There are many different levels of fandom in media audiences, but the types that we most likely always hear about are the crazy hysterical fans who have been proven to be very unpredictable. “The literature on fandom is haunted by images of deviance. The fan is consistently characterized (referencing the term’s origins) as a potential fanatic. This means that fandom is seen as excessive, bordering on deranged, behavior”. (McQuail reader 343)
One of the most popular images in recent media history is the Beatles’ fan frenzy. Hundreds of hysterical girls would swarm the band, some stood paralyzed crying, while others at times put their lives in danger to get as close as possible. The music industry had really never before seen such fan devotion, but as the years progressed this has become a standard in fan behavior, more predominately in music. Today we see similar behavior towards Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus by the ‘tweens’ of America.
As these images generally show loving fans, the Beatles story as we all probably know took a tragic turn. When an obsessed fan, Mark David Chapman murdered Beatle John Lennon we have to ask, what happened? How and where does adoration turn into murder?
This type of violence did not stop with Lennon’s death, the other members of the Beatles have been attacked and nearly escaped death at the hands of ‘crazed’ fans. This article http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21485820-663,00.html from April 2007, was about a crazed fan’s attack on Paul McCartney’s home, and also made references to the incident that occurred seven years ago when Beatle, George Harrison was stabbed by a fan. Nearly 40 years after the height of their careers, Beatles members are still living with extreme fandom.
On page 348 of the reader, Joli Jenson talks about the type of Beatle fan that was illustrated in the article. “The psychopathic fan-turned-assassin, he implies, similarly uses mediated celebrities to form an identity, although he kills in order to share their power and fame.” This is basically saying that a fan who kills is one who is socially disjointed from society and uses the connection they feel to a particular celebrity to fill a void in their life. However, there is a point that the person needs to be more connected to the person, and violence or death is what occurs.
Does the constant media attention on celebrities spur on this type of fan obsession, in which a person uses celebrities to fill the void in their own life? Also, should new stars such as like Miley Cyrus be cautious because of the extreme fandom that marks their careers, or is the violence and death that came with the Beatles’ fandom an isolated situation?
Sunday, March 30, 2008
ESPN's Influence on Sports
The worldwide leader in sports has been a major influence on my passion for sports as well as countless other individuals who are intrigued by athletic competition. When I was younger I received most of my sports knowledge from the newspaper and Sports Illustrated because it wasn't until I reached the 8th grade that my parents caved in and got cable television. Before this time I would watch Espn, mostly Sportscenter, every opportunity that I had and from a young age I became devoted the network because they gave me all the info I was looking for and expanded my knowledge on other events that I might not have been exposed to.
As the years have gone by there has most certainly been a change in content that reaches the airwaves. The station has aided the "Hollywoodification" of the sports world and as McQuail states on page 343, "The fan is understood to be, as least implicitly, a result of celebrity-the fan is defined as a response to the star system. This mean that passivity is ascribed to the fan - he or she is seen as being brought into existence by the modern celebrity system, via the mass media. " ESPN has given more attention to the personal lives of athletes over recent years and as a result of this the audience is being bombarded by athletes participation on the field and their extracurricular activities outside the playing field. Here is an article that raises some interesting points and examines the old ESPN to the modern day ESPN.
href="http://www.writeonsports.com/articles/58/">
Do you think that ESPN has detached themselves from the avid sports fan and sold out to become mainstream or do you think that ESPN has done something positive for the sports world, by making a larger audience aware of what is going on in athletics?
As the years have gone by there has most certainly been a change in content that reaches the airwaves. The station has aided the "Hollywoodification" of the sports world and as McQuail states on page 343, "The fan is understood to be, as least implicitly, a result of celebrity-the fan is defined as a response to the star system. This mean that passivity is ascribed to the fan - he or she is seen as being brought into existence by the modern celebrity system, via the mass media. " ESPN has given more attention to the personal lives of athletes over recent years and as a result of this the audience is being bombarded by athletes participation on the field and their extracurricular activities outside the playing field. Here is an article that raises some interesting points and examines the old ESPN to the modern day ESPN.
href="http://www.writeonsports.com/articles/58/">
Do you think that ESPN has detached themselves from the avid sports fan and sold out to become mainstream or do you think that ESPN has done something positive for the sports world, by making a larger audience aware of what is going on in athletics?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Crazy Fans + Soccer = Stabbed in the leg
In chapters 15 of the McQuail book, he deals with audiences. He says that one type of audience is defined by channel or content- that is, an audience consists of "readers, viewers, or listeners of a particular book, author, film, newspaper title or television channel and programme" (McQuail 411). The people in this type of audience are loyal to a specific television shows, for instance. This type of audience is very profitable for media markets because they have a devoted viewer base.
And of course with every devoted audience comes the fans. And this is where it can get weird.
Just like audiences, fans have many different types and degrees (but Superfan is the most fun to say). We have all heard of the "crowds of teen musics fans" who become "twisted in response to the brutal and Satanic influence of the music" (McQuail Reader 344). So what, we can just blame Marilyn Manson for the stupid and sometimes dangerous things that kids do? I don't think so.
Another problem is crowd violence in sports. To us, it's great to watch on Most Amazing Videos, but to the guy that's getting stabbed in the leg...not so much. I found an article from Reuters about the concern of fan violence in Spain. You can find it here:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldFootballNews/idUKL2554330020080325
At a soccer game last week, one fan kicked and beat a fan of the other team with a stick. Then some guy got stabbed in the leg. And last month, one of the goalies got hit in the face with a bottle and had to get stitches.
I know that devoted fans are important in sports, but this is a little out of control. Some researchers think that the violent occurrences at sports events are contributing to people's negative opinion about fans. The idea of a violent mob and spectator violence can draw people away from attending sports events. And, it adds to the feeling that fans are "irrational and out of control" (reader 345). Since people seek support from their communities, in return members of the frenzied mobs can act out of influence from other fans.
Do you think that incidents like this can actually hurt the team (not necessarily physically)?
The article in the reader is a little far-fetched, but I think my mother would think twice before going to a soccer game where people left in ambulances every time. Also, incidents like this can fuel the fire of the negative perception of sports fans.
Do you see incidents like this in other venues (like concerts)?
I always hear stories of people being trampled and injured at concerts, but since I like the band I'll still go to see them. Do you think the threat of violence really deters true fans from attending an event?
Monday, March 24, 2008
Gender stereotypes
Posted on behalf of Alexandra Cavuto:
There is no question that the media plays an extremely influential role in the way men and women perceive themselves today. It has become even more difficult for an individual to remain completely satisfied with a unique identity they have created for themselves with the persistence of the stereotypes being portrayed in the media. As stated in McQuail, “An acknowledgment of the historical specificity of current dominant beliefs about women and men opens up new ways of thinking about gender as constructed. In such approaches, distortion would be an empty concept, since there is no reference point as to what the true human, male or female identity consists of, and hence there is no criterion as to what exactly the media should represent.” (Reader, pg. 49).
