Political Economy: It's a small world after all, or is it more of the same world?

The political economy of the media doesn't have to necessarily be a confusing or an obfuscated topic. McQuail describes media economics as being a result of the continued social, cultural, and political growth which coincides with the economy and technologies. Since the media plays such a large role in the world, media economics should be an issue of concern or at least some awareness.

Media economics have several dimensions, but the main ones I'd like you to think about pertains to monopolies vs competition. McQuail notes, "Free competition should lead to variety and change of media structure, although critics point to a reverse effect: that it leads to monopoly or at least oligopoly (McQuail, 228). It's well known that many of the media industries of today are essentially oligopolies. For example, TV is pretty much owned by Disney/ABC, Viacom/CBS, Time Warner, News Corporation, and NBC.

When media economics are getting lumped together with both imperialism and globalization, that's when we know something's up. Ferguson talks about the mythologies associated with globalization, and the one which related to the issue of media oligopolies is the 'Global Culture Homogeneity.' This can be summarized as "the consumption of the same popular material and media products...creates a metaculture whose collective identity is based on shared patterns of consumption, be these built on choice, emulation, or manipulation" (McQuail Reader 245).

Taking both the myth of 'Global Culture Homogeneity' and the state of current media industries as being oligopolistic, the article I found sheds some light on what it might be like if these two concepts merged into reality. The article, http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90002, discusses how lenient media rules could end competition between media outlets. Since the media is supposed to serve the public, a lack of diversity and competition raises some questions.

Do you think the media is not diverse enough in its ownership?

Is there any real basis to media being thought of as something which adds to cultural homogeneity due to increased globalization?

What problems might arise if the media were to be even more of an oligopoly or a true monopoly?

Beatle Mania = Miley Mania?

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?

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?

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? 

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?)

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 U.S. believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.” The survey also suggests that a growing majority of Americans are hitting up the Web for their daily news fixes. Although this may or may not be new news to us, if we are to consider the fact that the survey documents an overall increase in dissatisfaction since last year, it’s fair to assume that the industry has officially entered the “things are going to get a lot worse before they start to get better” zone. According to McQuail’s Reader (2002), it’s no surprise everyone’s getting pissed off; “Nothing guarantees that all valuable information, ideas, theories, explanations, proposals, and points of view will find expression in the public forum […] Only so much news, analysis, and editorial opinion can be aired in the major channels of mass communication. Which views get covered and in what way, depends mainly on the economic and political structure and context of press institutions” (173). Here, it becomes easier to see why some people, mainly those far more self-motivated than myself, have simply stopped waiting for the mainstream machine to come around and have taken matters into their own hands as a means to ensure their self interests are the priority. I suppose the question that remains is: what is in our best interest anyway?

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?

- Steve Callahan

Framing in the News

A big part of the way you receive information has to do with not only gatekeeping, like we discussed last week, but also framing. According to McQuail, “framing is a way of giving some overall interpretations to isolated items of fact” (379). Sometimes a newspaper presents a story a certain way that they don’t get their intended point across. For example after running an article entitled For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk, on Thursday February 21, 2008 the New York Times encountered a lot of angry readers because they felt that it was unfair to Senator McCain. In the article the Times claims that many people were concerned about his relationship with a female lobbyist during his first run for president in 2000. It claimed that some of his top advisors were “convinced the relationship romantic.” The paper received so many comments and letters that three days later the public editor wrote an editorial entitled, What That McCain Article Didn’t Say. It stated that the executive editor of the times said “the article about John McCain that appeared in Thursday’s paper was about a man nearly felled by scandal who rebuilt himself as a fighter against corruption but is still ‘careless about appearances, careless about his reputation, and that’s a pretty important thing to know about somebody who wants to be president of the United States’.” But that’s not what a lot of people took away from the article. A lot of people saw it as an article about a sex scandal with a few other things mixed in.

Like McQuail says, “when information is supplied to news media by sources (as much often is), then it arrives with a built-in frame that suits the purpose of the source and is unlikely to be purely objective” (379). The intention of the article was to show that although it may look like Senator McCain has rebuilt himself that might not be entirely true. But a lot of people saw it as a biased article against him. They felt that his relationship with this woman shouldn’t have been the one of the main focuses of the article. The Times claims they weren’t trying to allege that McCain had an affair, but that the point of the story was “that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.” A lot of readers felt that it wasn’t the Times’ place to talk about this relationship and that they were just trying to plant ideas in people’s minds.

This is an example how a newspaper can frame an issue a certain way and people don’t get the full story, or the story doesn’t come across the way it would have if it was presented by another source. Now here are my questions for you: 1) How effective do you think framing is in planting ideas in people’s heads? 2) Do you think that the New York Times did the right thing by beginning their article by talking about Senator McCain’s relationship with this female lobbyist? 3) Do you think that the candidate’s personal lives are any of our business?

Framing

I'd like to start by quoting McQuail's definition of framing (found on page 378): "...a frame is needed to organize otherwise fragmentary items of experience or information. The idea of a 'frame' in relation to news has been widely and loosely used in place of terms such as 'frame of reference,' 'context,' 'theme,' or even 'news angle.' ...it is also necessary to use the term with some precision, especially when the aim is to study the possible effects of framing of news. In that case the content frame has to be compared with the frame of reference in the mind of an audience member." McQuail continues to say that no journalist is ever able to be completely objective and there is always a tone that indicates some sort of bias.

What McQuail was trying to say is that every piece of media comes off with a subliminal message, especially pertaining to the news. Journalists are supposed to be impartial and objective, but particular word choice and story line-up order indicates certain messages to its audience. Framing is how a piece of media is presented and what message it delivers to the consumer. The slightest change in and adjective in a news package can dramatically sway the impression the audience is getting from the information.

Here's an example. Here are two stories on the same topic by different networks.

Ralph Nader Joins Presidential Race, CNN

Ralph Nader Joins Presidential Race, Fox News

I obviously had to chose this story because Ralph Nader trying to make a comeback is hilarious. Besides that, you can see how CNN frames the story as Nader running is a disgrace to the nation. The journalist got comments from other candidates that emphasized Nader's running is a mistake, and the overall tone of the article was negative. On the other hand, in the Fox News story, the main interview was with Nader himself and was more positive compared to CNN. Both stories are on the front page of their websites as one of the first links, and this is huge national news. Both stories are reporting on the fact that Ralph Nader is running for President as an Independent. But, the two different journalists swayed the stories to their liking and certain impressions were received about this situation due to their way of framing the article.

What are other examples that you have seen of framing? I know that every single night on the news you can tell what the producers believe is most important because they'll run those stories first. Also, over-dramatic language is emphasized in news packages, which encourages bias. It seems like you are unable to obtain any true, objective, factual information from the media anymore. Obviously, with editorials and features the journalist has the freedom to allow their personal opinions enter the framework. But, in general newscasting, objectivity is supposed to be the basis of their work. Factual reporting does not happen anymore.

This is a major issue because it messes with their audiences. Consumers are heavily influenced by what they are exposed to, as we learned from McQuail in the Uses and Gratifications theory. People, in their minds, turn to the news to obtain information. When they are utilizing this resource, they are being exposed to dramatized material and are going to be developing their own personal opinions from tainted sources. Do you feel the same way?

The Structure of News: Bias and Framing

As we saw last week, news media has the power to shape what the public feels is and isn't important based on gatekeeping and agenda-setting techniques. Now imagine that the news not only tells you what to think about, but how to think about it. Just when we thought that news reporting is objective and unbiased, when one reads between the lines another story is told. Yes, it's possible: bias and framing techniques work subliminally to set off triggers in the audience/readers minds, giving the media the upper hand when it comes to presenting stories with underlying connotations. According to Entman (1993) in the McQuail text, "Framing involves selection and salience", and goes on to state that "frames define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments and suggest remedies. It is clear that a very large number of textual devices can be used to perform these activities. They include using certain words or phrases, making certain contextual references, choosing certain pictures or film, giving examples as typical, referring to certain sources, etc" (page 378-79).


In order to show exactly what is meant by framing and bias, I have picked out 2 articles from different sources about (essentially) the same topic: the struggles Senator Hillary Clinton is facing in her campaign for nomination to the presidency. The first article is from the New York Times, a traditionally liberal paper but one which holds itself to high journalism standards and practices (nevermind the McCain "romance" story). Entitled "Somber Clinton Soldiers On as the Horizon Darkens", the article uses war language such as "attacks", "morale", "retreating", "strategy" and "operation" as if she were literally a warrior taking hits in a battle. Even the title (and image, a stoic shot of a weary, wrinkle-lined face) a suggests thoughts along the same lines. A casual reader might think of this as just an article about what is going on on the campaign trail, however subliminally they are fed images of a once-mighty soldier who is now reflecting on the possibility of losing one of the most important battles in her career.

The other article, called "Ohio, Texas Uphill Climbs for Clinton", was posted on FoxNews.com but was written by a journalist for the Associated Press. It also focuses on Sen. Clinton's struggles, but (I feel, anyways) takes a more casual, "mocking" stance. Just look at the first 3 sentences (copied here):

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's must-win states of Ohio and Texas are no cakewalk for her, largely because independents and crossover Republicans are welcome to vote in their Democratic primaries.

The political calendar of late winter has been less than kind to the embattled presidential contender, who once figured that a big day in early February would affirm her march to the presidential nomination and the rest would be icing.

Instead, it's been slippery ice at every turn, and Ohio and Texas contests on March 4 matter greatly, crucial tests in her big-state fallback strategy.

It sounds from FoxNews.com article as if Sen. Clinton foolishly thought the upcoming contests in Texas and Ohio were going to be easy, but now she's misstepping and slipping on the ice everywhere. Words connoting "military-style" language, as in the NY Times article, are also present here in the forms of "embattled", while Senator Barack Obama is surrounded by words like "strength", "mobilized", and "Obama's forces". The article is supposed to be about Sen. Clinton (which it is), so why do they only quote Sen. Obama?

These are just 2 examples of how journalists can put ideas into readers heads without them knowing it. Hopefully, this will teach us (and others) to read between the lines even more critically than we already have been. Here now are my questions to you: 1.) How effective do you think these and similar techniques are in swaying readers? 2.) Do they have any place in "objective" news reporting, or should it be left to other sources to provide spin? 3.) What effect can framing and bias have in such a close race, and even in other contexts outside of presidential politics?

Melissa

Agenda Setting, Politics and Talk Shows

McQuail says in the text that "the term 'agenda setting' was coined by McCombs and Shaw to describe a pheomenon which had long been noticed and studied in the context of election campagns". Agenda setting is basically a theory that the media portrays the important issues of the current day to the public, and therefore the public believes and perceives that those issues are THE most important.

The idea of agenda setting began with studying election campaigns. It has grown beyond belief since then. In the article, "When Oprah Intervenes: Political Correlates of Daytime Talk Show Viewing", the authors discuss a number of things. They first discuss the idea of the cultivation theory, which we have already covered. However, then they take on the idea of the agenda setting theory, and describe how daytime talk shows influence opinion formation in the public. Whether it be from Oprah's "My Favorite Things" show around the holidays, to the roles of talk shows in forming opinions in politics.

This article hypothesizes that exposure to daytime talk shows would influence the public, and that the reality of these shows would lead to a positive correlation in public support for the government's involvements on the social issues presented on these talk shows. The study's hypothesis was correct. In McQuail, part of the chapter focuses on the idea of politics, and how "politicians seek to convince voters that the most important issues are those with which they are most closely identified". I believe that part of politicans agenda setting theory in the media involves these talk shows, because this study proves that they are very powerful mechanisms in engaging the public and encourages the public to become invovled. If I were a politican I don't think I could ask for a better tool in my campaign. Almost all of the candidates for this presidential race have appeared on at least one American talk show, which I think is smart because this article proves that the political correlation from talk shows is pretty good.

I'm asking you to read this article about political correlations in talk shows, posted here: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=9&sid=af69c31c-d668-4126-802c-2dfb3c40bb20%40sessionmgr7
First off, what are your thoughts on the agenda setting theory? Do you think that it is a concrete theory or that there are flaws? Also, how do you feel about the theory connected to politics, do you think that it is a powerful mechanism for politicans to use in their campaigns? Finally, how do you think the candidates for this presidential race are using this agenda setting theory, on talk shows in particular?

Even the News Needs to Convince the Bouncer

The media concept of gatekeeping is one that we are all familiar with, but are hardly even
conscious of the fact that it shapes our entire perception of media. Think of gatekeeping as the
bouncer at a nightclub or bar- they are the ones that determine who makes the cut, who looks
good enough, who wants or should be seen by the rest of the public in order to be talked about the next day. Gatekeeping is, in itself, a metaphor. According to McQuail, it is “the process by which selections are made in the media work, especially decisions regarding whether or not to allow a particular news report to pass through the ‘gates’ of a news medium into the news channels.” (308). McQuail and a boatload of other media scholars go on to explain that there are several different elements of gatekeeping. It is these elements that decide which stories will be allowed access through the velvet ropes and into the prestigious world of public recognition. I don’t use this bouncer- nightlife metaphor to be extra clever- I use it because a section in the chapter caught my eye and raised a red flag. McQuail spent so much time explaining gatekeeping and listing the primary news values in western media that were legitimate reasons as to why and when we end up hearing certain stories and certain information. For example, the book neatly lists in Box 12.1 the following, “large scale of events, closeness to home, clarity of meaning, short time scale, relevance, consonance, personification, negativity, significance, drama and action.” (310). All these elements seem like appropriate ones in order to make the cut. However, the section I was referring to that seems to make everything McQuail said a wash was on page 312. He notes that “The more prominent the person involved in any sphere, the more attention and privilege 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.” Wow. To me, that just makes me even more suspicious and skeptical of what I’m reading on a regular basis. But it makes sense if you look into it even just a little bit. This is what made me think of the bouncer-nightclub idea. We read so much about celebrities, socialites, and athletes (and usually not for their athletic skills) that it trumps the real news that’s out there. It’s not even that we’re reading about them, but also the trivial nonsense about them that sums up McQuail’s entire statement. The political and economic news takes a back seat to the public because the media sources believe that the consumer wants fluff news because it is more glamorous, exciting, simple and quick.
In Rogers and Dearing’s article “Agenda-Setting Research: Where has it Been, Where is it Going?,” they echo McQuail’s statement, saying that: “the media issue agenda as a result of the influence that powerful groups, notably organized business, exerted as a subtle form of social control.” (79). I would place a pretty high wager that these days, more people could tell you about the current status of Britney Spear’s mental health, or how the pregnant stars of Hollywood are doing rather than the issues still raging in Iraq or, probably more connected with this idea, what’s even happening in our local and state governments and economy- the issues that truly affect us. I found an article written by Bill Conroy for the Narco News Bulletin in 2004 that found him comparing the idea of gatekeeping to Stalin. More intense than my bouncer idea, yes, but it gets the point across with even more power. Conroy states, “...Journalism as an institution is Stalin. Everyone who obeys Stalin gets to stay in, gets to work there, gets to make all their money and write all their garbage and use monosyllabic tongue and keep everything in the normal, in the status quo, so nothing gets ruffled, so Stalin can keep the government going. All the people who want to go against the grain and push at their words to make a point, or to get some feeling into their writing, are all ostracized or purged, just like Stalin would do."
So to help you understand gatekeeping, you’ve now got Stalin in a nightclub. A little misleading right? That's essentially what gatekeeping can do to the public- mislead them. The point we’re trying to get across here is that the news and reporting it has become entirely subjective and not objective. You can read the whole article at http://www.narconews.com/Issue33/article1001.html
The first part is about the author and the last is a plug for his workshop- just another example of gatekeeping actually.
But the question that I wanted to ask was basically what do you guys think about all this gatekeeping and agenda setting in the media? I know we as a group tend to look at information in the media more critically anyway because we’ve studied it for a while now, but do you think the average person on the street is being mislead with what the news is allowing us, or not allowing us to read, hear or see? How do you feel about the idea that a very small group of powerful people are controlling a mass, multi-media institution that delivers the news to the public? Do you agree or disagree with the idea we either are or are not receiving the right amount of information, about the right issues? Do you think the public in general will be able to critically analyze the media, question it or break away from the more entertainment style media? Do you think there are any ways to ever move away from this idea of gatekeeping?

See you at the clubs and bars.
Kate

"The Real World" becoming MORE cultured?

Today New Haven hosted auditions for “The Real World” Season 21 and I was among those who auditioned. Even though I am well aware that the show “type casts” and has a way of manipulating those on screen, I couldn’t help but be interested in the casting process.

An article in Thursday’s Yale Daily News explains casting director Damon Furberg’s reason for making New Haven among one of the cities visited:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23515

Amid the students questioned about whether they would “seriously consider auditioning” was Janice White who said about the show, “It’s really invasive. People on that show don’t look good.” The show has often been characterized as one that promotes drinking and sex, but this year they are looking for more social/political/environmentally active people who have distinct career goals.

Only the airing of the show will tell whether the producers have slipped back into old habits and give in to the content that “sells most or gets highest ratings” outlines McQuail in Chapter 12. Most can agree that “sex sells” and that many MTV fans tune in for the partying and the drama. So what about the selection of what will be aired? McQuail states, “[M]edia organizations tend to reproduce selectively according to criteria that suit their own goals and interests” (329). Since many of the 20 seasons that have already been filmed have focused on partying, this particular agenda may be hard to break free from in the case of “The Real World.”

Media researchers believe, “[…] the media can ‘construct reality’ and impose their construction on defenseless minds” (McQuail Reader 387). In the case of “The Real World” it would mean choosing to air certain content over others to display a falseness of actual attitudes or beliefs.

Personally, I do not feel as though the content will change unless those who are cast are aware of the producer’s desire to change the agenda. Although it is supposed to represent real people, events, attitudes, etc., I believe there is no shame in knowing which direction to take the program.

Do you agree with McQuail’s statements regarding the media’s role in shaping our perceptions of “reality”? Do you think that “The Real World” will change its image, and if so, do you think it will it draw an audience? And finally, as a fun question for me to poll you on: Would you ever try out for a reality show (why or why not)?

Does Violence in Music Affect Children?

For this weeks blog I’d like to pose the question does violence in music affect children? In Chapter 18, McQuail essentially says that cultivation theory is a hypothesis that says exposure to media causes an adoption of traits, characteristics and beliefs regarding the world. Basically, McQuail thinks that the media shapes the way people behave.

As you can see Kristin concentrated on the film aspect and Logan on the TV aspect of the cultivation theory; I am going to focus on the music side of the cultivation theory. So do you think that music in today’s society affects people’s behavior? I know in doing my research I came across a lot of stuff on pointing the finger at Marilyn Manson after the whole Columbine thing went down. It later came out that the 2 men were not even fans of Manson…however, Manson was interviewed about the subject and he gave some really good insight in a Rolling Stone article:

“When it comes down to it who’s to blame for the high school murders in Little, Colorado? We’re the people who sit back and tolerate children owning guns, and we’re the ones who tune in and watch the up-to-the-minute details of what they do with them. I think that the NRA is too powerful to take on, so most people choose Doom, The Basketball Diaries, or yours truly. In my work I examine the America we live in, and I’ve always tried to show people that the devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us.”

So do you think that the parents are really the ones to blame? It’s easier to point the finger at someone else instead of taking responsibility for your own children…like Marilyn Manson didn’t raise those 2 kids to shoot anybody. But at the same time, producing music that has such intently violent songs about killing your friends and killing police and raping girls isn’t something that’s going to make our society any better.

An interesting article that I found was about a study that the American Psychological Association did and it found that even college aged students were influenced by what kinds of music they listened to.

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/tool/articles/story/5935924/do_tool_dmc_cause_violence

The study played really violent music (Tool’s “Jerk Off” which includes the lyrics “I should play God and shoot you myself”) and after the people listened to violent music they were asked questions about completely non-violent items, like “rock” and “stick” and they responded with really violent answers about what they would like to do with those items. It sort of creeped me out just hearing a song made a person want to hit someone over the head with a rock. But when you think about today’s culture, like going to concerts for an example…have you ever been in a mosh pit? I mean how violent is listening to a song of someone screaming and everyone running around smashing into one another? It’s not my idea of a good time so I don’t understand why these, most of the time young males, find enjoyment from smashing their bodies together.

Another song that I always thought was creepy was Eminem’s “Stan” especially the part where the Eminem wannabe guy is calling Eminem and telling him how is girlfriend is tied up in the truck and how he didn’t slit her throat because he wants her to suffocate because that’s more suffering than easy one two to the jugular. But do you think that young boys who listen to Eminem think that what he saying is cool and want to emulate him or do you think that they know its just for enjoyment? Who can listen to these kinds of songs for pleasure and sing along in their cars like they are having a grand old time? When I listen to songs like these I makes me want to lock my doors and never go to Eminem concert.

So ultimately, do you guys think that people’s feelings and aggressions are at all influenced by the music that they listen to?

Film Violence leads to Violence in the Real World?

Hey guys. I’m writing about chapter 18 in McQuail, which discusses different theories on how media consumption affects viewers.

The cultivation theory, proposed by Gerbner, states that consuming media, such as films, television, and music proposes an idea of reality for the viewer that may be different than actual reality, “substituting its (distorted) message about reality for personal experience and other means of knowing about the world” (McQuail 497). Basically, what this means is that Gerbner, and believers in the cultivation theory, believe that, over time, exposure to the media changes and forms a perception of reality that is different from actual reality.

The question is whether or not film violence has a lasting impression on viewers, enough so to make them perceive violence as acceptable. Does film violence and violence in the media in general cause people to act differently than they would had they not consumed that media, and other media like it? Does media consumption over time lead to changes in a viewer’s perception of reality?

Different media sources are constantly being blamed for violent acts. For example, I found this article that discusses 50 Cent’s movie “Get Rich or Die Tryin’.” Linked below, it talks about all the violent acts that have happened, such as riots and deaths, which are somehow being linked to the film. Check out the article:

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/11-05/11-14-05/a01lo354.htm

I personally do not believe that seeing a single film is going to contribute to someone’s feelings of rage that prompt him/her to commit a violent act. There have to be more contributing factors. Perhaps over time there may be a correlation between violent acts and consumption of film violence, but I find it hard to believe that the media is the only influence involved. Someone said in class the other day that people would rather blame anyone than themselves, and I think that is the best way to put it—people would always rather blame the media before they look at other possible contributing factors. I also think that people who are going to see films with absurd amounts of violence, such as R-rated films, should be old enough to realize that it is just a movie. Of course, all of my opinions could stem from the fact that I am educated, so I am skeptical and I realize that a film is just a film.

What do you guys think about the cultivation theory? Do you think that 50 Cent’s movie was responsible for the riots and other violent acts? Do you think violent films foster violence in real life?

Violence + TV= Violent Children

In chapter 37 of the Reader, McQuail correlates violence in television and violence by children. McQuail begins the chapter by rocking our worlds, by stating that us “Americans live in a violent society.” He then claims via some nice statistics that Americans watch a lot of television, “98 percent of Americans have televisions in their homes” and that “the television set is on more than seven hours in the average American home.” With some help from the NTVS, The National Television Violence Study for those of you who were too lazy to read the chapter, McQauil shows us that “the majority of American television shows have at least one act of violence in them.” He then claims that because of this extreme amount of TV consumption by Americans and the enormous amount violence shown in television programs that “by the time the American child graduates from elementary school, he or she will have seen over 8000 murders and more than 100,000 other assorted acts of violence.” McQuail then turns to his scientific buddies, the American Psychological Association who state that, “there is absolutely no doubt that those who are heavy viewers of the violence demonstrate increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased behavior.” To wrap up McQuails argument, the great amount of violence on television results in the violent behavior of children.

I agree with McQuail and believe that it is this desensitization toward violence which results in more violence. Television and furthermore media have become social teachers in our society. They create our social constructions and with the enormous amount of violence portrayed by the media, as a society we begin to become disenchanted by the negative effects of violence. With the youth of America consuming a great deal of television they are bound to be affected by the amount of violence represented.

Here is an article I found online that agrees with Mr. McQauil and me.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186670,00.html

I was wondering what your views on the subject are? And if negative how can a society so entrenched by violent media, fix the problem?

An economy grows around Britney Spears

In Chapter 16, McQuail discusses what influences choices and behaviors of the media. On page 420 he asks, “what content, presentation, and circumstances help draw and keep audience attention.”

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-01-28-britney-spears-economy_N.htm

In a society where media and technology are the priorities of our lives, people have to wonder why. Why are we so engrossed in the lives of celebrities? Why are we constantly looking on gossip websites or watching entertainment based news shows? No one really has the answers to that, except that people are interested and hooked. It’s becoming an obsession to watch the lives of celebrities, especially those who are constantly in the news. Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Brad and Angelina, and most especially, Britney Spears. A celebrity, whose last album bombed, who hasn’t had a good record in over four years, and who hasn’t done much of anything except become a tabloid queen.

In an article, it mentions how profitable Britney Spears is. Paparazzi and tabloid journalists are getting paid big bucks just to follow her around, or watch her mess up her life once more. The more she messes up, the more money paparazzi and journalists makes. As for audiences and readers, the more that is shown, the more people want to know. Why is she doing the things that she does? Why is she suddenly talking in a British accent? Why was she sent to the hospital twice in one month? Audiences want to know why this is happening. They want to know what is wrong with her. They need this information to either discuss with others, or to divulge in their guiltiest pleasure. Because, let’s face it, the entertainment industry has been a topic of conversation for everyone these days. And Britney Spears? She’s a guilty pleasure to most. The once good singer is gracing magazine covers more than any other celebrity in the industry.

As for television shows such as Access Hollywood, E! News, or Entertainment Tonight, she is mentioned at least once every single day. Once again, some people just live for this type of news casting. While most are getting sick of the constant Britney talk, others, such as celebrity followers or paparazzi live for the information.

And why?

Today’s society is so engrossed in the lives of others, either as an interest, a fun topic of conversation among friends, or even as a way to escape their own lives. Our television viewing or magazine buying is profiting the singer and the tabloids, that it’s just going to keep happening. As long as Britney or every other tabloid celebrity is around, people are going to keep reading/watching and more money is going to keep being made.

So, are you as celebrity obsessed as some people out there? Do you really care what happens to Britney Spears?

Video Games Becoming More Social

In Chapter 16, McQuail describes the media as a social tool, which can be positive or negative. On page 438 he writes "Mass-mediated social contact can supplement and complement, as well as displace, real personal contacts with others. As a result, the potential for social interaction can just as easily be enlarged by mass media as reduced."

I agree with him, using the Media as a way to block out society is no way to live your life. Even though some days all you want to do is sit on the couch and watch TV and read gossip magazines (which is okay) the media can be a strong social bond that connects people. Meeting your friends to go to a movie or trashing the newest Britney article on perezhilton.com with someone you met in class(Media 331 maybe?) are great ways to make that connection. Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is that the Media is really stepping up in ways you would never realize to market their product as a socializing tool.

I found an article in the New York Times on Friday about how the video game industry is booming in production for it's human contact games. Games that encourage interaction, like Wii and Guitar Hero. Even though these games aren't getting high ratings with the critics, they have become very popular in the general public. These are games that are more fun to play in a group, not alone in a basement with Cheeto residue on your shirt. These games have become easy enough for audiences of all ages, they're not just marketing to the teenage males anymore. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/arts/01game.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=wii&st=nyt&oref=slogin

What do you all think about this outbreak in social video games? I'm sure some, if not all, of you have been exposed to the explosion of games like Guitar Hero, Wii and even Dance Dance Revolution. Do you think the media is a positive or a negative tool for social interaction? Why do you think so? Happy posting!

Uses & Gratifications

Hey Everyone! I'm posting a little early because I'm super busy and also so that anyone who hasn't posted on one of Professor Burns' blogs can get the gist of it.

So, my topic to post on is Uses and Gratifications, Ch. 16 in McQuail.

Uses and gratification theory pretty much says that people consume certain types of media to fufil needs in their lives. McQuail breaks this down on page 425 into four main categories of "important media-person intereactions". Those categories are diversion, personal relationships, personal identity, and surveillance. Definately interesting to think about when trying to fit our own media usage into those categories. For example, I watch American Idol as a "diversion" because after watching the show, I personally feel better about my own life.

Its my own personal opinion that most people watch television as a form of diversion, or escape from their lives. (Mostly because of research done in Prof. Worthington's audience class.) But the most interesting of these interactions to me is the "personal relationships" category. I immediately thought of the Superbowl and how regardless of whether or not my friends like football, we all always get together to watch the game.

This survey done by comScore, and reported on FoxBusiness.com, reflects some patterns about the Superbowl:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/industries/technology/article/comscore-2008-super-bowl-pregame-survey-reveals-internet-plays-important-role_460750_12.html

The most interesting being the amount of people who said that they watch the game to be with friends and family:

Q: What is your favorite part of watching the Super Bowl?
Activity Total Male Female
Watch the game 49 % 65 % 33 %
Watch the ads 26 % 16 % 35 %
Spend time with friends/family 18 % 15 % 20 %
Watch the half time show 6 % 3 % 9 %


I personally thought it would be higher.

So, what do you think of the uses & gratification theory? And do you think that your television habits conform to any of those catergories? And, why do you watch the Superbowl?

Welcome!

Welcome to our blog! Blogging officially begins the week of 2/5. The first posts will be up by noon on Sunday, 2/3.