can get it for free?  Before reading this article, I often asked the same question, but there is more to the issue of free journalism than meets the eye.  For example, do you ever run into bloggers or citizen journalists in city hall, courthouse hallways, or at the bars and union halls where police officers gather?  The answer is no you do not!  Journalists are paid for a reason.  They are paid to deliver primary information, and deliver it in a thoughtful and methodical way.  Citizen journalists do not nearly put all of this time and effort into a story for free, and they most certainly do not higher professional photographers and pay for their own flight to Washington D.C or Fallujah etc...  Although I do strongly believe that new hybrid forms of journalism are providing benefit to society, I also believe that traditional journalism needs to stay!  In addition, traditional journalism needs to be put back in the hands of family-owned news papers versus corporate owned.  The benefits of family-owned newspapers are plentiful!  Most importantly, it provides an essential trust between journalism and the communities that they serve.  Over the past decade there has been a shift from family-run news papers to corporate owned news papers.  The result was increased profit for traditional journalism, but also a lack of trust from the communities that they served.  For example, news reporters in Baltimore, Maryland diminished from 500 to 140, and the news that the locals wanted to hear about were not being produced because of the corporations unfamiliarity with Baltimore at a local level.  The corporations did not care what was happening at a local level, and as a result, citizen journalism started to take hold and steadily rise in this last decade.  Traditional journalists need to accept that hybrid forms of journalism are a social norm in this society now, but the public also needs to be aware that traditional journalism is going to provide legitimate, primary information that a blogger or oridinary citizen might not be able to provide.

Watch and Reflect on Fake News

       I decided to watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the online audio and visual streaming of the Wall Street Journal.  Both shows covered the topic of Christine O'donnell running for the US Senate.  In order to get a better understanding of who the woman was and what the issues were that surrounded her, I watched my local news station for a couple of nights and looked at primary documents that she had published.  I did not want to watch either show without having a good understanding of what was really going on in her life, and also, I wanted to know what kind of person she was, and where she stood on certain issues in politics. 
       The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was the first show that I watched.  His show was extremely less informative than the Wall Street Journal, the internet documents I had read previously read, and my local  news station.  However, he did provide some very funny material that I would remember more so on Christine O'donnel versus the long list of information that I barely recalled from the three other sources.  Stewart used mostly humor, and did have some hype and a minimal about of substansive coverage in his TV show.  When using humor, Stewart predominantly made faces and had an over-serious and sarcastic tone of voice.  In addition, he also mention whether she was ahead or behind in polls (horse race), and talked about her canidate qualifications (substansive coverage).  However, I must mention that when Stewart talked about her canidate qualifications, his tone of voice was sarcastic and he raised his eyebrows, making an expression of disbelief on his face.  I found that in deciding whether or not he qualified for certain features of substansive coverage, hype, or humor, the individuals judgement on these matters can be very subjective!  Personally, I thought more research was needed, or at least a second opinion.
       The Wall Street Journal covered Christine O'Donnell's campaign for senate with much more substansive coverage the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  The reporter John Castle, talked about O'donnell's canidate qualifications.  Specificaly, he looked at her political accomplishments and positions.  He also talked campaign issues that she might face in the near future.  In contrast with the Stewart Show, Castle looked at interviews that O'donnel had done, and then proceeded to talk about why she might feel the way she does on certain issues, and if her running for senate would be a benefit for the Republican Party.  Although Castle did give his opinion on the matter, he did show primary documents and interviews from O'donnell herself.  The actual show did put a somewhat bias spin on it, just due to the fact that Castle projected his own opinion, which could influence viwers.  Castle did not have any humor, but did mention her campaign strategies and tactics (horse race).  Besides mentioning her strategies and tactics, most of the show was substansive coverage.  Personally, I thought that watching this show could also be very subjective.  I had no idea whether Castle's facial expressions was just the way he talked naturally, or if it was supposed to be of some humor. More reserach would definitely be needed in this experiment.

Unit 3, Issue 9, p. 173-199

Unit 3, Issue 9 of Taking Sides discussed whether or not fake news mislead the public or not.  Fox, Koloen, and Sahin argued that fake news does mislead the public in the sense that comparitively, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart offered just as much substansive coverage as the Broadcast News Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign.  Hollander argues that fake news does not mislead the public due to fake news drawing on recognition rather than recall. 
       Taking Sides decided to adress the issue of whether fake news influenced the public, in response to the shift in power from traditional media such as newspapers and broadcast news television coverage to the comedic sources of information such as the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, and Jay Leno.  In addition to the generational shift in declining traiditonal media, there is a matched decline in average political awareness (p. 174).  Taking Sides is close to being ten years outdated, and as a result, it reports that television is still the public's (including youth) main source of campaign news.  Personally, I have to disagree with this data in the world of 2010 because statistics have now shown that internet sites such as YOUTUBE and TWITTER post up to date political campaign agendas faster than any show on television.  Futhermore, sites such as Twitter are posted from campaign leaders and can serve as an even more useful primary source than television, and it is a known fact that younger generations participate in TWITTER more so than older generations; therefore, it could be argued that younger generations are MORE politcally aware.  As a result of this partially out-dated information, I was incredibly mindful and used my rationale to take the information presented in these arguments with "a grain of salt". 
       Fox, Koloen, and Sahin agree fake news has mislead the public, and argue that both video and audio emphasis in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart will be on humor rather than substance while the broadcast network news casts will be on hype rather than substance.  Both of their hypotheses were tested and confirmed to be true by methods of covering the first debate and party conventions from both the Daily Show and the broadcast network news.  The authors tie in the media dependence theory with the shocking results of this experiment to show that younger voters with more fluid social and political attitudes may be dangerously swayed and persuaded to agree with Jon Stewart's opinions on the daily show.  However, in Jon Stewart's defense, he states that his show should not be perceived as a way to gain political information, rather it is a show that "pokes fun" of political news.  In addition, viewers may fall into watching more "hype" rather than substance on broadcast news networks.  Personally, I do not entirely blame the viewers of broadcast news networks because it is probably that the network's dispaly hype over substance due to the "imitation of success" of other successful broadcast network newscasts.  The author's believe that these finding should make American citizens concerned due to the fact that more American's are relying on these nontraditional news sources because they are just as substansive as the traditional news sources, which is not a good sign...
       Hollander argues that fake news does not mislead the public, arguing that not all knowledge is the same.  For example, viewers that watch entertainment-based programs who are of a younger generation are more likely to use recognition rather than recall political information than an older generation, and would associate these various entertainment-based programs as a method of learning about political campaigns.  Hollander's main argument was confirmed with reserach that did in fact suggest younger generation viewers identifying comedy and late night television shows as a source of political campaign news.  However, little support was found to confirm that the interaction between age and media could be used to predict recognition and recall.  The research found in his studies would support that any news is good news, in the sense that any political reporting CAN in fact improve both recognition and recall in at a modest sense of political content, but how competent and politically aware these fake news shows are remains an entirely different and open question.
       Personally, I think that fake news has the ability to mislead the public, but it is the public's responsibility to not believe everything that comedic news is preaching, just as the public should not believe every hype that broadcast network news reports. Although both comedic news and traditional news offers the same amount of substantive news coverage, they both have a plethora of either humor or hype.  Comedic news has an excuse to have humor because it is not aiming to solely inform the audience, and as a viewer, it is your responsibility to recognize this fact, and gain political understanding from other primary sources rather than relying on comedic news.  However, broadcast network news does not have an excuse to have more hype than substansive news, but due to the "imitation of success", the pressure to broadcast exciting and attention grabbing news has become a primary objective for these news networks. The bottom line is to understand that broadcast news networks and comedic news can both have a negative effect on one's political awareness, but if viewers are cognitive, mindful, and think critically, neither fake news nor traditional news would never have a negative impact of misleading the public.

MSNBC vs. FOX

       MSNBC and FOX are two news corporations that are completely different, and can spin and manipulate news stories with either a right or left-winged appeal.  Both of these corporations take the plain reality of the story and put in opinions that appeal to a certain audience.  I chose to watch the Bill O'Reiley factor from the FOX news network, and the Rachel Maddow show from the MSNBC news network.  In order to see the different spins that these reporters put on a story, I decided to watch episodes from both networks that covered the same issue.  The common theme from each episode was the network's response to the mosque that is being created yards away from the 9/11 ground zero.  
       The Rachel Maddow show decided to discuss the disgraceful Pastor that wanted to have a national Quran burning day.  Maddow articulated that she and secretary of state Hillary Clinton were fearful that the Quran burning was going to result in a dangerous situation for our American troops that our posted in Muslim countries.  In a speech made to the American public, Clinton approves the building of the mosque and told the American people to not watch media coverage of the pastor because it will bring more notice to this man, which is exactly what he wants.  Maddow suggests using more speech to fight back against this pastor, and to show the Muslim communities that we support tolerance and the freedom of choice.  Responsible Americans will create more speech that condemns the Pastor's doing, and that the Quran should not be burned as a response to the 0/11 attack.
      The Bill O'Reiley to talk about Imam, the man who is behind the creation of the 9/11 Mosque.  Although O'Reiley points out that Imam did make valid points and that his argument does not seem beligerent, he quickly starts to slam Imam for the remainder of the show.  O'Reily argues that there are already many existing mosques in America, which shows that there is religious tolerance in America.  Placing a mosque yards away from ground zero has created a controversey that is offensive towards grieving families that have lost loved ones from the 9/11 attack.  He backs up his statement with pointing out that religious tolerance should swing both ways, and that Muslims do not show respect of tolerance for Americans.  For example, the Muslims attacked America from the "word of allah", and furthermore, respect and acceptance should be earned by Muslims.                                    
        I thought that this was a great assignment to learn about how different news corporations can spin a story and shape how American form their opinion.  Some news corporations are better than others, and the lesson I learned in this particular assignment is that you have to look at the facts and make a decision about an issue ON YOUR OWN.  Because we live in a democratic society, we need to take on the responsibility to properly inform ourselves on issues, and not rely on political shows to tell us how we should or should not think.  Although O'Reiley and Maddow both brought up valid points, their take on this matter was extremely subjective and did not show both sides of the issue. 

Unit 1 Issue 1 p. 2-26

       The main theme of unit one's reading was whether American values are shaped by the mass media.  There were two authors named Schiller and Carey who argued for and against Americans being shaped by the mass media.  Schiller's argument seemed almost marxist in the sense that the government uses media to communicate and to manipulate a purpose.  Schiller repeatedly says that the purpose of communication is to "control and maintain the status quo" (p.6)  He also has 5 myths that structure the content of the media.  He talks about the media falsely leading on viewers that the news is well diversified, and plays on the fact that many networks rely on the "imitation of success", in order to get more viewers to watch their network.  There is a common theme in corporation owned network's that "takes advantage of the special historical circumstances of Western development to perpetrate as truth a definition of freedom cast in individualistic terms" (Schiller, p.7)  In addition to the media playing on its "independence from other networks", Schiller also critically points out that there is a false perception of neutrality, variety, non-existent social conflict, and unchanging human nature.  Personally, I found that Schiller's argument was much more accurate than Carey's.  Despite some typo's in the article, Schiller identified 5 general myths about the media, and tied in great examples to back up his points.  Overall, I thought he did a good job.
       Carey's argues that Americans are not shaped by the mass media.  His article is not critically written in the sense that the first two pages drag on about what it means to communicate, and he explains the difference between the transmission view of communication and the ritual view of communication, in which he delineates farther away from the effectiveness of the argument that he is trying to prove.  Carey points out that our models of communication create what we pretend they describe.  Although an interesting point, I believe that communication does create a sort of false sense of reality, while also reporting real incidents that happen in the world.
        If I had to pick one author over the other, I would lean towards Schiller and his argument that media does shape American values.  The articles were mediocerley written in my opinion, but both authors did bring up valid points.  Carey's argument was more convaluted and did not present any outsanding examples to back up his claim.  Schiller had a more effective and precise argument that seemed to be more concrete.  Overall, I enjoyed this reading.