It is easy to say that any self-respecting person will not let the media influence them in a negative way, but the media is everywhere and is very difficult to ignore. The individuals that are primarily responsible for formulating such stereotypes are celebrities, models and athletes. I feel celebrities play the most influential role in creating this stereotypical image of what a “perfect” person should look like. Female celebrities especially are constantly being praised and desired for their thin body image, tan complexion and large chests.
This article I found discusses the media and gender stereotypes and the affects it has on the average person. It touches upon the fact that only a small amount of the population has the genetic capabilities to match the attractive stereotype that the media portrays. This article uses an example from the famous Subway commercial to enhance the fact that there are standards set to be considered “attractive.” “Jared's "before" pictures show him considerably larger than his current size, but they also show him alone, with no friends or family. In stark contrast, however, his "after" action shots consistently show him not only thinner, but also constantly in the presence of a beautiful woman, presumably his significant other.” (Media & Gender Stereotyping).
The article also discusses how the images being represented by men and women in the media are linked to the marketing of “self-improvement” products and services. At some point in life, everyone has tried to make adjustments to his or her appearance; at least I know I have. This article argues that people alter their appearances in order to measure up to the marketed standard of “good-looking.” “Television, magazines, and newspapers are filled with advertisements promoting self-loathing, while offering "miracle," body-altering "cures." The body that does not conform to a sexy, sleek stereotype becomes a thing to be hated, improved upon, and generally tortured into submission.” (Media & Gender Stereotyping).
I feel that the majority of the population is affected by the way men and women are portrayed in the media and play a large role in self-esteem and emotional damage. I feel the media is focusing too much on the physical aspects of public figures as opposed to the accomplishments or uniqueness of the individual. We are losing sight of what people really are. Do you feel the media focus is too intense on the physical aspects of men and women? Do you feel things will ever change? Do you feel that if these stereotypes were not being portrayed in the media, people would still feel the need to look a certain way?
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/sports03/papers/mmcconnell.html article link.
There is no question that the media plays an extremely influential role in the way men and women perceive themselves today. It has become even more difficult for an individual to remain completely satisfied with a unique identity they have created for themselves with the persistence of the stereotypes being portrayed in the media. As stated in McQuail, “An acknowledgment of the historical specificity of current dominant beliefs about women and men opens up new ways of thinking about gender as constructed. In such approaches, distortion would be an empty concept, since there is no reference point as to what the true human, male or female identity consists of, and hence there is no criterion as to what exactly the media should represent.” (Reader, pg. 49).
It is easy to say that any self-respecting person will not let the media influence them in a negative way, but the media is everywhere and is very difficult to ignore. The individuals that are primarily responsible for formulating such stereotypes are celebrities, models and athletes. I feel celebrities play the most influential role in creating this stereotypical image of what a “perfect” person should look like. Female celebrities especially are constantly being praised and desired for their thin body image, tan complexion and large chests.
This article I found discusses the media and gender stereotypes and the affects it has on the average person. It touches upon the fact that only a small amount of the population has the genetic capabilities to match the attractive stereotype that the media portrays. This article uses an example from the famous Subway commercial to enhance the fact that there are standards set to be considered “attractive.” “Jared's "before" pictures show him considerably larger than his current size, but they also show him alone, with no friends or family. In stark contrast, however, his "after" action shots consistently show him not only thinner, but also constantly in the presence of a beautiful woman, presumably his significant other.” (Media & Gender Stereotyping).
The article also discusses how the images being represented by men and women in the media are linked to the marketing of “self-improvement” products and services. At some point in life, everyone has tried to make adjustments to his or her appearance; at least I know I have. This article argues that people alter their appearances in order to measure up to the marketed standard of “good-looking.” “Television, magazines, and newspapers are filled with advertisements promoting self-loathing, while offering "miracle," body-altering "cures." The body that does not conform to a sexy, sleek stereotype becomes a thing to be hated, improved upon, and generally tortured into submission.” (Media & Gender Stereotyping).
I feel that the majority of the population is affected by the way men and women are portrayed in the media and play a large role in self-esteem and emotional damage. I feel the media is focusing too much on the physical aspects of public figures as opposed to the accomplishments or uniqueness of the individual. We are losing sight of what people really are. Do you feel the media focus is too intense on the physical aspects of men and women? Do you feel things will ever change? Do you feel that if these stereotypes were not being portrayed in the media, people would still feel the need to look a certain way?
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/sports03/papers/mmcconnell.html article link.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Gender in the Media- Women's Sports
It is obvious that there is a problem with the way women are represented in the media. Women are portrayed as submissive to men or if they are taking a powerful role, they are often considered a bitch. Many times the presence of women is completely ignored. Even though it seems that our society has evolved when it comes to equality between men and women, media versions of both genders are noticeably skewed. This is important for media audiences to understand because the way people are shown on television, in movies, etc, has an effect on the way people view the same people in society. McQuail said that, “The relation between gender and communication is therefore primarily a cultural one, a negotiation over meanings and values that inform whole ways of life” (Reader pg. 57).
I think it is most important to address the issue that there is a lack of female portrayal in the media. As McQuail pointed out, “It is often said that women are underrepresented in media contect when compared to the 50 percent of the population that they constitute” (Reader pg. 47-48). This is most evident when it comes to women’s sports. There is an obvious difference between the amount of coverage men’s sports teams receive as opposed to the amount of coverage women’s sports teams receive.
The article I found directly relates to this idea and it specifically discusses that while it might be wrong, the reason women’s sports are not as focused on in the media is because of money.
http://sportscurmudgeon.com/blog/2008/01/20/womens-sports-an-inconvenient-truth/
Simply stated, the media does not give women’s sports as much coverage because they think less people will want to see it, which ultimately means they will make less money. Unfortunately, as the author states, most people in our society don’t care about women’s sports, so until people start to show an interest, there will not be an equal amount of exposure.
So, do you think that it is fair women’s sports are underrepresented in the media? Do you think that this can ever be changed?
I think it is most important to address the issue that there is a lack of female portrayal in the media. As McQuail pointed out, “It is often said that women are underrepresented in media contect when compared to the 50 percent of the population that they constitute” (Reader pg. 47-48). This is most evident when it comes to women’s sports. There is an obvious difference between the amount of coverage men’s sports teams receive as opposed to the amount of coverage women’s sports teams receive.
The article I found directly relates to this idea and it specifically discusses that while it might be wrong, the reason women’s sports are not as focused on in the media is because of money.
http://sportscurmudgeon.com/blog/2008/01/20/womens-sports-an-inconvenient-truth/
Simply stated, the media does not give women’s sports as much coverage because they think less people will want to see it, which ultimately means they will make less money. Unfortunately, as the author states, most people in our society don’t care about women’s sports, so until people start to show an interest, there will not be an equal amount of exposure.
So, do you think that it is fair women’s sports are underrepresented in the media? Do you think that this can ever be changed?
Gender & the media
Posted on behalf of Jon Sieg:
Chapter 3 in the reader begins with information regarding gender roles in the media. It talks about a certain reality, and portraying the realest versions of our male and female roles in society. The feminist point of view would most likely say that the media portrays a less than accurate view of women in society. It is argued that in reality many more women work than we see in the media. Many feminists believe our culture is lagging behind the changes in today’s society regarding the beliefs and attitudes towards women. As McQuail states, “It seems indisputable that many aspects of women’s lives and experiences are not properly reflected by the media. Many more women work than the media suggest, very few women resemble the ‘femmes fatales’ of movies and TV series, and women’s desires extend far beyond the hearth and home of traditional women’s magazines” (Reader pg 48).
Feminists claim that the media distorts that reality, but what truly defines that reality? What is the reality of the role of women? A common response to the claim of distorted reality is, as McQuail says, “…in reality, women are mothers and housewives too. What is problematic about that?” (Reader pg 48). Feminists among themselves are divided in their own views with what is the reality of women’s social position and nature (Reader pg 48). It seems highly unlikely to satisfy all needs.
Women play very important roles, in all television shows. Women play partners with men in crime and law programs, in medical shows, in comedies, in dramas…whatever it is. Some are portrayed as house wives while some are portrayed as independent, strong females in the workforce. McQuail states, “To view the role of the media in the construction of gender as a process of distorting the ‘true’ meaning of gender, as occurs in feminist transmission models of communication, thus ignores the contradictory and contested nature of gender” (Reader pg 51).
My question for you is do you believe that gender roles are inaccurately displayed in the media? Do you think it is possible to please everyone on this matter?
Today we are faced with gender issues everyday regarding the political candidates. The Democratic race, as some view it, is man vs. women. I came across an article on CNN.com responding to another article about race and gender in the democratic race. The article mentioned black women face a tough decision in this race, and within minutes, people responded quite irately. Check it out…
This is the first article
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/blackwomen.voters/index.html
And the response
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/emails.race.gender/index.html?iref=newssearch
What do you think about this? Was CNN wrong for posting that original article stating African American women are going to face a tougher decision?
Chapter 3 in the reader begins with information regarding gender roles in the media. It talks about a certain reality, and portraying the realest versions of our male and female roles in society. The feminist point of view would most likely say that the media portrays a less than accurate view of women in society. It is argued that in reality many more women work than we see in the media. Many feminists believe our culture is lagging behind the changes in today’s society regarding the beliefs and attitudes towards women. As McQuail states, “It seems indisputable that many aspects of women’s lives and experiences are not properly reflected by the media. Many more women work than the media suggest, very few women resemble the ‘femmes fatales’ of movies and TV series, and women’s desires extend far beyond the hearth and home of traditional women’s magazines” (Reader pg 48).
Feminists claim that the media distorts that reality, but what truly defines that reality? What is the reality of the role of women? A common response to the claim of distorted reality is, as McQuail says, “…in reality, women are mothers and housewives too. What is problematic about that?” (Reader pg 48). Feminists among themselves are divided in their own views with what is the reality of women’s social position and nature (Reader pg 48). It seems highly unlikely to satisfy all needs.
Women play very important roles, in all television shows. Women play partners with men in crime and law programs, in medical shows, in comedies, in dramas…whatever it is. Some are portrayed as house wives while some are portrayed as independent, strong females in the workforce. McQuail states, “To view the role of the media in the construction of gender as a process of distorting the ‘true’ meaning of gender, as occurs in feminist transmission models of communication, thus ignores the contradictory and contested nature of gender” (Reader pg 51).
My question for you is do you believe that gender roles are inaccurately displayed in the media? Do you think it is possible to please everyone on this matter?
Today we are faced with gender issues everyday regarding the political candidates. The Democratic race, as some view it, is man vs. women. I came across an article on CNN.com responding to another article about race and gender in the democratic race. The article mentioned black women face a tough decision in this race, and within minutes, people responded quite irately. Check it out…
This is the first article
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/blackwomen.voters/index.html
And the response
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/emails.race.gender/index.html?iref=newssearch
What do you think about this? Was CNN wrong for posting that original article stating African American women are going to face a tougher decision?
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Masculinity and Femininityin Media Studies: It's All 50 Cent's Fault
“In media studies, content analyses of the presence or absence, stereotyping, and devaluation of women are abundant in American Journals” (Steeves, 393). Generally when female and male representation in media is dissected, the trends of discussion are usually the same: awwww poor females.. have to look skinny, tan, and beautiful to be approved by the superior man, and grrrrrr tough males...have to be strong, powerful, and master of their domain. All else falls in place based on these ideologies. HOWEVER, I’d like to go back to that class discussion we had about the cultivation theory and how the media literally cultivates how we live. We are essentially talking about the same things when we talk about ideology and cultivation theory – especially in terms of masculinity and femininity in media. But I’d like to look at these areas from a positive perspective, rather than a socially condemning perspective. For example, during our cultivation theory discussion, we started talking about how the portrayals of violence, promiscuity, and tweens, etc. and how they set the example of how NOT to be. I’d like for my blog to observe the benefits of negative male and female ideology. I know it sounds confusing – bear with me.
Take Leslie Robinson’s article on Christina Aquilera’s “Dirrrty” music video. Whereas most see that video and only consider the ideology of women as sexual objects who promote promiscuity for the sake of male desires, Robinson argues the video “implies self assuredness, autonomy, and even authority.” Robinson argues that Agiulera defies the notion of the sexual subjectivity of women, and instead flexes her muscle of control and power in that female sexuality is something males cannot control. It in a sense give women a chance to say ‘haha you can’t catch me’ to their otherwise dominant males. Although the ideology is still represented in this video in a negative way, its message still gives a sense of positive empowerment to females.
For those who dosed off..here’s where you start to pay attention again. My article I found is from the last issue of Sports Illustrated Magazine. There was a 10 page spread on steroids called “Steroids in America.” I chose to talk about Part 1 of the story because it in essence blames the hip-hop industry for the rise in steroid use in our country. The author claims that ever since hip-hop came onto the scene, it projected an image of huge, strong, incredibly muscular gangsters. So apparently, according to Sports Illustrated, all of the sudden little boys and professional athletes are taking steroids because they want to be cool like 50 Cent. RIIIIIIIGHT. Everything is always 50 Cent’s fault these days.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/03/11/steroids1/index.html
First of all, it’s a shame that the finger is being pointed inaccurately at one sole source for an outrage of steroid use. Second of all, even though a certain ideology of males is represented in the hip-hop industry, it doesn’t mean every male wants to fit into it. Third of all, those males who do want to signify the muscle man tough guy ideology, don’t all necessarily do it with illegal steroid use. In fact, my argument is that if anything, the male ideology to be big and muscular to be cool has inspired more men to pump iron and jog some laps than stick an illegal needle in their asses. I think the positive aspect of this ideology is a motivation for males to get in shape and take care of their bodies. This article argues the negative aspect is the ideology portrayed is hard for the average man to achieve, and therefore promotes steroid use as an aid. What do you guys think? And more importantly, do you guys think positive aspects of ideologies that exist in our society are more powerful than the negative or vise versa? Do the positives like the message in Aquilera’s video and the motivation from the hip-hop industry get acknowledged enough? Or will the negative perspectives always prevail because they give us a place to point fingers to blame for the ills of society?
Take Leslie Robinson’s article on Christina Aquilera’s “Dirrrty” music video. Whereas most see that video and only consider the ideology of women as sexual objects who promote promiscuity for the sake of male desires, Robinson argues the video “implies self assuredness, autonomy, and even authority.” Robinson argues that Agiulera defies the notion of the sexual subjectivity of women, and instead flexes her muscle of control and power in that female sexuality is something males cannot control. It in a sense give women a chance to say ‘haha you can’t catch me’ to their otherwise dominant males. Although the ideology is still represented in this video in a negative way, its message still gives a sense of positive empowerment to females.
For those who dosed off..here’s where you start to pay attention again. My article I found is from the last issue of Sports Illustrated Magazine. There was a 10 page spread on steroids called “Steroids in America.” I chose to talk about Part 1 of the story because it in essence blames the hip-hop industry for the rise in steroid use in our country. The author claims that ever since hip-hop came onto the scene, it projected an image of huge, strong, incredibly muscular gangsters. So apparently, according to Sports Illustrated, all of the sudden little boys and professional athletes are taking steroids because they want to be cool like 50 Cent. RIIIIIIIGHT. Everything is always 50 Cent’s fault these days.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/03/11/steroids1/index.html
First of all, it’s a shame that the finger is being pointed inaccurately at one sole source for an outrage of steroid use. Second of all, even though a certain ideology of males is represented in the hip-hop industry, it doesn’t mean every male wants to fit into it. Third of all, those males who do want to signify the muscle man tough guy ideology, don’t all necessarily do it with illegal steroid use. In fact, my argument is that if anything, the male ideology to be big and muscular to be cool has inspired more men to pump iron and jog some laps than stick an illegal needle in their asses. I think the positive aspect of this ideology is a motivation for males to get in shape and take care of their bodies. This article argues the negative aspect is the ideology portrayed is hard for the average man to achieve, and therefore promotes steroid use as an aid. What do you guys think? And more importantly, do you guys think positive aspects of ideologies that exist in our society are more powerful than the negative or vise versa? Do the positives like the message in Aquilera’s video and the motivation from the hip-hop industry get acknowledged enough? Or will the negative perspectives always prevail because they give us a place to point fingers to blame for the ills of society?
Monday, March 17, 2008
Gender & Ideology
Posted on behalf of James Farley:
Gender roles in the media have been an issue since the very beginning. McQuail states in the 5th edition, “This goes far deeper and wider than the original limited agenda of matters such as the under-representation of women in the media and the stereotyping and sex-role socialization which was and still is a feature of much media content. Current concerns also go beyond issues of pornographic media content which matter to feminists (and others) not only because they are offensive and symbolically degrading but because they might be a stimulus to rape and violence.” (Ch. 5, pg 121)
McQuail also states, “For the feminist critique two issues arise […] second is the degree to which new kinds of mass media texts which challenge gender stereotyping and try to introduce positive role models can have any “empowering” effect for women (while remaining within the dominant commercial media system.)” (Ch. 13, pg 345)
Now, do you guys feel as if women are constantly portrayed solely as sexual beings or do you think media has taken a bit of a turn with new women empowering series such as The Closer, The View and Medium…perhaps even Ghost Whisperer?
Gender roles in the media have been an issue since the very beginning. McQuail states in the 5th edition, “This goes far deeper and wider than the original limited agenda of matters such as the under-representation of women in the media and the stereotyping and sex-role socialization which was and still is a feature of much media content. Current concerns also go beyond issues of pornographic media content which matter to feminists (and others) not only because they are offensive and symbolically degrading but because they might be a stimulus to rape and violence.” (Ch. 5, pg 121)
McQuail also states, “For the feminist critique two issues arise […] second is the degree to which new kinds of mass media texts which challenge gender stereotyping and try to introduce positive role models can have any “empowering” effect for women (while remaining within the dominant commercial media system.)” (Ch. 13, pg 345)
Now, do you guys feel as if women are constantly portrayed solely as sexual beings or do you think media has taken a bit of a turn with new women empowering series such as The Closer, The View and Medium…perhaps even Ghost Whisperer?
Ideology and Advertising
Posted on behalf of Carissa Alfino:
Chapter 27 in the McQuail Reader states that “Advertisements are one of the most important cultural factors moulding and reflecting our life today. They are ubiquitous, an inevitable part of everyone’s lives: even if you do not read a newspaper or watch television, the images posted over our urban surroundings are inescapable”(299). In the same chapter, McQuail also states that advertising has two functions. The first is obvious-to sell us something. But the second function is more complex, as it projects advertising as a creator of structures of meaning. In other words, the goals of advertising are more complex than the average person realizes. In order to make a direct connection between advertising and ideology, I would like to give you a description of the true meaning of ideology. Ideology is defined as “The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture” (Dictionary.com). With this being said, the connection between advertising and ideology becomes clear and so does the deeper meaning of advertising.
When a product is advertised it is projected onto the public in a way that will have meaning to consumers. When consumers purchase a particular product, elements such as social status, class, and culture are represented through their purchase. People identify their lifestyles by the products which they consume. Chapter 27 of the McQuail reader helps to explain this phenomenon. “An attempt to differentiate amongst both people and products is part of the desire to classify, order, and understand the world, including one’s own identity”(300). With that being said, do you guys associate your class or social status according to the products that you purchase? And if you do, do you think that purchasing products of a lesser value than you’re used to will actually lower your social status? When contemplating these questions, keep in mind what McQuail says in chapter 27. “We are made to feel that we can rise and fall in society through what we are able to buy, and this obscures the actual class basis that still underlies social position. The fundamental differences in our society are still class differences, but use of manufactured goods as a means of creating classes or groups forms an overlay on them” (300).
To reinforce this idea, I found an article online entitled Advertising as Ideology: Black Women, Fat Men and the Pepsi Generation (http://www.nearfm.ie/plm11.htm). The article explains how ads sell you a lifestyle associated with the product you are purchasing. They gave Pepsi advertisements as an example. “Pepsi is the signified, while the antics of the Pepsi Generation are the signifiers. People are encouraged to purchase the ‘right’ product and assume (or hope) that these products will signify a certain social class, status or lifestyle.” The article also gives an explanation as to why products are associated with lifestyles and class structures. In order to make a connection, it is important to observe all aspects of an ad, especially the people in it promoting the products. The article states that most ads have the same general make up. They consist of young, thin, Caucasian, and good looking men and women. Do you think the people who are promoting products in advertisements affect the product that you buy? For example, if you are white, thin, and good looking, would you purchase a product being promoted by someone who is Hispanic and overweight?
We often buy products which are promoted by people who seem to be in the same social class as us, and if we do not we are only looking to purchase products which are of a higher quality than we can afford because as McQuail stated in the reader, we feel that we succeed or fold in society based on what we are able to buy. The same goes for our news consumption. This relates directly to framing and agenda setting. According to McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory “There is a general tendency to look for well-known people, especially leading politicians and celebrities, around which to construct news. The more prominent the person involved in any sphere, the more attention and privileged access as a source can be expected. News is often reports of what prominent people say about events rather than reports of the events themselves” (312). I know that as Communications students, this notion may not apply because we are very critical of the media, but I’m sure that you can see how people may believe what they hear in the news if it comes from someone with a high social status. Can you think of any instances in which you felt this way?
Chapter 27 in the McQuail Reader states that “Advertisements are one of the most important cultural factors moulding and reflecting our life today. They are ubiquitous, an inevitable part of everyone’s lives: even if you do not read a newspaper or watch television, the images posted over our urban surroundings are inescapable”(299). In the same chapter, McQuail also states that advertising has two functions. The first is obvious-to sell us something. But the second function is more complex, as it projects advertising as a creator of structures of meaning. In other words, the goals of advertising are more complex than the average person realizes. In order to make a direct connection between advertising and ideology, I would like to give you a description of the true meaning of ideology. Ideology is defined as “The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture” (Dictionary.com). With this being said, the connection between advertising and ideology becomes clear and so does the deeper meaning of advertising.
When a product is advertised it is projected onto the public in a way that will have meaning to consumers. When consumers purchase a particular product, elements such as social status, class, and culture are represented through their purchase. People identify their lifestyles by the products which they consume. Chapter 27 of the McQuail reader helps to explain this phenomenon. “An attempt to differentiate amongst both people and products is part of the desire to classify, order, and understand the world, including one’s own identity”(300). With that being said, do you guys associate your class or social status according to the products that you purchase? And if you do, do you think that purchasing products of a lesser value than you’re used to will actually lower your social status? When contemplating these questions, keep in mind what McQuail says in chapter 27. “We are made to feel that we can rise and fall in society through what we are able to buy, and this obscures the actual class basis that still underlies social position. The fundamental differences in our society are still class differences, but use of manufactured goods as a means of creating classes or groups forms an overlay on them” (300).
To reinforce this idea, I found an article online entitled Advertising as Ideology: Black Women, Fat Men and the Pepsi Generation (http://www.nearfm.ie/plm11.htm). The article explains how ads sell you a lifestyle associated with the product you are purchasing. They gave Pepsi advertisements as an example. “Pepsi is the signified, while the antics of the Pepsi Generation are the signifiers. People are encouraged to purchase the ‘right’ product and assume (or hope) that these products will signify a certain social class, status or lifestyle.” The article also gives an explanation as to why products are associated with lifestyles and class structures. In order to make a connection, it is important to observe all aspects of an ad, especially the people in it promoting the products. The article states that most ads have the same general make up. They consist of young, thin, Caucasian, and good looking men and women. Do you think the people who are promoting products in advertisements affect the product that you buy? For example, if you are white, thin, and good looking, would you purchase a product being promoted by someone who is Hispanic and overweight?
We often buy products which are promoted by people who seem to be in the same social class as us, and if we do not we are only looking to purchase products which are of a higher quality than we can afford because as McQuail stated in the reader, we feel that we succeed or fold in society based on what we are able to buy. The same goes for our news consumption. This relates directly to framing and agenda setting. According to McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory “There is a general tendency to look for well-known people, especially leading politicians and celebrities, around which to construct news. The more prominent the person involved in any sphere, the more attention and privileged access as a source can be expected. News is often reports of what prominent people say about events rather than reports of the events themselves” (312). I know that as Communications students, this notion may not apply because we are very critical of the media, but I’m sure that you can see how people may believe what they hear in the news if it comes from someone with a high social status. Can you think of any instances in which you felt this way?
Ideology and Hegemony
Posted on behalf of Steve Halas:
In chapters 12 and 13 of McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, McQuail discusses the different processes of selection that are considered when transforming ideas or images into finished products set for distribution. As he says, “the influences on this process are numourous and often conflicting.”(334)
Two of these factors include ideology, and Hegemony. According to McQuail, “Ideology Generally refers to some organized belief system or set of values that is disseminated or reinforced by communication.” He adds “While most mass media do not typically set out deliberately to propagate ideology, in practice most media content does so implicitly by selectively emphasizing certain values or norms.”(556) On the other hand, Mc Quail introduces Hegemony as a term that’s used to “describe a certain kind of power that arises from the all-embracing ideological tendencies of mass media to support the established power system and exclude opposition and competing values.”(557)
While most people wouldn’t like to admit that Ideology and or Hegemony have a real place in the production of our media (especially because Americans pride themselves on the idea that their media should be bias free) a close glance at almost any new news article could change their minds.
Recently there has been a great deal of focus on subjects like illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, and political scandals. As media consumers can you think of any recent examples of articles or news broadcasts that seemed to have elements Ideology or Hegemony in them?
I located two news stories which I felt held prime examples of Ideology and Hegemony. One was a piece on illegal immigration posted on the website The Douglass report.com and the other was an article on the call girl Eliot Spitzer slept with featured by the NY Post.
As you guys will see, both articles are packed with language that is suggestive of Hegemonic values and intense ideological following.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03142008/news/columnists/boo_ho__dont_shed_any_tears_for_this_bus_101944.htm (Dupre Article)
For instance, in the Post’s Article on call girl Alexandra Dupre, the author blatantly bashes Dupre and her profession calling the girl “stupid” and hovering over the common biases Americans associate with individuals involved in such professions. Look, I’m not saying the girl is the one you’d want to bring home to mom and pop, but how much can your really learn about someone from their MySpace page? To me it doesn’t seem fair that the author is as tough on Dupre as she is… I mean we’ve all got are flaws right? If prostitution is legal and supported, even admired in such a great number of other countries, why then are Americans always so ready to associate the profession with unsavory characters and descriptions? Some of language the author used to describe Dupre’s friends was a little suggestive as well… it seems she doesn’t believe they are credible sources… but why?
Do you think it’s fair that the Post makes Dupre out to so unbecoming? Do you think this article contains better examples of Hegemony or Ideology? Both? Why or why not?
http://www.douglassreport.com/reports/immigration_XRHBJ303.html (Immigration article)
The article I found on illegal immigration may contain even better examples of the two value systems. In Dougless’s article he explains the dangers of letting untested illegals into the country because of the chance they might be carrying some sort of disease or virus only active in 3rd world countries. The doctor argues that because many illegals come from areas where health care and doctors are hardly available and often find jobs in places that are frequented by the public (schools, fast-food joints, food refineries) the risk that they may be exposing American’s to these ailments is high. Even though the good Dr. Dougless makes an interesting point do you think it’s fair that he makes such a broad generalization about illegal immigrants? Do you think that his comments fit as American style Hegemony or ideology? If so why?
Lastly, McQuail writes that despite the fact that numerous factors (such as Ideology and Hegemony) effect media production, today’s media “still has the potential to be unpredictable and innovative, as it should be in a free society.” After reading these articles how true do you think this statement is?
In chapters 12 and 13 of McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, McQuail discusses the different processes of selection that are considered when transforming ideas or images into finished products set for distribution. As he says, “the influences on this process are numourous and often conflicting.”(334)
Two of these factors include ideology, and Hegemony. According to McQuail, “Ideology Generally refers to some organized belief system or set of values that is disseminated or reinforced by communication.” He adds “While most mass media do not typically set out deliberately to propagate ideology, in practice most media content does so implicitly by selectively emphasizing certain values or norms.”(556) On the other hand, Mc Quail introduces Hegemony as a term that’s used to “describe a certain kind of power that arises from the all-embracing ideological tendencies of mass media to support the established power system and exclude opposition and competing values.”(557)
While most people wouldn’t like to admit that Ideology and or Hegemony have a real place in the production of our media (especially because Americans pride themselves on the idea that their media should be bias free) a close glance at almost any new news article could change their minds.
Recently there has been a great deal of focus on subjects like illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, and political scandals. As media consumers can you think of any recent examples of articles or news broadcasts that seemed to have elements Ideology or Hegemony in them?
I located two news stories which I felt held prime examples of Ideology and Hegemony. One was a piece on illegal immigration posted on the website The Douglass report.com and the other was an article on the call girl Eliot Spitzer slept with featured by the NY Post.
As you guys will see, both articles are packed with language that is suggestive of Hegemonic values and intense ideological following.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03142008/news/columnists/boo_ho__dont_shed_any_tears_for_this_bus_101944.htm (Dupre Article)
For instance, in the Post’s Article on call girl Alexandra Dupre, the author blatantly bashes Dupre and her profession calling the girl “stupid” and hovering over the common biases Americans associate with individuals involved in such professions. Look, I’m not saying the girl is the one you’d want to bring home to mom and pop, but how much can your really learn about someone from their MySpace page? To me it doesn’t seem fair that the author is as tough on Dupre as she is… I mean we’ve all got are flaws right? If prostitution is legal and supported, even admired in such a great number of other countries, why then are Americans always so ready to associate the profession with unsavory characters and descriptions? Some of language the author used to describe Dupre’s friends was a little suggestive as well… it seems she doesn’t believe they are credible sources… but why?
Do you think it’s fair that the Post makes Dupre out to so unbecoming? Do you think this article contains better examples of Hegemony or Ideology? Both? Why or why not?
http://www.douglassreport.com/reports/immigration_XRHBJ303.html (Immigration article)
The article I found on illegal immigration may contain even better examples of the two value systems. In Dougless’s article he explains the dangers of letting untested illegals into the country because of the chance they might be carrying some sort of disease or virus only active in 3rd world countries. The doctor argues that because many illegals come from areas where health care and doctors are hardly available and often find jobs in places that are frequented by the public (schools, fast-food joints, food refineries) the risk that they may be exposing American’s to these ailments is high. Even though the good Dr. Dougless makes an interesting point do you think it’s fair that he makes such a broad generalization about illegal immigrants? Do you think that his comments fit as American style Hegemony or ideology? If so why?
Lastly, McQuail writes that despite the fact that numerous factors (such as Ideology and Hegemony) effect media production, today’s media “still has the potential to be unpredictable and innovative, as it should be in a free society.” After reading these articles how true do you think this statement is?
Sunday, March 2, 2008
The affects of Public Relations on Media Content and Public Interest
In Chapter 11 of McQuail Mass Communication Theory, McQuail looks at internal and external influences on Mass Media production and content. In his words, it is important to “look not only at internal features of media organizations but also at their relationships with other organizations and with the wider society.” He supports his argument with the theory that media content is most influenced by organizational routines, practices, and goals. In context with the chapter’s discussion of media professionals, I took this theory to suggest that media content is affected by media professionals outside of the organization more so than it is affected by “personal or ideological factors” within a media organization. (McQuail, 277)
The Chapter also talks about research that has been done on “selective attention” of media content, and the mass media as “symbolic ‘construction’ of reality.” (276) Because the media is so widespread and influential, it is also important to look at incentives and public interest, and whether or not the two are coinciding. In Chapter 13 of McQuail Reader, “The Press and the Public Interest: A Definitional Dilemma” talks about the mass media in our country and how they claims to operate “in” the public interest according to the Constitution. It is important, however, to compare the interests of the press to the interests of the public. The media is obviously concerned with profit, ratings, and relationships with external organizations. It is important to look at these factors and how they influence media professionals and content that is produced. This is where the profession of public relations so often gets blamed.
As media studies majors which most of you are, what is your take on Public Relations professionals and the effect hat they have on media content? (be nice)
McQuail brings up the model of mass communications my Westley and MacLean (1957) that “represents the communicator role as that of a broker between, on the one hand, would-be ‘advocates’ in society with messages to send and, on the other, the public seeking to satisfy its information and other communication needs and interests.” (281) It is arguable that the ‘advocates’ in this case are the PR practitioners who are representative of so much of the content that is being produced in the media. Like any profession, there are ethical PR practitioners, and there are unethical PR practitioners. However, because PR is so closely linked to the media, the affects if unethical PR has widespread and damaging effects on public interest. It is the so-called “spin” that becomes damaging to the public who is relying on the media as their source of truthful information. It is understood that media professionals should meet the interest of their audience first, and the interest of their clients should be secondary. However in PR, the interest of the client is always top priority. That is where journalism and PR butt-heads.
In addition to putting spin on news, PR is often criticized for creating news out of nothingness for publicity and profit. PR generated stories are examples of positive framing and can effect agenda setting in the news, sometimes taking away from more newsworthy stories. I found a good example of this in an article in PRWeek’s website.
http://www.prweekus.com/Starbucks-internal-meeting-goes-public/article/107484/
The article is about the event of Starbucks closing down all of its US shops to give employees (or ‘baristas’ who call a small a tall, if you’re into that kind of thing) a so-called “refresher course on making the perfect cup of coffee.” This all happened on February 26th and gained a ton of media coverage for Starbucks, conveniently at a time when the company is starting to see a decline in business due to the rising costs of coffee beans. The article stated: *notice poor sentence structure.. ha
“While Krum [Starbucks spokeswoman] staunchly maintained that it was not the meeting's intent was not to drum up media attention, the company issued about five press releases prior to the event, sent info out on Business Wire, and a few select reporters were invited in to witness the training.”
I don’t know why they would even argue that the event was not a pseudo event to draw media attention, and then go on to say “Given that we are a daily part of so many people's lives, we knew that there would probably be a lot of interest.” Although the idea of shutting down all Starbucks locations in the country to master the art of making a perfected cup of coffee is surprising and ridiculous, is this really newsworthy information? Considering the effects that a PR generated story like this might have on agenda setting, and the frame in which the story is set to take away from Starbucks current pricing issues, do you think that content like this is necessarily in public interest?
The Chapter also talks about research that has been done on “selective attention” of media content, and the mass media as “symbolic ‘construction’ of reality.” (276) Because the media is so widespread and influential, it is also important to look at incentives and public interest, and whether or not the two are coinciding. In Chapter 13 of McQuail Reader, “The Press and the Public Interest: A Definitional Dilemma” talks about the mass media in our country and how they claims to operate “in” the public interest according to the Constitution. It is important, however, to compare the interests of the press to the interests of the public. The media is obviously concerned with profit, ratings, and relationships with external organizations. It is important to look at these factors and how they influence media professionals and content that is produced. This is where the profession of public relations so often gets blamed.
As media studies majors which most of you are, what is your take on Public Relations professionals and the effect hat they have on media content? (be nice)
McQuail brings up the model of mass communications my Westley and MacLean (1957) that “represents the communicator role as that of a broker between, on the one hand, would-be ‘advocates’ in society with messages to send and, on the other, the public seeking to satisfy its information and other communication needs and interests.” (281) It is arguable that the ‘advocates’ in this case are the PR practitioners who are representative of so much of the content that is being produced in the media. Like any profession, there are ethical PR practitioners, and there are unethical PR practitioners. However, because PR is so closely linked to the media, the affects if unethical PR has widespread and damaging effects on public interest. It is the so-called “spin” that becomes damaging to the public who is relying on the media as their source of truthful information. It is understood that media professionals should meet the interest of their audience first, and the interest of their clients should be secondary. However in PR, the interest of the client is always top priority. That is where journalism and PR butt-heads.
In addition to putting spin on news, PR is often criticized for creating news out of nothingness for publicity and profit. PR generated stories are examples of positive framing and can effect agenda setting in the news, sometimes taking away from more newsworthy stories. I found a good example of this in an article in PRWeek’s website.
http://www.prweekus.com/Starbucks-internal-meeting-goes-public/article/107484/
The article is about the event of Starbucks closing down all of its US shops to give employees (or ‘baristas’ who call a small a tall, if you’re into that kind of thing) a so-called “refresher course on making the perfect cup of coffee.” This all happened on February 26th and gained a ton of media coverage for Starbucks, conveniently at a time when the company is starting to see a decline in business due to the rising costs of coffee beans. The article stated: *notice poor sentence structure.. ha
“While Krum [Starbucks spokeswoman] staunchly maintained that it was not the meeting's intent was not to drum up media attention, the company issued about five press releases prior to the event, sent info out on Business Wire, and a few select reporters were invited in to witness the training.”
I don’t know why they would even argue that the event was not a pseudo event to draw media attention, and then go on to say “Given that we are a daily part of so many people's lives, we knew that there would probably be a lot of interest.” Although the idea of shutting down all Starbucks locations in the country to master the art of making a perfected cup of coffee is surprising and ridiculous, is this really newsworthy information? Considering the effects that a PR generated story like this might have on agenda setting, and the frame in which the story is set to take away from Starbucks current pricing issues, do you think that content like this is necessarily in public interest?
Journalistic Responsibility - posted for Alyssa Jones
The main function of journalism is the objective dissemination of information for the purpose of informing the public. However, this objective has been skewed since the introduction of sensationalism and citizen journalism entered the medium. Journalists feel as though any major news information is up for grabs for the public. Yet, what if this information can put and an extremely important and influential public figure in danger? As it states is McQuail, “Journalist also ‘deny a moral responsibility for unintentionally negative consequence of their reports’ (1990: 307), while applying a stronger standard to others” (288). Therefore does dispersing potentially harmful information regarding national security and the safety of internally prominent figures, just for the sake of informing the public, the ‘right’ of journalism?
This intro provides food for thought for an article found on The New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/business/media/01harry.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1204394415-pdVOV4E+7feFgfvy4MRTDw&oref=slogin ). Matt Drudge, a blogger whose website http://www.drudgereport.com/ garners 21 million hits a day, claimed to have the world exclusive on Prince Harry, the third in line for the British throne, is a soldier in Afghanistan fighting with the Household Cavalry Regiment Battlegroup. An agreement was made between Great Britain and their respective medium to keep the information about Prince Harry’s actions as a soldier confidential. However, if Prince Harry were to cause a stir as a civilian, like go to an Afghani night club, this information would be open to the public. As a result of this revealing, Prince Harry must leave Afghanistan weeks ahead of schedule. “In interviews, Prince Harry revealed that he had not washed in 4 days and that he was enjoying a life of semi-normalcy among regular soldiers.” Generally speaking, American journalists keep the conduct of prominent government officials in hostile regions out of the public eye, for national and personal security purposes.
McQuail goes into a little bit of detail about independent news sources, like blogs. “There is also a great deal and wide variety of independent news sources (Sundae and Ness, 2001), plus much that is unprofessional and idiosyncratic. This can be interpreted as both positive and negative. Boczkowski (2004) sees journalism becoming less journalist centred and more user centred, as well as losing its clear boundary as a professional activity” (289). The point that McQuail makes in this assortment is that writers of independent news sources are more focused on their users, and how to get more users, than the ideals and standards that hare held by professional and educated journalist for reputable news sources. So question that could be asked here is, is it the responsibility of journalist, independent and professional alike, to keep certain information away from the public for the purpose of high security?
Posted on behalf of Alyssa Jones.
This intro provides food for thought for an article found on The New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/business/media/01harry.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1204394415-pdVOV4E+7feFgfvy4MRTDw&oref=slogin ). Matt Drudge, a blogger whose website http://www.drudgereport.com/ garners 21 million hits a day, claimed to have the world exclusive on Prince Harry, the third in line for the British throne, is a soldier in Afghanistan fighting with the Household Cavalry Regiment Battlegroup. An agreement was made between Great Britain and their respective medium to keep the information about Prince Harry’s actions as a soldier confidential. However, if Prince Harry were to cause a stir as a civilian, like go to an Afghani night club, this information would be open to the public. As a result of this revealing, Prince Harry must leave Afghanistan weeks ahead of schedule. “In interviews, Prince Harry revealed that he had not washed in 4 days and that he was enjoying a life of semi-normalcy among regular soldiers.” Generally speaking, American journalists keep the conduct of prominent government officials in hostile regions out of the public eye, for national and personal security purposes.
McQuail goes into a little bit of detail about independent news sources, like blogs. “There is also a great deal and wide variety of independent news sources (Sundae and Ness, 2001), plus much that is unprofessional and idiosyncratic. This can be interpreted as both positive and negative. Boczkowski (2004) sees journalism becoming less journalist centred and more user centred, as well as losing its clear boundary as a professional activity” (289). The point that McQuail makes in this assortment is that writers of independent news sources are more focused on their users, and how to get more users, than the ideals and standards that hare held by professional and educated journalist for reputable news sources. So question that could be asked here is, is it the responsibility of journalist, independent and professional alike, to keep certain information away from the public for the purpose of high security?
Posted on behalf of Alyssa Jones.
Independent News Websites and Blogging
The first amendment. Freedom of the press. This is set into our core American structure. However, much debate has been over freedom of the press not only in news media outlets (such as newspapers), but more recently, in the new media outlets (such as the Internet). In the readings for this week, McQuail speaks much about the relationship between the public interest and the media. As McQuail states in McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory, “Activities by the press that drive out competition, encourage censorship, or prevent free discussion and debate on matters of public concern are at odds with the notion of positive freedom of the press. They are, therefore, not in the public interest” (167). This new idea of “blogging” and citizen journalism has become a recent trend. Boczkowski (2002) states in McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory that, “A good deal of online journalism is now being provided by established news organizations, although often with little adaptation from print versions” (qtd.in McQuail 289). However, our society has taken one step further than this—we now have independent news websites and blogs, specifically aimed at solely online news blogging.
My article:
CBSNews.Com Chief to Lead a News and Blogs Site
The article I read about came from The New York Times by Bill Carter, and discusses how one CBSNews.com general manager left her job to become the new chief executive at The Huffington Post, an almost three year-old online news website whose ultimate goal is to “do for Internet news what CNN did for TV news” (Carter). Betsy Morgan, the woman who will now be working for The Huffington Post, says that she sees her new job not has a journalism position but as a business position (Carter). Personally, what I think people don’t realize is that these independent news websites, such as the The Huffington Post, are not just a mish-mosh of people writing these full on news stories. The website has over 40 employees (with an increasing number of reporters), many smart editors, and many regular commentators such as Bill Maher and political figures such as John Kerry and even Hillary Clinton (Carter). I think it’s really cool how you get all of this different insight when you read the different views and commentaries from other people. You can read what other people think, get some different points-of-view, and form your own conclusions in the end. Check it out for yourself and see what you think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.
Despite the fact that CBSNews.com receives two more million visitors a month than The Huffington Post (5.5 million in comparison to 3.5 million), Ms. Morgan states that she sees news websites as “a bigger opportunity in a different brand from a mainstream brand, a brand that is following a different future path than a mainstream news site is going to pursue” (Carter). McQuail, however, states that with this new wide variety of independent news sources comes “much that is unprofessional and idiosyncratic (Sundae and Ness, 2001)… journalism becoming less journalist centered and more user centered, as well as losing its clear boundary as a professional activity (Boczkowski, 2002)” (both qtd.in McQuail 289).
So after reading the chapter and the article that I provided, what are your thoughts on these independent news websites? Do you think that they are “unprofessional and idiosyncratic,” or do you believe that the news story, is essentially, still factual and valid? Lastly, just a personal question, which website would you choose first: CBSNews.com or HuffingtonPost.com, and why? (Basically, are you going to choose the established news organization’s website or the independent news website?)
My article:
CBSNews.Com Chief to Lead a News and Blogs Site
The article I read about came from The New York Times by Bill Carter, and discusses how one CBSNews.com general manager left her job to become the new chief executive at The Huffington Post, an almost three year-old online news website whose ultimate goal is to “do for Internet news what CNN did for TV news” (Carter). Betsy Morgan, the woman who will now be working for The Huffington Post, says that she sees her new job not has a journalism position but as a business position (Carter). Personally, what I think people don’t realize is that these independent news websites, such as the The Huffington Post, are not just a mish-mosh of people writing these full on news stories. The website has over 40 employees (with an increasing number of reporters), many smart editors, and many regular commentators such as Bill Maher and political figures such as John Kerry and even Hillary Clinton (Carter). I think it’s really cool how you get all of this different insight when you read the different views and commentaries from other people. You can read what other people think, get some different points-of-view, and form your own conclusions in the end. Check it out for yourself and see what you think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.
Despite the fact that CBSNews.com receives two more million visitors a month than The Huffington Post (5.5 million in comparison to 3.5 million), Ms. Morgan states that she sees news websites as “a bigger opportunity in a different brand from a mainstream brand, a brand that is following a different future path than a mainstream news site is going to pursue” (Carter). McQuail, however, states that with this new wide variety of independent news sources comes “much that is unprofessional and idiosyncratic (Sundae and Ness, 2001)… journalism becoming less journalist centered and more user centered, as well as losing its clear boundary as a professional activity (Boczkowski, 2002)” (both qtd.in McQuail 289).
So after reading the chapter and the article that I provided, what are your thoughts on these independent news websites? Do you think that they are “unprofessional and idiosyncratic,” or do you believe that the news story, is essentially, still factual and valid? Lastly, just a personal question, which website would you choose first: CBSNews.com or HuffingtonPost.com, and why? (Basically, are you going to choose the established news organization’s website or the independent news website?)
So much for a 'professional opinion': Can we, the people, take back the news?
Truth be told, over the last few weeks, I haven’t seemed to be able to stomach the mainstream news media (well, to be fair I’ve never really been able to stomach the mainstream news media, but alas) without the concepts of agenda-setting, framing, and gatekeeping bringing me down. And while we media majors are far more adept to understanding and analyzing the MSM’s construction of news and other media products, it would seem as though we aren’t the only individuals dissatisfied with the nature of the ‘news’ we’re getting fed.
An article taken from Digital Journal.com found that “two-thirds of the
McQuail (2002) suggests that “the diversity of many voices rather than the stable force of a few, best serves freedom and the public interest” (166). That is not to say, however, that giving the audience exactly what it wants is in the public’s best interest, but rather “it entails acquainting the public with the broad range of possibilities and then allowing it [the public] to make a free choice with that extensive panoply” (167). Though these statements both support a similar stance – the need for wide array of voices present within the world of news media - who is better suited to determine what is and what isn’t in the public’s best interest than the very members of the public, those of who are seemingly void of any of the financial and organizational restrictions that large scale media corporations are subject to, themselves? The press placed in the hands of individual citizens would provide an enumerable number of diverse voices and opinion, but would also epitomize the concept of free press as defined by the reader.
Enter Civic Journalism.
As I’m sure we’ll be discussing, the advent and recent proliferation of “C-journalism” made possible through the Internet and other forms of new media has become quite the hot button issue around “professional” journalist roundtables. While many individuals (mainly those not concerned with advertisers and the fiery wrath of Rupert Murdoch) see civic journalism as a viable, and far more satisfying outlet for news, others would contend that the lack of assured objectivity and reliability. I suppose as a supporter of civic journalism (oh no, another biased writer!), I see it as a way to take the old fashioned roles of the media and place them into the hands of more responsible, less commercially biased individuals. Aside from advancing the causes of democracy and truth (no biggie), civic journalism possess an admirable watchdog character, serving not only an informative function through the distribution of ideas and values, but a critical one as well, similar to the role that the media used to carry with relatively limited bias. In addition, one of the finest facets of this new form of journalism is that it encourages a far more adept and selective media audience; consumers of these media texts will have to be far more active (selective) to seek out, sort through, and make sense of all the available voices. With civic journalism, we need not concern ourselves with the convergence of the press’s and public’s interests, when it is we that become the press.
So what’s the issue?
There seems to be quite a contradiction in the arguments of those that oppose the validity of this type of journalism, as McQuail (2007) even states that the journalism we know and understand outside of new media still debates its existence in the professional realm. ““There is a deficiency in respect of any exclusive core skill, and the same applies to the issue of autonomy and self-regulation. However journalists can claim to have an important social role and have moved in the direction of adopting ethical criteria. At best, however, it can only be said that journalism is an incomplete profession and faces obstacle of never being complete” (289). So much for a ‘professional opinion’ huh? Who are they to set standards when they themselves are unsure of the role they play as professionals? I’m hesitant to say that this is the future of this particular industry, as it seems to me that future is very much present with the proliferation of all these news blogs and civic journalism websites. While questions of objectivity will surely still find there way to the forefront, I think civic journalism provides news quickly and honestly and lends itself to a diversity of voices or opinions far greater than ever even fathomed at the advent of news media.
While there are a number of areas of discussion involving this subject I suppose I’m interested to hear everyone else’s thoughts and feelings concerning the state of news, where it needs to go, and whether or not they think civic journalism is a viable future for the industry. Can we the people take back the news and make it what we need it to be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)