McQuail explains on page 219 that the perspective of the political-economic theory, “provides concepts derived especially from the critique of capitalism, with reference to processes of concentration and commercialization.” He continues to explain on page 255, “The (critical) political economy theorists emphasize the economic dynamics of global media markets that work blindly to shape the flows of media commodities. Not surprisingly, such dynamics favor the free-market model and in general promote western capitalism.”
The following concepts are critical to understanding the political-economic theory (page 100):
• Economic control and logic are determinant
• Media structure tends towards concentration
• Global integration of media develops
• Contents and audiences are commodified
• Diversity decreases
• Opposition and alternative voices are marginalized
• Public interest in communication is subordinated to private interests
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/09/cars.racing.si/index.html
This article, on the “future” of NASCAR illustrates the idea of political-economic theory. In order to expand NASCAR’s fan base, the executives believe having a more diverse group of drivers will appeal to a more diverse group of fans, therefore creating a larger supporter group for the sport.
Do you believe that by adding drivers to NASCAR with different nationalities this will in turn grab the attention of these nationalities as a fan base and thus create a larger profit potential for the executives of NASCAR?
NASCAR promotes speed, because that is what they think the public wants. Do you think this is what the public really wants? Or is it merely going to create more deadly accidents? What else could NASCAR promote that would perhaps make the sport less dangerous?
-Cara Schultz-
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Media Accountability
Here's another article, focusing more on accountability as a whole, not just minority group coverage. This is one of those pieces that looks at what the media isn't saying as opposed to what it is saying. Molly Ivins is accusing media outlets of being more lazy than biased. It's a classic argument, but Ivins looks at it from different angles, with actual specifics of what needs to be changed.
Do you think Ivins left out some crucial topics at the end of her piece? Do you agree that it's more laziness and lack of aggressiveness mixed with bad judgement, or is it truly bias and agenda setting?
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0920-33.htm
Do you think Ivins left out some crucial topics at the end of her piece? Do you agree that it's more laziness and lack of aggressiveness mixed with bad judgement, or is it truly bias and agenda setting?
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0920-33.htm
Minority Reporting, or a LACK OF Minority Reporting?
Media are supposed to reflect society, in terms of coverage and real-life depictions of how life is. Filmmaker Ken Burns recently made a World War II documentary called "The War", which some say excludes minority groups like Latinos and Native Americans. Over half a million Latin Americans served in World War II, yet these groups say none of those 500,000 were even mentioned in the documentary, despite the wide range of interviews Burns did with people all over the country (a family from Waterbury was even featured in it). Burns is being accused of having malicious intentions by not honoring these groups as much as the more prominent ones. Do you think he, or any media commander, is purposely excluding certain minority groups in some forms of media? If so, is there an ulterior motive or just an agenda-less lack of recognition?
That's an issue in itself, but a second layer comes from Burns now announcing he will not change the original documentary, but add extra footage specifically focusing on Latino and Native American contributions to the war. This, I feel, is the biggest part of the minority issue, not whether they're properly covered in the original form--is Burns adding on to the documentary because he feels not all groups were given equal respect, or is he adding on simply to quell the protestors? An even more current example of that similar problem is the Don Imus controversy. Is Imus apologizing for racist comments made on his show because he feels bad, or because he got in trouble and wants to cover his a**?
This article is actually the transcript of a conversation between Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, who led some of the protests against Burns, and the host of radio program "Democracy Now!" They discuss the bigger picture of minority coverage, not just in the Burns documentary.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/13/1421225
That's an issue in itself, but a second layer comes from Burns now announcing he will not change the original documentary, but add extra footage specifically focusing on Latino and Native American contributions to the war. This, I feel, is the biggest part of the minority issue, not whether they're properly covered in the original form--is Burns adding on to the documentary because he feels not all groups were given equal respect, or is he adding on simply to quell the protestors? An even more current example of that similar problem is the Don Imus controversy. Is Imus apologizing for racist comments made on his show because he feels bad, or because he got in trouble and wants to cover his a**?
This article is actually the transcript of a conversation between Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, who led some of the protests against Burns, and the host of radio program "Democracy Now!" They discuss the bigger picture of minority coverage, not just in the Burns documentary.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/13/1421225
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Political-Economic Theory
According to Wikipedia, political economy was the original term for the study of production, the acts of buying and selling, and their relationships to laws, customs and government. However when applying that idea to communications it changes just a little bit. In the present, political economy refers to a variety of different, but related, approaches to studying economic and political behavior, which range from combining economics with other fields, to using different fundamental assumptions which challenge those of orthodox economics
According to McQuail “Political-economic theory identifies a socially critical approach that focuses primarily on the relation between the economic structure and dynamics of media industries and the ideological content of media. It directs research attention to the empirical analysis of the structure of ownership and control of media and to the way media market forces operate. From this point of view, the media institution has to be considered as part of the economic system, with close links to the political system" (McQuail 99)
So how does a communication theory help the world of politics?
Its simple, the basis of politics comes from the people, just as Smith and Marx believed. In order to keep the people informed, politicians need communication.
My article was taken from Newsweek.com. It is about the political economy of China. Fareed Zakaria, the author, believes that China is growing everyday and their economy continues to prosper. From a poor nation years ago, they now are slowly becoming a superpower among the worlds resources.
Although the article does not go directly into the meaning of the theory, it does directly show how the political economy of both the United States and China use communication to get their information to the public … through articles like this.
The question I pose to you as you read the article is, does the article do a good job of explaining the political economy of both the U.S. and China?
Finally, after you finish the article I ask, does the political economy of the United States seem weaker than that of China, a growing superpower?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7693580/site/newsweek/
According to McQuail “Political-economic theory identifies a socially critical approach that focuses primarily on the relation between the economic structure and dynamics of media industries and the ideological content of media. It directs research attention to the empirical analysis of the structure of ownership and control of media and to the way media market forces operate. From this point of view, the media institution has to be considered as part of the economic system, with close links to the political system" (McQuail 99)
So how does a communication theory help the world of politics?
Its simple, the basis of politics comes from the people, just as Smith and Marx believed. In order to keep the people informed, politicians need communication.
My article was taken from Newsweek.com. It is about the political economy of China. Fareed Zakaria, the author, believes that China is growing everyday and their economy continues to prosper. From a poor nation years ago, they now are slowly becoming a superpower among the worlds resources.
Although the article does not go directly into the meaning of the theory, it does directly show how the political economy of both the United States and China use communication to get their information to the public … through articles like this.
The question I pose to you as you read the article is, does the article do a good job of explaining the political economy of both the U.S. and China?
Finally, after you finish the article I ask, does the political economy of the United States seem weaker than that of China, a growing superpower?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7693580/site/newsweek/
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Media Audience Research (And The Power Of South Pak)
To the class...
I am sorry to anyone I inconvienienced by posting this a few hours late. I have literally been sitting here for 2+ hours trying to get my internet to work (thanks quinnipiac), and once I fixed that, I couldn't figure out how to post on the blog page. So if I hampered anyone's plans by not enabling them to respond to a blog earlier today, I apologize, and feel free to punch me in the mouth in class on Tuesday...
In chapter 15, we are introduced to a plethora of different ways to interpret media audiences. I feel the most important part of the chapter is “Questions of Audience Reach.” At this stage in understanding media audiences, it is obvious that there are both “passive” and “active” media consumers. There are also examples of polysemy and intertextuality (making sense of one media text through its use in another text), that seem to reward active media consumers. McQuail called this “the attentive audience; those that actually read, watch, listen, etc., to particular content. With this in mind, we do not have to address the “mindless television” issue. There are people that will actively watch anything. People not only watch American Idol, but hen text message the “star?” they want to see move on to the next round. With the breakthrough of technology that allowed an active attentive audience to really flap their wings, it was only a matter of time until this happened…
http://www.xchangemag.com/articles/537/73h2810131774057.html
CBS has gotten the head start in the race for what in the next 5 years will become active audience research. Streaming video is indeed everywhere, but CBS’s plans show a great enhancement to the internet mainstay. CBS, with this campaign is empowering the audience a an entire new level. While reality shows promote and active audience by promising that the audience can help dictate a contest winner, CBS is now promising that an active audience can dictate the programming of an entire network…Power to the people.
While we are talking about the attentive audience however, I think it is important to examine some television shows that reward an attentive audience, not for using another media outlet to be active, but instead for using other media outlets to become more attentive. Parodies like South Park reward people for paying attention to other television shows. Just for kicks, here is a link to a recent South Park episode, shot as if it were an episode of 24.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5814476104452143572&q=south+park+24
I am sorry to anyone I inconvienienced by posting this a few hours late. I have literally been sitting here for 2+ hours trying to get my internet to work (thanks quinnipiac), and once I fixed that, I couldn't figure out how to post on the blog page. So if I hampered anyone's plans by not enabling them to respond to a blog earlier today, I apologize, and feel free to punch me in the mouth in class on Tuesday...
In chapter 15, we are introduced to a plethora of different ways to interpret media audiences. I feel the most important part of the chapter is “Questions of Audience Reach.” At this stage in understanding media audiences, it is obvious that there are both “passive” and “active” media consumers. There are also examples of polysemy and intertextuality (making sense of one media text through its use in another text), that seem to reward active media consumers. McQuail called this “the attentive audience; those that actually read, watch, listen, etc., to particular content. With this in mind, we do not have to address the “mindless television” issue. There are people that will actively watch anything. People not only watch American Idol, but hen text message the “star?” they want to see move on to the next round. With the breakthrough of technology that allowed an active attentive audience to really flap their wings, it was only a matter of time until this happened…
http://www.xchangemag.com/articles/537/73h2810131774057.html
CBS has gotten the head start in the race for what in the next 5 years will become active audience research. Streaming video is indeed everywhere, but CBS’s plans show a great enhancement to the internet mainstay. CBS, with this campaign is empowering the audience a an entire new level. While reality shows promote and active audience by promising that the audience can help dictate a contest winner, CBS is now promising that an active audience can dictate the programming of an entire network…Power to the people.
While we are talking about the attentive audience however, I think it is important to examine some television shows that reward an attentive audience, not for using another media outlet to be active, but instead for using other media outlets to become more attentive. Parodies like South Park reward people for paying attention to other television shows. Just for kicks, here is a link to a recent South Park episode, shot as if it were an episode of 24.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5814476104452143572&q=south+park+24
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Audience Theories
Chapter 15 in the McQuail text focuses on ‘Audience Theory and Research Traditions.’ The chapter goes on to state “Audiences are both a product of social context (which leads to shared cultural interests, understanding and information needs) and a response to a particular pattern of media provision” (McQuail, 396). Audience consumption of media outlets often has some type of personal impact on their lives in one way or another. These similarities can group these individuals together in communities. The chapter talks about the media when they set out to appeal to a certain social group, gender, political or religious belief, etc.
Though the media may set out to appeal to its viewers, they have on many occasions been accused of being biased towards a particular group of people within their audience. An example of this comes from the radio station that produces the ‘Don Imus’ talk show:
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=257556>1=7703.
He is under fire for his racial slur he used while on air about the University of Rutgers women’s basketball team. I found this article to be very interesting because we see how audience voices are just as powerful as media personalities. From this story viewers have the chance to see how this host could have possibly lost some of his female audience as well as portion of his minority audience. Don Imus and the radio network gave a much need apology, but I am certain his audience will have somewhat of a different outlook on him from now on. The McQuail chapter states, “It is plausible to suppose that the media need their audience more than audiences need their media…” (McQuail, 401). How do you think such incidents like this one could have been avoided? To what extent do the media have to consider their audience and their feelings and beliefs?
Though the media may set out to appeal to its viewers, they have on many occasions been accused of being biased towards a particular group of people within their audience. An example of this comes from the radio station that produces the ‘Don Imus’ talk show:
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=257556>1=7703.
He is under fire for his racial slur he used while on air about the University of Rutgers women’s basketball team. I found this article to be very interesting because we see how audience voices are just as powerful as media personalities. From this story viewers have the chance to see how this host could have possibly lost some of his female audience as well as portion of his minority audience. Don Imus and the radio network gave a much need apology, but I am certain his audience will have somewhat of a different outlook on him from now on. The McQuail chapter states, “It is plausible to suppose that the media need their audience more than audiences need their media…” (McQuail, 401). How do you think such incidents like this one could have been avoided? To what extent do the media have to consider their audience and their feelings and beliefs?
Fans and Fanatics...and are we too Obsessed?
McQuail gives us the roots of the term 'audience' as a collective term that was deployed by the pioneers in the field of media research. He defines it as "all those who are actually reached by particular media content or media 'channels.'"
But audience is a VERY large topic to touch upon, so I'd like to focus on one element of audience studies. Fans and fanatics.
It is believed that audiences can go from being pure innocent bystanders, to utterly obsessed. Take a look at this website I found posted by a person who seemed fed up about obsessed fans and fanatics. http://www.ggower.com/fans/. Glen Gower linked his site to a multitude of fan sites I didn't even know existed, and it makes you think when you see all that are out there.
Also if you have time take a look yourself...Google any actor/actress/athlete and see how many hits you get for fan sites. (That's how I found the one above.) Is this too much?
Here is an article I found written by a BBC reporter who writes about the lowdown on celebrity fanatics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1408843.stm. I think it sums it up too.
So after reading the article, maybe browsing the web yourself, what do you think about fandom. Is today's society too caught up in a celebrity framed world? Or is the way we idolize celebrities okay?
But audience is a VERY large topic to touch upon, so I'd like to focus on one element of audience studies. Fans and fanatics.
It is believed that audiences can go from being pure innocent bystanders, to utterly obsessed. Take a look at this website I found posted by a person who seemed fed up about obsessed fans and fanatics. http://www.ggower.com/fans/. Glen Gower linked his site to a multitude of fan sites I didn't even know existed, and it makes you think when you see all that are out there.
Also if you have time take a look yourself...Google any actor/actress/athlete and see how many hits you get for fan sites. (That's how I found the one above.) Is this too much?
Here is an article I found written by a BBC reporter who writes about the lowdown on celebrity fanatics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1408843.stm. I think it sums it up too.
So after reading the article, maybe browsing the web yourself, what do you think about fandom. Is today's society too caught up in a celebrity framed world? Or is the way we idolize celebrities okay?
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Feminism Theory
The feminist movement has restructured the way faminly life is today. We no longer see the females playing the roles of nurturers and homemakers (as we discussed in class). It is because of feminism, that this push for equality among genders is now the only acceptable way of living. However, there is still controversy over the feminist theory. Even though women are in the workforce and hold very important positions in our society, feminists still believe there is discrimination. In one article, a study showed that more than half of sunday morning news shows did not include women, whether they be the host or guest. Refer to this article: http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/media/shesource.html
Do you think the statistics listed in this article are surprising?
After I read this article, I thought that the numbers were very surprising. I watch the news in the morning but never really noticed if women are equally on the shows as men. Perhaps this is because the study was done between 2004 and 2005. It stated that the news we recieve currently comes from male voices and perspectives, yet I tend to question this. Kelly Ripa? Nancy Grace? The ladies on the view? Aren't these all women who relay the current news messages to us too? This article makes you question whether or not males do dominate media or is it just feminist groups surveying only "SUNDAY NEWS" and not looking elsewhere? So now we see one article examining the media for not putting women more in the spot light. YET, today we have a female presidential candidate running. Hilary Clinton, the first female candidate to run for president, has a huge number of supporters (and may even win this race according to some sources). Whether this happens or not, Clinton, a female politician, is in the spotlight just as much as the other male candidates.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601626.html
This article talks about how women now may be voting for the right reasons with a female candidate running. It found that women vote on impulse or because of the information they get from their husbands/fathers. They rarely read political magazines for information. As stated, "Two million more men than women read either Time or Newsweek; more men listen to radio news and talk radio, read the paper and get news online. Only broadcast television news plays to more women than men, and a lot of that is TV news magazines and morning shows. Not only do fewer women read the newspaper, but almost half the women surveyed said they "sometimes do not follow international news because of excessive coverage of wars and violence."
Hilary Clinton is attracting more women and they seem to be interested in learning about her/politics. As stated in the article, "They saw her as "smart" and determined not to be just another first lady." Do you think this is a political decision or personal decision for women that are more interested in voting now?
This article raises many questions dealing with women and politics. What do you think this means?
Do you think the statistics listed in this article are surprising?
After I read this article, I thought that the numbers were very surprising. I watch the news in the morning but never really noticed if women are equally on the shows as men. Perhaps this is because the study was done between 2004 and 2005. It stated that the news we recieve currently comes from male voices and perspectives, yet I tend to question this. Kelly Ripa? Nancy Grace? The ladies on the view? Aren't these all women who relay the current news messages to us too? This article makes you question whether or not males do dominate media or is it just feminist groups surveying only "SUNDAY NEWS" and not looking elsewhere? So now we see one article examining the media for not putting women more in the spot light. YET, today we have a female presidential candidate running. Hilary Clinton, the first female candidate to run for president, has a huge number of supporters (and may even win this race according to some sources). Whether this happens or not, Clinton, a female politician, is in the spotlight just as much as the other male candidates.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601626.html
This article talks about how women now may be voting for the right reasons with a female candidate running. It found that women vote on impulse or because of the information they get from their husbands/fathers. They rarely read political magazines for information. As stated, "Two million more men than women read either Time or Newsweek; more men listen to radio news and talk radio, read the paper and get news online. Only broadcast television news plays to more women than men, and a lot of that is TV news magazines and morning shows. Not only do fewer women read the newspaper, but almost half the women surveyed said they "sometimes do not follow international news because of excessive coverage of wars and violence."
Hilary Clinton is attracting more women and they seem to be interested in learning about her/politics. As stated in the article, "They saw her as "smart" and determined not to be just another first lady." Do you think this is a political decision or personal decision for women that are more interested in voting now?
This article raises many questions dealing with women and politics. What do you think this means?
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Feminism in real world situations and in media
Feminism is a collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies largely motivated by or concerned with the liberation of women from subordination to men. (Wikipedia) Feminist from the past and today strive everyday for equal rights for women. In my opinion I think we have come a long way throughout the years… women can vote, women can play sports in college without a problem because of title nine… most of things that we discussed in class. We actually encounter “feminism” every single day… in the way women are portrayed in the media, in our social environments when people say that girls can’t do something better than a guy, sports, and driving. What I mean by driving is the stereotype that all female drivers are horrible drivers; men are better drivers. Think about a time when you were compared to males. I remember when I was younger, I used to ride dirt bikes and quads… and the other kids in the neighborhood, especially the boy, would tell me I couldn’t do a trick that they apparently could do. Another example, I know everyone has heard the statement “you throw like a boy!” Why is it that people compare good sporting skills like throwing a baseball really hard to something a boy can do. Just that statement shows how we stereotype the male species to be the more dominant one. If you take a brief look at the article “You Throw Like A Boy” by Victor Lana, you can understand that statement “you throw like a boy” more thoroughly. Some Thoughts on Sexism” Another example, why is that when men have many sexual relations with various amounts of women he is considered “the man!” Yet if a female has many sexual relations with many different men she is assumed to be a “slut” or “loose.” And if women dress provocatively they are considered to be dressed “whoreish.” If you look at the other article from Yahoo News about the lawsuit being brought by Gene Simmons’, from the rock band Kiss, ex-girlfriend claiming he defamed her name by explicitly showing her picture and referring to her as "wild" and "unchaste." In the article he also seems to view women as just sexual objects. Those are some things that we encounter everyday in our daily lives. In the media we can see these female portrayals, in music videos when women are half naked dancing around the men rapping for example or even on the cover of CDs. The female artist if you look at different covers, they are always placed very sexually and enticing. The article, “Dirrty Discourse: The politics of Gender Representation in Popular Music” by Lesley Robinson talks about Christina Aguilera’s “Dirty” Video. It is stated in the article, that “Within the discourse of Sheppard’s theory, a reading of Christina Aguilera’s “Dirrty” video appears simple to naturalize the sexual objectification of women and subordinate femaleness to the dominance of the male gaze.” Going back to the statement I made before about how women are considered to be “sluts” if they have many sexual relations or dress in a certain manner, the article points out that there is a new “fearless feminism”, where women “embrace a feminism focused on individuality, independence and women’s ‘choice’ to engage in heterosexually attractive bodily displays.” It is a mix of sexy, strong, saucy, and strident women. If we want to dress like that we should be able to without being subjected to criticism. Do you think that women who dress like this or sleep with many people should be immediately called a “slut”, even though men can do it and it is seen as no big deal?
http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/33646908
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/08/224944.php
http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/33646908
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/08/224944.php
Friday, March 23, 2007
Feminism on College Campuses
A press release from FeministsForLife.org discusses an undercover investigation on the health center done by UCLA's campus newspaper The Advocate. The investigation found that pregnant students were encouraged by staff to get abortions because of the difficulties of being pregnant and raising a child while in college. The health center staff noted the limited amount of resources available on campus to assist pregnant students.
The investigation also found that the health center "had two medical providers of abortion on campus ready to assist, Health Services had no support for a woman who wanted to continue her pregnancy." In response students formed a pro-life group named Live Action and Feminists For Life (FFL) offered assitance upon hearing about the investigation.
FFL has opened similar programs on other college campuses. These programs offer housing, child care, insurance, communication and couseling to pregnant and parenting students.
The release can be found here: http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/PRcopUCLAprNewsire1-22-07.htm
Because of mass media coverage, it is often thought that feminist ideology for unplanned pregnancy is more focused on giving women support to terminate the pregnancy rather than to go through with it. Most stories I have seen about feminist groups seem to portray them as very liberal and quick to support abortion. Despite the fact that this program is offered at several college campuses, this is the first I have heard of it. Have you had the same experiences with feminist news coverage? What are your thoughts on FFL supporting pregnant students? Have you heard about this? If yes, how was the news story framed? If no, why do think this is so?
The investigation also found that the health center "had two medical providers of abortion on campus ready to assist, Health Services had no support for a woman who wanted to continue her pregnancy." In response students formed a pro-life group named Live Action and Feminists For Life (FFL) offered assitance upon hearing about the investigation.
FFL has opened similar programs on other college campuses. These programs offer housing, child care, insurance, communication and couseling to pregnant and parenting students.
The release can be found here: http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/PRcopUCLAprNewsire1-22-07.htm
Because of mass media coverage, it is often thought that feminist ideology for unplanned pregnancy is more focused on giving women support to terminate the pregnancy rather than to go through with it. Most stories I have seen about feminist groups seem to portray them as very liberal and quick to support abortion. Despite the fact that this program is offered at several college campuses, this is the first I have heard of it. Have you had the same experiences with feminist news coverage? What are your thoughts on FFL supporting pregnant students? Have you heard about this? If yes, how was the news story framed? If no, why do think this is so?
Feminism on College Campuses
A press release from FeministsForLife.org discusses an undercover investigation on the health center done by UCLA's campus newspaper The Advocate. The investigation found that pregnant students were encouraged by staff to get abortions because of the difficulties of being pregnant and raising a child while in college. The health center staff noted the limited amount of resources available on campus to assist pregnant students.
The investigation also found that the health center "had two medical providers of abortion on campus ready to assist, Health Services had no support for a woman who wanted to continue her pregnancy." In response students formed a pro-life group named Live Action and Feminists For Life (FFL) offered assitance upon hearing about the investigation.
FFL has opened similar programs on other college campuses. These programs offer housing, child care, insurance, communication and couseling to pregnant and parenting students.
The release can be found here: http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/PRcopUCLAprNewsire1-22-07.htm
Because of mass media coverage, it is often thought that feminist ideology for unplanned pregnancy is more focused on giving women support to terminate the pregnancy rather than to go through with it. Most stories I have seen about feminist groups seem to portray them as very liberal and quick to support abortion. Despite the fact that this program is offered at several college campuses, this is the first I have heard of it. Have you had the same experiences with feminist news coverage? What are your thoughts on FFL supporting pregnant students? Have you heard about this? If yes, how was the news story framed? If no, why do think this is so?
The investigation also found that the health center "had two medical providers of abortion on campus ready to assist, Health Services had no support for a woman who wanted to continue her pregnancy." In response students formed a pro-life group named Live Action and Feminists For Life (FFL) offered assitance upon hearing about the investigation.
FFL has opened similar programs on other college campuses. These programs offer housing, child care, insurance, communication and couseling to pregnant and parenting students.
The release can be found here: http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/PRcopUCLAprNewsire1-22-07.htm
Because of mass media coverage, it is often thought that feminist ideology for unplanned pregnancy is more focused on giving women support to terminate the pregnancy rather than to go through with it. Most stories I have seen about feminist groups seem to portray them as very liberal and quick to support abortion. Despite the fact that this program is offered at several college campuses, this is the first I have heard of it. Have you had the same experiences with feminist news coverage? What are your thoughts on FFL supporting pregnant students? Have you heard about this? If yes, how was the news story framed? If no, why do think this is so?
Monday, March 19, 2007
Ideology & Fox News Legitimacy- A debate over a debate
Recently, some democratic candidates have refused to appear on a presidential debate co-sponsored by Fox News. Here's some background...
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (CNN) -- A Nevada Democratic presidential debate that was to have been co-hosted by Fox News Network was canceled by organizers, in part because of a joke by Fox Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes about presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama.
You can read the whole article here...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/10/debate.canceled/index.html
The argument Democrats have made is two fold. The "concrete" reason some have boycotted the debate was Ailes's joke about Barack Obama, purposely confusing him with Osama Bin Laden.
The second issue Democrats (both candidates and constituents) have with a Fox hosted presidential debate is whether or not Fox, because of its blatant Republican bias, is a legitimate news source. While the Fox News does reach millions of viewers, should Democrats legitimize the cable news channel despite its incessant Republican propaganda?
Fox news brought Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich on the "The Big Story with John Gibson" to discuss the matter. (Ironically, they brought a democratic candidate on the show to discuss having a presidential debate but then didn't ask him about his stand on any issues). Kucinich said that Democrats should debate on Fox News because so many people watch the channel. His qualification for legitimacy seems to be the number of people who watch Fox and not their reporting procedures.
Here's a quote from Kucinich: But what I am going to say is that FOX is a legitimate news agency that has the ability to reach out to millions of Americans, so why not get that message out? That is what I want to do, and all Democrats should be capable of doing it.
Read the transcript here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258803,00.html
According to McQuail, all news/media sources are going to hold some ideological bias- intended or not- because the reporting of news is a selective process. While Fox is repeatedly made the scapegoat of the news media for its obvious bias, some would argue that CNN has a liberal bias- and Republicans wouldn't be likely to boycott a debate on that network. So if all news media contains some inherent bias, what means more in terms of legitimacy- readership or journalistic practices?
As media professials and critics of the media, I imagine most of us would be inclined to say journalistic practices. However, Kucinich does make a few good point on why it might be beneficial for Democrats to debate on Fox. You can read them for yourself in the article but I think the following are especially noteworthy:
1.Anyone who wants to be president of the United States should have the capacity to speak to people of any particular ideology.
2.FOX is a good litmus test because if you can stand the scrutiny of FOX, with what you stand for, and all of the FOX News agencies that gather the information, their anchors can ask you questions, well that is part of what the test is of leadership.
Even though I agree with Kucinich on some of his points- that even though Fox has a conservative slant, the debate should be opened up to both parties despite ideology- it's Fox's semiology that strips them of their legitimacy in my opinion.
Notice some of the language Gibson uses to describe the democratic party:
-"Radical liberals wanted a pullout and they got it"
-"by radical leftist groups "
-"Dennis Kucinich is slamming his own party for boycotting the upcoming fair and balanced debate on the No. 1 cable news network." Umm...Kucinich doesn't slam his party, and I love that the debate is self proclaimed as fair and balanced. In one sentence Gibson tries to strip the Dems of credibility and reassign it to Fox.
What do you think? Is Fox a legitimate news source? Should democratic candidates be willing to debate there?
-Kim Pedersen
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (CNN) -- A Nevada Democratic presidential debate that was to have been co-hosted by Fox News Network was canceled by organizers, in part because of a joke by Fox Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes about presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama.
You can read the whole article here...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/10/debate.canceled/index.html
The argument Democrats have made is two fold. The "concrete" reason some have boycotted the debate was Ailes's joke about Barack Obama, purposely confusing him with Osama Bin Laden.
The second issue Democrats (both candidates and constituents) have with a Fox hosted presidential debate is whether or not Fox, because of its blatant Republican bias, is a legitimate news source. While the Fox News does reach millions of viewers, should Democrats legitimize the cable news channel despite its incessant Republican propaganda?
Fox news brought Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich on the "The Big Story with John Gibson" to discuss the matter. (Ironically, they brought a democratic candidate on the show to discuss having a presidential debate but then didn't ask him about his stand on any issues). Kucinich said that Democrats should debate on Fox News because so many people watch the channel. His qualification for legitimacy seems to be the number of people who watch Fox and not their reporting procedures.
Here's a quote from Kucinich: But what I am going to say is that FOX is a legitimate news agency that has the ability to reach out to millions of Americans, so why not get that message out? That is what I want to do, and all Democrats should be capable of doing it.
Read the transcript here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258803,00.html
According to McQuail, all news/media sources are going to hold some ideological bias- intended or not- because the reporting of news is a selective process. While Fox is repeatedly made the scapegoat of the news media for its obvious bias, some would argue that CNN has a liberal bias- and Republicans wouldn't be likely to boycott a debate on that network. So if all news media contains some inherent bias, what means more in terms of legitimacy- readership or journalistic practices?
As media professials and critics of the media, I imagine most of us would be inclined to say journalistic practices. However, Kucinich does make a few good point on why it might be beneficial for Democrats to debate on Fox. You can read them for yourself in the article but I think the following are especially noteworthy:
1.Anyone who wants to be president of the United States should have the capacity to speak to people of any particular ideology.
2.FOX is a good litmus test because if you can stand the scrutiny of FOX, with what you stand for, and all of the FOX News agencies that gather the information, their anchors can ask you questions, well that is part of what the test is of leadership.
Even though I agree with Kucinich on some of his points- that even though Fox has a conservative slant, the debate should be opened up to both parties despite ideology- it's Fox's semiology that strips them of their legitimacy in my opinion.
Notice some of the language Gibson uses to describe the democratic party:
-"Radical liberals wanted a pullout and they got it"
-"by radical leftist groups "
-"Dennis Kucinich is slamming his own party for boycotting the upcoming fair and balanced debate on the No. 1 cable news network." Umm...Kucinich doesn't slam his party, and I love that the debate is self proclaimed as fair and balanced. In one sentence Gibson tries to strip the Dems of credibility and reassign it to Fox.
What do you think? Is Fox a legitimate news source? Should democratic candidates be willing to debate there?
-Kim Pedersen
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Madonna and the Media
http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article267.html
The article I found for this weeks topic discusses what Madonna, the pop icon, stands for and what she portrays to the public. It goes into detail about her name, her clothing, and her songs and what message they send out to consumers. I feel that a lot of pop icons "stand" for something or "symbolize" what "regular" people what to be. The whole pop world has many different aspects that have different meanings and messages that they are sending to the public.
What do you think? Does Madonna symbolize something? And what about the rest of media...does it send out certain messages that we consume daily and yet it really symbolizes something else? We consume daily media, yet are we really consuming messages with hidden symbols?
The article I found for this weeks topic discusses what Madonna, the pop icon, stands for and what she portrays to the public. It goes into detail about her name, her clothing, and her songs and what message they send out to consumers. I feel that a lot of pop icons "stand" for something or "symbolize" what "regular" people what to be. The whole pop world has many different aspects that have different meanings and messages that they are sending to the public.
What do you think? Does Madonna symbolize something? And what about the rest of media...does it send out certain messages that we consume daily and yet it really symbolizes something else? We consume daily media, yet are we really consuming messages with hidden symbols?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
'Normal' People Advertisments
http://www.adweek.com/aw/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003550048
This is a link to an article I found on a Dove ad that was shown during the Academy Awards this year.
In sticking with advertising, I thought this article was a good way to talk about the readings we had to do for this week.
This article is a critique of the new Dove commercial and campaign. They, like many other companies this year have been opening up the advertising bracket to include normal people like you and me.
Doritos did it during the Super bowl as well as a car company. The companies are realizing that the public has not been happy with the commercials lately, so they thought they would leave it up to the public to create there own.
The ad was a big hit, as many of these ads are simply for the reason that generally ‘normal’ people create what normal people want. By giving one of us free reigns to create a national commercial, it most likely is going to be something much simpler than a team of marketing professionals would be able to come up with because we know what we want.
In McQuails reader this week, Chapter 27 titled “Meaning and Ideology” Judith Williamson says that “For even the ‘obvious’ function of advertising- ‘to sell things to us’- involves a meaning process. Advertisements must take into account not only the inherent qualities and attributes of the products they are trying to sell, but also the way in which they can make those properties mean something to us.”
So, the overall point of advertisements is for them to mean something to us. What better way to ensure they mean something to us, than to have ‘us’ create them?
I think that in the next few years or so you are going to see a lot more companies coming up with this idea of letting the ‘normal’ people create our own ads.
This is a link to an article I found on a Dove ad that was shown during the Academy Awards this year.
In sticking with advertising, I thought this article was a good way to talk about the readings we had to do for this week.
This article is a critique of the new Dove commercial and campaign. They, like many other companies this year have been opening up the advertising bracket to include normal people like you and me.
Doritos did it during the Super bowl as well as a car company. The companies are realizing that the public has not been happy with the commercials lately, so they thought they would leave it up to the public to create there own.
The ad was a big hit, as many of these ads are simply for the reason that generally ‘normal’ people create what normal people want. By giving one of us free reigns to create a national commercial, it most likely is going to be something much simpler than a team of marketing professionals would be able to come up with because we know what we want.
In McQuails reader this week, Chapter 27 titled “Meaning and Ideology” Judith Williamson says that “For even the ‘obvious’ function of advertising- ‘to sell things to us’- involves a meaning process. Advertisements must take into account not only the inherent qualities and attributes of the products they are trying to sell, but also the way in which they can make those properties mean something to us.”
So, the overall point of advertisements is for them to mean something to us. What better way to ensure they mean something to us, than to have ‘us’ create them?
I think that in the next few years or so you are going to see a lot more companies coming up with this idea of letting the ‘normal’ people create our own ads.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
AP ban on Paris Hilton
In chapter 13 McQhail talks about the publics’ interest and states that “the rubric of public interest seems to belong to that genre of euphemisms that includes the public welfare, the common good, and the national interest. In part, the problem with the concept is its idealistic and pristine nature as demonstrated in Walter Lippmann’s comment that ‘the public interest may be presumed to be what men would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently,” (pg. 163). It is the job of media professionals to achieve this public interest which can cause conflict if the audience is not satisfied with what is being provided. Because of this conflict many argue that the job of journalists should not be considered a profession. Is this because the journalism standards have changed? There is the fact that there are other sources for audiences to use which will increase competition.
Recently the Associated Press chose not to mention the famous Paris Hilton in any of their stories for over a week and wanted to find out if this would be noticed or if it would make no effect on the interest of the audience. What is your opinion on whether the Associated Press (Or any Media Profession) conducts research in a way that is substantial to distribute a ‘story’? Do you feel Paris Hilton’s non-coverage was ‘newsworthy’ and do you feel it is the job of the Associated Press to conduct a non-coverage research on a woman who is famous for being famous? Is this of interest to us?
As opposed to this example of news provided by the Associated Press, there is an article about Hilary Clinton. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php As you can see this story is presented with direct quotes and proves to show good research techniques. Why isn’t news such as this covered as widely as stories about Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole that are not going to affect our country?>
An economist Keith Brown found that media ownerships were providing “inconvenient facts,” but again we can come back to question, is this allowed as the freedom of the press? Or are these ‘Media Professionals’ meant to provide us with harder information that would be beneficial?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/02/ignoring.parishilton.ap/index.html
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/56008.html
Jen Copela
Recently the Associated Press chose not to mention the famous Paris Hilton in any of their stories for over a week and wanted to find out if this would be noticed or if it would make no effect on the interest of the audience. What is your opinion on whether the Associated Press (Or any Media Profession) conducts research in a way that is substantial to distribute a ‘story’? Do you feel Paris Hilton’s non-coverage was ‘newsworthy’ and do you feel it is the job of the Associated Press to conduct a non-coverage research on a woman who is famous for being famous? Is this of interest to us?
As opposed to this example of news provided by the Associated Press, there is an article about Hilary Clinton. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php As you can see this story is presented with direct quotes and proves to show good research techniques. Why isn’t news such as this covered as widely as stories about Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole that are not going to affect our country?>
An economist Keith Brown found that media ownerships were providing “inconvenient facts,” but again we can come back to question, is this allowed as the freedom of the press? Or are these ‘Media Professionals’ meant to provide us with harder information that would be beneficial?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/02/ignoring.parishilton.ap/index.html
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/56008.html
Jen Copela
Media Professionals
Chapter 11 talks about all types of media professionals and the different struggles and sterotypes they face. I find it very interesting that that journalism is often questioned as a profession as stated on page 288. It is probably the only profession where it makes the journalist act in an irresponsible way in order to get the best story (Brodasson in McQuail, 288). However the most important section for me was when McQuail writes about online journalism. Nowadays almost all of our news as on the internet and at the tip of our fingers. This makes the online journalist more imporatant but at the same time they are usually held less accountable because of the freedom with the internet. Granted there are many high-profile news agencies that run online publications and hold their journalists to standards. But in this day of blogging and "rogue-reporting", it is impossible for the average person who posts something or "breaks a story" to be held accountable.
The following articles are an example of how the same story can be covered in slightly different ways. As Cohen writes in McQuail "an interesting feature of the critique of online journalism is the argument that it is on the whole even more 'market driven' and commerical than established newspaper journalism" (Cohen in McQuail 290). http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/03/04/us_forces_begin_sweep_of_sadr_city/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17450016/
Notice the difference between these two articles on the U.S. forces into Sadr City in Iraq. The story on MSNBC.com from the Associated Press mentions unrelated death in the second paragraph while the story from the Boston Globe (also from the AP) doesn't mention a U.S. death until many paragraphs down. Also, the Boston Globe story features a writer's name and provides accountablity while the other story just says AP.
The following articles are an example of how the same story can be covered in slightly different ways. As Cohen writes in McQuail "an interesting feature of the critique of online journalism is the argument that it is on the whole even more 'market driven' and commerical than established newspaper journalism" (Cohen in McQuail 290). http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/03/04/us_forces_begin_sweep_of_sadr_city/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17450016/
Notice the difference between these two articles on the U.S. forces into Sadr City in Iraq. The story on MSNBC.com from the Associated Press mentions unrelated death in the second paragraph while the story from the Boston Globe (also from the AP) doesn't mention a U.S. death until many paragraphs down. Also, the Boston Globe story features a writer's name and provides accountablity while the other story just says AP.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Media Professionals
Chapter 11 focuses on media organizations and media professionalism. In this chapter, we learn about media organization’s main goals, their relations with society and the role media professionals in the working world. According McQuail, media professionalism is different from other occupations because of the unique way of the media world. A study of news work, done by Tuchman states that “professionalism has largely come to be defined according to the needs of the news organization itself.” The objectivity of the news is considered the main goal of almost all journalists.
There are some questions to whether or not journalism could be considered a profession due to the idea that “they behave very selectively with those they have to deal with and professionals should treat everyone equally.” Also, journalists deny any moral responsibility for inadvertent negative consequences of their reports. But isn’t it true that this reputation for journalists is also what makes them successful?
The text also states that even established media organizations may act in irresponsible ways including a “increased tolerance for unethical practices.” This can be seen in the scandal involving CNBC’s popular anchor Maria Bartiromo and Citigroup’s chief executive Todd Thomson. It is stated that Thomson and Bartiromo both attended business conferences in Asia. Thomson left his fellow coworkers to take commercial flights while he and the “Money Honey” took at $50,000 ride on Citigroup’s corporate jet. While the cost of the flight was extremely high and landed Thomson in hot water with the company’s CEO, it was the fact that the two traveled alone which questioned the journalistic ethics of Bartiromo.
CNBC claims that Bartiromo received permission to fly with Thomson and even paid Citigroup the commercial rates of flying a transpacific flight, which ranges from $3,000 to $4,000. CNBC also stated that the flight was “work related.”
Read more about this story… here is the link. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16840015/
Now a question to you all, it is obvious that Bartiromo acted in a unethical way throwing her professionalism out the window, however, do you feel that CNBC also acted unethical by allowing her to receive gifts from a source? In a situation like this, is the professionalism of the organization is just as important as the journalist who work for them?
-Katie Cocozza
There are some questions to whether or not journalism could be considered a profession due to the idea that “they behave very selectively with those they have to deal with and professionals should treat everyone equally.” Also, journalists deny any moral responsibility for inadvertent negative consequences of their reports. But isn’t it true that this reputation for journalists is also what makes them successful?
The text also states that even established media organizations may act in irresponsible ways including a “increased tolerance for unethical practices.” This can be seen in the scandal involving CNBC’s popular anchor Maria Bartiromo and Citigroup’s chief executive Todd Thomson. It is stated that Thomson and Bartiromo both attended business conferences in Asia. Thomson left his fellow coworkers to take commercial flights while he and the “Money Honey” took at $50,000 ride on Citigroup’s corporate jet. While the cost of the flight was extremely high and landed Thomson in hot water with the company’s CEO, it was the fact that the two traveled alone which questioned the journalistic ethics of Bartiromo.
CNBC claims that Bartiromo received permission to fly with Thomson and even paid Citigroup the commercial rates of flying a transpacific flight, which ranges from $3,000 to $4,000. CNBC also stated that the flight was “work related.”
Read more about this story… here is the link. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16840015/
Now a question to you all, it is obvious that Bartiromo acted in a unethical way throwing her professionalism out the window, however, do you feel that CNBC also acted unethical by allowing her to receive gifts from a source? In a situation like this, is the professionalism of the organization is just as important as the journalist who work for them?
-Katie Cocozza
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Framing
McQuail tells us that framing is how the media portrays a piece of news, and how it makes it relevant to other events. It is difficult for the media to remain 100% objective when they are delivering a broadcast or writing an article because news is often presented in a story-like form, and not simply a list of facts. There are many different way in which bias is visible, McQuail sites a few "They include using certain words or phrases, making certain contextual references, choosing certain pictures or film, giving examples as typical, referring to certain stories and so on."
The following article is about Tony Blair's decision to pull half of the UK's troops out of Iraq. The article is framed using many of the elements discussed above, which also causes a deal of bias to be visible throughout. The article makes reference to Tony Blair's comments a month ago about how an arbitrary time table for withdrawal would send a disastrous message to those we are fighting, placing a quote from Blair immediately following the details of his decision for withdrawal. The article also compares the number of British troops currently in Iraq (7,000) to 20,000 additional units Bush wants to send over, by mentioning it a little further on in the article. Not all the references made in the article are negative, there are quotes in the article from Whitehouse officials who see the withdrawal as a sign of progress, and mention how the US's goal is to follow suit. CNN however quickly follows up with the following message, which seems to be CNN's alternative reasoning behind the withdrawals "Opposition to the war has hurt Blair politically, with his ruling Labor Party losing seats in Parliament and in local elections in the past two years. The prime minister announced in September that he would leave office within a year." It also immediately follows up with the following statement, placed in it's own 1 line paragraph..."More than 130 British troops have been killed in Iraq."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/uk.iraq.troops/index.html
This second article examines a guerrilla marketing campaign which inadvertently caused a major bomb scare which caused major disruptions in the city of Boston. (Notice very stern looking photo; top left) The article discusses how a third party company working for Adult Swim (part of Cartoon Network, owned by Turner) placed small boxes, similar to "Light Brights", featuring cartoon characters in major cities, in locations where they would attract a great deal of attention. The device looked like a small light up LED and had wires coming out the back that went onto a battery. The devices were described as looking "menacing" in the article. The article features one comment from the Turner CEO, followed by quote after quote from various law enforcement officials stating basically how irresponsible Turner, Cartoon Network, and the 2 men who were arrested were for attempting such a marketing technique. The quotes which CNN chose to use feature some extremely harsh comments. "Scaring an entire region, tying up the T and major roadways, and forcing first responders to spend 12 hours chasing down trinkets instead of terrorists is marketing run amok," "It would be hard to dream up a more appalling publicity stunt." One quote cited how disgusted they were that someone would attempt something like this in a post 911 era. The article did not feature any quotes from the two men who were actually arrested surprisingly. The two men spoke at a press conference after their arrest. I believe the comments were not included in CNN's article because they did not fit the frame which the article created, or because the article was written before the conference (The conference and article, both Feb 1st)
I highly recommend watching the conference (included below). Notice the framing in the video as well. The graphic at the bottom of the screen reads "two suspects arraigned in terror promotion scare".
Article
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/31/boston.bombscare/
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2fGzmphx4U
-Derek Varga
The following article is about Tony Blair's decision to pull half of the UK's troops out of Iraq. The article is framed using many of the elements discussed above, which also causes a deal of bias to be visible throughout. The article makes reference to Tony Blair's comments a month ago about how an arbitrary time table for withdrawal would send a disastrous message to those we are fighting, placing a quote from Blair immediately following the details of his decision for withdrawal. The article also compares the number of British troops currently in Iraq (7,000) to 20,000 additional units Bush wants to send over, by mentioning it a little further on in the article. Not all the references made in the article are negative, there are quotes in the article from Whitehouse officials who see the withdrawal as a sign of progress, and mention how the US's goal is to follow suit. CNN however quickly follows up with the following message, which seems to be CNN's alternative reasoning behind the withdrawals "Opposition to the war has hurt Blair politically, with his ruling Labor Party losing seats in Parliament and in local elections in the past two years. The prime minister announced in September that he would leave office within a year." It also immediately follows up with the following statement, placed in it's own 1 line paragraph..."More than 130 British troops have been killed in Iraq."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/uk.iraq.troops/index.html
This second article examines a guerrilla marketing campaign which inadvertently caused a major bomb scare which caused major disruptions in the city of Boston. (Notice very stern looking photo; top left) The article discusses how a third party company working for Adult Swim (part of Cartoon Network, owned by Turner) placed small boxes, similar to "Light Brights", featuring cartoon characters in major cities, in locations where they would attract a great deal of attention. The device looked like a small light up LED and had wires coming out the back that went onto a battery. The devices were described as looking "menacing" in the article. The article features one comment from the Turner CEO, followed by quote after quote from various law enforcement officials stating basically how irresponsible Turner, Cartoon Network, and the 2 men who were arrested were for attempting such a marketing technique. The quotes which CNN chose to use feature some extremely harsh comments. "Scaring an entire region, tying up the T and major roadways, and forcing first responders to spend 12 hours chasing down trinkets instead of terrorists is marketing run amok," "It would be hard to dream up a more appalling publicity stunt." One quote cited how disgusted they were that someone would attempt something like this in a post 911 era. The article did not feature any quotes from the two men who were actually arrested surprisingly. The two men spoke at a press conference after their arrest. I believe the comments were not included in CNN's article because they did not fit the frame which the article created, or because the article was written before the conference (The conference and article, both Feb 1st)
I highly recommend watching the conference (included below). Notice the framing in the video as well. The graphic at the bottom of the screen reads "two suspects arraigned in terror promotion scare".
Article
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/31/boston.bombscare/
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2fGzmphx4U
-Derek Varga
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Framing the news
McQuail defines framing as how news is presented to the public. According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, there are a wide variety of narrative techniques that journalists use to frame the news. One of these techniques is quoted below from the website:
“… the press shows a decided tendency to present the news through a combative lens. Three narrative frames -- conflict, winners and losers and revealing wrongdoing -- accounted for 30% of all stories, twice the number of straight news accounts. The penchant for framing stories around these combative elements is even more pronounced at the top of the front page and is truer still when it comes to describing the actions or statements of government officials.”
(http://www.journalism.org/node/445)
The following two articles are good examples of this type of news framing. Both show a conflict, in this case the substandard care that U.S. veterans receive as outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
There are differences in these stories though and these differences influence the effectiveness of the articles.
These articles are follow-up stories to the original series based on investigative reports that ran in Sunday and Monday’s edition of the Washington Post.
The article was picked up by Bloomberg News and published in The Boston Globe. While it appeared on page one of the Washington Post, it was somewhat buried in the Nation section of the Boston Globe.
Bloomberg News’ version of the article lacks some of the immediacy that it had in the Washington Post. Also, notice how the quotes in the Washington Post article keep the story fresh and current.
Review At Walter Reed Is Ordered
Defense Secretary Vows Accountability
By Steve Vogel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 24, 2007; A01
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates named an independent review panel yesterday to investigate what he called an "unacceptable" situation in outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and he said that some soldiers "most directly involved" in the problems have been removed from their positions.
Speaking to reporters during a visit to the Army hospital in Northwest Washington, Gates also warned that senior military leaders could be disciplined based on the findings of the review group.
"We empower commanders with responsibility, authority and resources necessary to carry out their missions," Gates said. "With responsibility comes accountability. Accordingly, after the facts are established, those responsible for having allowed this unacceptable situation to develop will indeed be held accountable."
The Senate Armed Services Committee has tentatively scheduled hearings on the facility for March 6, said a spokeswoman for the panel's chairman, Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the ranking minority member of the committee, toured the facility yesterday.
The actions came after stories in The Washington Post on Sunday and Monday revealed that wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed often become mired in red tape as they seek further treatment or decisions on whether they will stay in the military. The articles also disclosed poor living conditions -- including mold, filth and leaks -- in Building 18, an Army facility that houses recovering troops.
"I'm grateful to reporters for bringing this to our attention but thoroughly disappointed we did not identify it ourselves," Gates said in his first public remarks addressing the situation.
The eight-member review group appointed by Gates has been charged with taking a broad look at all rehabilitative care and administrative procedures both at Walter Reed and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. Panel members "will be given free and unrestricted access" to visit medical facilities and interview personnel, Gates said.
The group will be co-chaired by Togo West, who was secretary of veterans affairs and secretary of the Army during the Clinton administration, and by John O. Marsh Jr., who was secretary of the Army under President Ronald Reagan and a former member of Congress from Virginia. Other members include two former members of Congress, three retired senior military officers and a retired command sergeant major. Their report is due within 45 days and will be made public, Gates said.
Gates said he had no information suggesting that there are problems at Bethesda similar to those at Walter Reed, but he said the naval facility is being included because "we need to know the scope of this problem."
There is rare unanimity in Washington on the need to treat wounded soldiers well, Gates said, "and so we're determined to fix it, and fix it fast." He described the medical care itself at the hospital as "unsurpassable" and said the shortcomings were confined to "the outpatient aspect of this."
During his visit, Gates met a group of five soldiers being treated at the facility who spoke of a frustrating administrative bureaucracy at the hospital. "They battled our foreign enemies; they should not have to battle an American bureaucracy," Gates said.
Gates said caseworkers are "overwhelmed" by the numbers of patients they are assigned, and he indicated that more workers would be soon assigned to the hospital.
"There's just too much work for the number of people that are available," he said. "So that's one thing that can be addressed pretty quickly." Gates added that troops who had been wounded in service "should not have to recuperate in substandard housing."
The Army declined to identify publicly the personnel who have been moved to different positions at the hospital. Speaking on background, an Army official said they included several soldiers involved in supervising facilities at Walter Reed, including Building 18.
Gates met with President Bush yesterday morning to brief him on the actions underway. "He is, understandably, concerned and emphatic in wanting the best possible care for our wounded soldiers and for their families," Gates said.
Gates vows to improve outpatient care at Walter Reed
Facility reportedly full of pests, mold
Boston Globe
By Ken Fireman, Bloomberg News | February 24, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates condemned as "unacceptable" the outpatient care problems encountered by hundreds of wounded U S troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and promised to correct them quickly.
Gates announced the creation of an independent panel to investigate conditions at the facility in Washington and vowed to hold those found responsible for the problems accountable.
"This is about our family," Gates said yesterday at a news conference at the medical facility. "And it appears to us that some of our family may not have been treated the way they should have been."
The Washington Post, in a series of articles earlier this week, reported that dozens of recuperating soldiers and Marines are put in dirty, mold-ridden, pest-infested housing. They and others have also faced daunting bureaucratic obstacles to obtaining needed follow-up care, the newspaper reported.
Gates praised the Post for reporting the problems and said he has seen nothing to indicate that its articles were "in any substantial way wrong."
He said the problems were with outpatient care and didn't extend to the medical care given wounded personnel in the main facility, which Gates called "world class."
The secretary said that he met with President Bush earlier yesterday to discuss the issue and that Bush "is understandably concerned."
In vowing to hold accountable those found responsible for the problems, Gates said "some people who are most directly involved" have already been relieved of their duties.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Gates was referring to "individuals who were in a direct supervisory role."
Whitman and White House spokesman Tony Fratto said there was no connection between the Walter Reed problems and the departure of Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr. as assistant defense secretary for health affairs. Whitman said Winkenwerder told his superiors last year that he wanted to leave government service.
The White House said Winkenwerder will be replaced by Dr. S. Ward Casscells , a professor at University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston.
The review panel will investigate conditions at Walter Reed and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., Gates said. Two former Army secretaries, Togo West and Jack Marsh, will lead the inquiry.
The Senate Armed Services Committee plans to hold a hearing March 6 on conditions at Walter Reed, according to one member of the panel, Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican.
Warner, a former Navy secretary and committee chairman, attended Gates's news conference and praised the secretary's handling of the issue.
“… the press shows a decided tendency to present the news through a combative lens. Three narrative frames -- conflict, winners and losers and revealing wrongdoing -- accounted for 30% of all stories, twice the number of straight news accounts. The penchant for framing stories around these combative elements is even more pronounced at the top of the front page and is truer still when it comes to describing the actions or statements of government officials.”
(http://www.journalism.org/node/445)
The following two articles are good examples of this type of news framing. Both show a conflict, in this case the substandard care that U.S. veterans receive as outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
There are differences in these stories though and these differences influence the effectiveness of the articles.
These articles are follow-up stories to the original series based on investigative reports that ran in Sunday and Monday’s edition of the Washington Post.
The article was picked up by Bloomberg News and published in The Boston Globe. While it appeared on page one of the Washington Post, it was somewhat buried in the Nation section of the Boston Globe.
Bloomberg News’ version of the article lacks some of the immediacy that it had in the Washington Post. Also, notice how the quotes in the Washington Post article keep the story fresh and current.
Review At Walter Reed Is Ordered
Defense Secretary Vows Accountability
By Steve Vogel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 24, 2007; A01
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates named an independent review panel yesterday to investigate what he called an "unacceptable" situation in outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and he said that some soldiers "most directly involved" in the problems have been removed from their positions.
Speaking to reporters during a visit to the Army hospital in Northwest Washington, Gates also warned that senior military leaders could be disciplined based on the findings of the review group.
"We empower commanders with responsibility, authority and resources necessary to carry out their missions," Gates said. "With responsibility comes accountability. Accordingly, after the facts are established, those responsible for having allowed this unacceptable situation to develop will indeed be held accountable."
The Senate Armed Services Committee has tentatively scheduled hearings on the facility for March 6, said a spokeswoman for the panel's chairman, Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the ranking minority member of the committee, toured the facility yesterday.
The actions came after stories in The Washington Post on Sunday and Monday revealed that wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed often become mired in red tape as they seek further treatment or decisions on whether they will stay in the military. The articles also disclosed poor living conditions -- including mold, filth and leaks -- in Building 18, an Army facility that houses recovering troops.
"I'm grateful to reporters for bringing this to our attention but thoroughly disappointed we did not identify it ourselves," Gates said in his first public remarks addressing the situation.
The eight-member review group appointed by Gates has been charged with taking a broad look at all rehabilitative care and administrative procedures both at Walter Reed and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. Panel members "will be given free and unrestricted access" to visit medical facilities and interview personnel, Gates said.
The group will be co-chaired by Togo West, who was secretary of veterans affairs and secretary of the Army during the Clinton administration, and by John O. Marsh Jr., who was secretary of the Army under President Ronald Reagan and a former member of Congress from Virginia. Other members include two former members of Congress, three retired senior military officers and a retired command sergeant major. Their report is due within 45 days and will be made public, Gates said.
Gates said he had no information suggesting that there are problems at Bethesda similar to those at Walter Reed, but he said the naval facility is being included because "we need to know the scope of this problem."
There is rare unanimity in Washington on the need to treat wounded soldiers well, Gates said, "and so we're determined to fix it, and fix it fast." He described the medical care itself at the hospital as "unsurpassable" and said the shortcomings were confined to "the outpatient aspect of this."
During his visit, Gates met a group of five soldiers being treated at the facility who spoke of a frustrating administrative bureaucracy at the hospital. "They battled our foreign enemies; they should not have to battle an American bureaucracy," Gates said.
Gates said caseworkers are "overwhelmed" by the numbers of patients they are assigned, and he indicated that more workers would be soon assigned to the hospital.
"There's just too much work for the number of people that are available," he said. "So that's one thing that can be addressed pretty quickly." Gates added that troops who had been wounded in service "should not have to recuperate in substandard housing."
The Army declined to identify publicly the personnel who have been moved to different positions at the hospital. Speaking on background, an Army official said they included several soldiers involved in supervising facilities at Walter Reed, including Building 18.
Gates met with President Bush yesterday morning to brief him on the actions underway. "He is, understandably, concerned and emphatic in wanting the best possible care for our wounded soldiers and for their families," Gates said.
Gates vows to improve outpatient care at Walter Reed
Facility reportedly full of pests, mold
Boston Globe
By Ken Fireman, Bloomberg News | February 24, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates condemned as "unacceptable" the outpatient care problems encountered by hundreds of wounded U S troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and promised to correct them quickly.
Gates announced the creation of an independent panel to investigate conditions at the facility in Washington and vowed to hold those found responsible for the problems accountable.
"This is about our family," Gates said yesterday at a news conference at the medical facility. "And it appears to us that some of our family may not have been treated the way they should have been."
The Washington Post, in a series of articles earlier this week, reported that dozens of recuperating soldiers and Marines are put in dirty, mold-ridden, pest-infested housing. They and others have also faced daunting bureaucratic obstacles to obtaining needed follow-up care, the newspaper reported.
Gates praised the Post for reporting the problems and said he has seen nothing to indicate that its articles were "in any substantial way wrong."
He said the problems were with outpatient care and didn't extend to the medical care given wounded personnel in the main facility, which Gates called "world class."
The secretary said that he met with President Bush earlier yesterday to discuss the issue and that Bush "is understandably concerned."
In vowing to hold accountable those found responsible for the problems, Gates said "some people who are most directly involved" have already been relieved of their duties.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Gates was referring to "individuals who were in a direct supervisory role."
Whitman and White House spokesman Tony Fratto said there was no connection between the Walter Reed problems and the departure of Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr. as assistant defense secretary for health affairs. Whitman said Winkenwerder told his superiors last year that he wanted to leave government service.
The White House said Winkenwerder will be replaced by Dr. S. Ward Casscells , a professor at University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston.
The review panel will investigate conditions at Walter Reed and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., Gates said. Two former Army secretaries, Togo West and Jack Marsh, will lead the inquiry.
The Senate Armed Services Committee plans to hold a hearing March 6 on conditions at Walter Reed, according to one member of the panel, Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican.
Warner, a former Navy secretary and committee chairman, attended Gates's news conference and praised the secretary's handling of the issue.
Framing
Framing in general is how the media presents all of its information. It is a way the media shows us what they feel and what us to see. Although the news should not have bias, it is almost always geared in a certain distinct direction. The news wants you to see and believe in what they believe in. Framing makes this very possible. A good example of framing from McQuail's Mass Communication Theory is "almost all news about the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was for decades reported in terms of the Cold War and the Soviet 'enemy'."
To try and get an idea of this concept of framing, I looked at two articles on the same subject from two different news sources. The first is from CNN, which tends to be a more liberal reporting news station.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/23/cheney.asia.ap/index.html
The next article is from Fox News which is known for its strong conservative views. This article is significantly shorter and does not go into as much detail as the previous article.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254219,00.html
As you can see, both articles are based around the same idea, but focus in on much different details. The CNN article goes into how Iran claims they are using the atomic programs as a source of energy not for nuclear weapons. The article also brings up how British Prime Minister Tony Blair will begin pull troops out within the next couple of months, as if to tell the reader if our allies are beginning to pull their troops of one country, why are we going to start up with another country. However, the article from Fox News does not go into much detail at all and is short and to the point. All this article mentions is how Iran has a nuclear program and refuses to freeze the enrichment program and is beginning to expand it.
I feel that to get a feel of what's really going on, you have to read a few articles from different sources and draw your own conclusion because one just does not cut it. For example, the Fox News' article made me feel like we have to do something right now to stop Iran's nuclear program, while CNN's article made me sit back and think, we should really figure out what's going on before we do anything. But what do you think? Does media bias and framing play to large of role in our society today?
To try and get an idea of this concept of framing, I looked at two articles on the same subject from two different news sources. The first is from CNN, which tends to be a more liberal reporting news station.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/23/cheney.asia.ap/index.html
The next article is from Fox News which is known for its strong conservative views. This article is significantly shorter and does not go into as much detail as the previous article.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254219,00.html
As you can see, both articles are based around the same idea, but focus in on much different details. The CNN article goes into how Iran claims they are using the atomic programs as a source of energy not for nuclear weapons. The article also brings up how British Prime Minister Tony Blair will begin pull troops out within the next couple of months, as if to tell the reader if our allies are beginning to pull their troops of one country, why are we going to start up with another country. However, the article from Fox News does not go into much detail at all and is short and to the point. All this article mentions is how Iran has a nuclear program and refuses to freeze the enrichment program and is beginning to expand it.
I feel that to get a feel of what's really going on, you have to read a few articles from different sources and draw your own conclusion because one just does not cut it. For example, the Fox News' article made me feel like we have to do something right now to stop Iran's nuclear program, while CNN's article made me sit back and think, we should really figure out what's going on before we do anything. But what do you think? Does media bias and framing play to large of role in our society today?
FRAMING
This week's readings discuss the concept of framing: How news information is presented or "framed"? The following link summarizes the concept:
http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20Media/Framing.doc/
In "McQuail's Mass Communication Theory" McQuail exemplifies the framing concept by relating two similar events portrayed, by US reporting, very differently (Page 379). Here are some more recent examples of the way media have framed news information:
First, Media Education Foundation (MEF) did a report labeled, "Beyond the Frame: Alternative Views on the September 11th Atrocities." MEF concerns itself with the voices and viewpoints that were not represented in the mainstream media following September 11th.
http://www.mediaed.org/news/articles/btf
Second, George Lakeoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics, is interviewed about the current state of politics.
The first article discusses the usage of language conservatives use that dominate politics and the media.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
Notice how he defines framing and shows modern examples such as "tax relief."
A second interview with him, one year later, finds Lakeoff further involved in his research and examining new lingo, "war on terror" and "liberal elites." He has more critique on framing and strategies for progressives.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml
These are just a few examples of the framing concept in practice and prevalent in our society today. It is clear that it is a difficult task for the media to be unbiased but where do we draw the line between an over-framed media and a full fledged political agenda? Can we blame the current situation in the Middle East on the way the media framed the attacks and aftermath of September 11th? Should much of the success the conservative party has had in the past decade be credited to the way they have framed themselves and actions and language? If so, would the recent change in a democratic controlled senate be the result of a better framed democratic party or a faulting conservative one?
http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20Media/Framing.doc/
In "McQuail's Mass Communication Theory" McQuail exemplifies the framing concept by relating two similar events portrayed, by US reporting, very differently (Page 379). Here are some more recent examples of the way media have framed news information:
First, Media Education Foundation (MEF) did a report labeled, "Beyond the Frame: Alternative Views on the September 11th Atrocities." MEF concerns itself with the voices and viewpoints that were not represented in the mainstream media following September 11th.
http://www.mediaed.org/news/articles/btf
Second, George Lakeoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics, is interviewed about the current state of politics.
The first article discusses the usage of language conservatives use that dominate politics and the media.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
Notice how he defines framing and shows modern examples such as "tax relief."
A second interview with him, one year later, finds Lakeoff further involved in his research and examining new lingo, "war on terror" and "liberal elites." He has more critique on framing and strategies for progressives.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml
These are just a few examples of the framing concept in practice and prevalent in our society today. It is clear that it is a difficult task for the media to be unbiased but where do we draw the line between an over-framed media and a full fledged political agenda? Can we blame the current situation in the Middle East on the way the media framed the attacks and aftermath of September 11th? Should much of the success the conservative party has had in the past decade be credited to the way they have framed themselves and actions and language? If so, would the recent change in a democratic controlled senate be the result of a better framed democratic party or a faulting conservative one?
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Agenda-setting, Gatekeeping and Free T-Shirts
If you caught any of the national nightly news last Saturday night you might have seen clips of Sen. Barack Obama standing before a crowd of 16,000 people braving the frigid temperatures to hear him announce his candidacy for President of the United States. You might have then left your seat in front of the television to check a calendar because you swore it’s only 2007. And you’re right. The party primaries to determine candidates for the President of United States may not take place until next year, but the mighty marketing and publicity wheel is beginning to crank up
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=2865196&page=1 .
Obama and Hillary Clinton both understand the power of the media to influence potential voters and that is why they are getting an early start on their campaigns. They also understand the theory of agenda setting and how this can be beneficial to their campaigns.
Denis McQuail states in chapter 19, page 512 of the McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory that, “Politicians seek to convince voters that the most important issues are those with which they are most closely identified. This is an essential part of advocacy and attempts at influencing public opinion. ” McQuail presents these comments under the section entitled “Agenda-Setting”.
Obama and Clinton are both off to early starts to their campaigns in order to maximize their exposure in the public eye through the myriad of different lenses of the media. By getting an early start on their campaigns, both candidates allow themselves for plenty of time to establish their leadership qualities with the public and, in turn, create an image of themselves in the public eye as a person capable of being President.
One of the devices they use to create this image is referenced in chapter 12 of McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory under the header of public relations and news management. McQuail describes the production of “pseudo-events’ like press conferences or major policy statements as a means to gain coverage and exposure for politicians.
Which leads us back to Obama’s declaration of candidacy for President of the United States last Saturday. Obama could have easily just sent out a press release to the major media outlets with a few simple statements that summarized his intentions to run for President. But that wouldn’t have garnered all the national attention that his announcement did. Instead, his campaign created a high energy event complete with music and free t-shirts that would, and did, stir up interest and coverage from the national media.
To be fair, this was a news worthy event because it involved a prominent figure making a news worthy announcement – with a little bit of Hollywood production added.
McQuail states it best in his conclusion for chapter 12 on page 334, “the publicity model helps to remind us that mass communication is often primarily a business, and show business at that. Its roots are as much in the theatre and the showground as in politics, art or education.”
So if McQuail is arguing that mass communication is driven by business and not necessarily objectivity, then how come so called ‘pseudo-events’ attract so much media attention?
To find the answer, we turn to the powers that control the flow of information – the gatekeepers.
McQuail defines gate keeping in chapter 12 as, “ the process by which selections are made in 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.” Although there are some objective qualifiers of “news worthy” events such as power and fame of individuals involved, timeliness and proximity to name a few, there is also an element of subjectivity in the process.
And this is where the business motivations come into play. Case in point would be this past week with the abrupt passing of Anna Nicole Smith. I remember the buzz spreading around the office when this story broke. Fortunately, (or unfortunately for our productivity) we all have televisions at our desk so in a domino effect the department began to flip to the news channels to get the latest on the tragic death of Anna Nicole.
I remember watching CNN and their treatment of the story – you would have thought our country was going to war again with the volume and intensity of the coverage. Never mind the fact that this hard news entity was devoting so much time to someone that was famous, just for being famous.
But in the end the numbers (ratings) don’t lie, and here within lies your answer to erosion of gate keeping.
Lisa de Moraes of the Washington Post reports in her column posted on 2/15, “Anna Nicole Coverage Sweetens the Ratings Pot”, that “last Thursday, when Blitzer was standing in front of his Big Board of Moving Pictures, shepherding CNN's Anna Nicole coverage on "The Situation Room," he had an average audience of 1.7 million viewers -- nearly tripling his audience in the same hour the day before and beating Fox News Channel in the hour.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401813.html
So the question I pose to the rest of the class is, how would you classify the level of erosion of the gate keeping process? Do you think the major media outlets still make editorial decisions based on objective newsworthy events or what will bring in the best ratings? And do you believe that Obama’s decision to announce his candidacy for President this early will pay off through long-term exposure to the mass-media as a form of agenda setting to position himself as the “right” choice for President in the minds of voters?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=2865196&page=1 .
Obama and Hillary Clinton both understand the power of the media to influence potential voters and that is why they are getting an early start on their campaigns. They also understand the theory of agenda setting and how this can be beneficial to their campaigns.
Denis McQuail states in chapter 19, page 512 of the McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory that, “Politicians seek to convince voters that the most important issues are those with which they are most closely identified. This is an essential part of advocacy and attempts at influencing public opinion. ” McQuail presents these comments under the section entitled “Agenda-Setting”.
Obama and Clinton are both off to early starts to their campaigns in order to maximize their exposure in the public eye through the myriad of different lenses of the media. By getting an early start on their campaigns, both candidates allow themselves for plenty of time to establish their leadership qualities with the public and, in turn, create an image of themselves in the public eye as a person capable of being President.
One of the devices they use to create this image is referenced in chapter 12 of McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory under the header of public relations and news management. McQuail describes the production of “pseudo-events’ like press conferences or major policy statements as a means to gain coverage and exposure for politicians.
Which leads us back to Obama’s declaration of candidacy for President of the United States last Saturday. Obama could have easily just sent out a press release to the major media outlets with a few simple statements that summarized his intentions to run for President. But that wouldn’t have garnered all the national attention that his announcement did. Instead, his campaign created a high energy event complete with music and free t-shirts that would, and did, stir up interest and coverage from the national media.
To be fair, this was a news worthy event because it involved a prominent figure making a news worthy announcement – with a little bit of Hollywood production added.
McQuail states it best in his conclusion for chapter 12 on page 334, “the publicity model helps to remind us that mass communication is often primarily a business, and show business at that. Its roots are as much in the theatre and the showground as in politics, art or education.”
So if McQuail is arguing that mass communication is driven by business and not necessarily objectivity, then how come so called ‘pseudo-events’ attract so much media attention?
To find the answer, we turn to the powers that control the flow of information – the gatekeepers.
McQuail defines gate keeping in chapter 12 as, “ the process by which selections are made in 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.” Although there are some objective qualifiers of “news worthy” events such as power and fame of individuals involved, timeliness and proximity to name a few, there is also an element of subjectivity in the process.
And this is where the business motivations come into play. Case in point would be this past week with the abrupt passing of Anna Nicole Smith. I remember the buzz spreading around the office when this story broke. Fortunately, (or unfortunately for our productivity) we all have televisions at our desk so in a domino effect the department began to flip to the news channels to get the latest on the tragic death of Anna Nicole.
I remember watching CNN and their treatment of the story – you would have thought our country was going to war again with the volume and intensity of the coverage. Never mind the fact that this hard news entity was devoting so much time to someone that was famous, just for being famous.
But in the end the numbers (ratings) don’t lie, and here within lies your answer to erosion of gate keeping.
Lisa de Moraes of the Washington Post reports in her column posted on 2/15, “Anna Nicole Coverage Sweetens the Ratings Pot”, that “last Thursday, when Blitzer was standing in front of his Big Board of Moving Pictures, shepherding CNN's Anna Nicole coverage on "The Situation Room," he had an average audience of 1.7 million viewers -- nearly tripling his audience in the same hour the day before and beating Fox News Channel in the hour.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401813.html
So the question I pose to the rest of the class is, how would you classify the level of erosion of the gate keeping process? Do you think the major media outlets still make editorial decisions based on objective newsworthy events or what will bring in the best ratings? And do you believe that Obama’s decision to announce his candidacy for President this early will pay off through long-term exposure to the mass-media as a form of agenda setting to position himself as the “right” choice for President in the minds of voters?
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Gatekeeping/Agenda Setting
Gatekeeping
Gatekeeping refers directly to what content is allowed to be aired on news programs and published in magazines and newspapers. Generally the key issues regulated are sex, violence, and language. Technology as well as an increasingly impatient public desireing ever-more explicit material is eroding the gatekeeping function of these old media outlets. Editors are giving into a desire for profits as blogs present information often completely devoid of fact-checking. At the heart of this gatekeeping issue is the responsibility of journalists to present the facts but in a fashion that is accessible and respectful of the general public.
Bellow is two articles, each discussing the current nature of gatekeeping in Journalism.
“
LexisNexis™ Academic
Copyright 2006 Central News Agency All Rights Reserved
Central News Agency -
LENGTH: 296 words
HEADLINE:
BYLINE: Chris Wang
DATELINE:
BODY:
The media should accommodate itself to modem technology and "citizen journalism, " while still being accountable to its "gatekeeping" responsibility, British Broadcasting Corporation (
Because of modern technology such as mobile phones, handy cams and the Internet, there is much more first-hand information coming to the media directly from citizens. The media needs to move with this trend but should still check and validate sources, said Gowing.
Gowing, who was invited by the British Chamber of Commerce in Taipei to deliver a speech at its monthly luncheon, has been the main anchor on
In covering the South Asia tsunami, Hurricane Katrina's damage in the United States and the London Underground bombing, the media resorted to citizens to provide first-hand information and observations, he said, adding that following the bombings in London, the
Nowadays, he said, citizens often provide more information following major news events than the media, which in turn provides more information than government agencies most of the time.
"The job of people like me or other
News reporting today has "higher impact and shorter time frame" because of the information explosion and development of technology, which makes it even more important for the media to provide correct reporting, Gowing said.
“Inform or Inflame?; When Net Bares It All, Can Mainstream media Maintain standards and survive?” discusses how newspapers are supposed to be family-friendly, accurate, and truthful. Writer, Jesse Leavenworth, specifically discusses the media’s coverage of the sex scandal involving former Representative Mark Foley. He speaks with some pride how the Courant refused to print the “salacious details” associated with the incident, in effect saying that this type of coverage elevated newspapers beyond blogs. He did not however rule out the adjustment of gatekeeper functions.
LexisNexis™ Academic
Copyright 2006 The Hartford Courant Company All Rights Reserved
SECTION:
LENGTH: 1460 words
HEADLINE: INFORM OR INFLAME?;
WHEN
BYLINE: JESSE
BODY:
For newspaper readers seeking explicit details on the Mark Foley scandal n beyond reports of "inappropriate" or "over friendly" e-mails to teenage boys n the scoop was a click away.
The Internet provided complete transcripts of the former congressman's messages, including comments about the size of one boy's penis and his "cute butt bouncing in the air."
The Courant and other daily newspapers did not print those details, but the response to the posting showed that many people were wondering how far Foley had crossed the line and the level of impropriety the Republican leadership might be covering up.
The Foley story is the latest example of the erosion of mainstream media's gatekeeping role. Editors still block sexually explicit and violent content, deciding how much detail readers and viewers need. But the Internet has blown the gates open, and editors, with their increasingly impotent red pencils, have seen readers rush past them into the wide open Web to find out for themselves what "salacious" means.
"I think if they're smart, [mainstream newspapers] are going to change," said Bob Norman, a columnist for New Times, an alternative newspaper in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. "I'm not saying they have to print all the salacious details, but I think if they're going to keep up with the general trend of keeping more real, toward telling the truth no matter how ugly it might be, they're going to have to change.
"Otherwise,"
Even in the face of the Internet's ever-expanding info-ocean, however, Norman and other journalists said mainstream media must adhere to standards.
"I believe most editors want and need to stay in the comfort zone of their audience and themselves," