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.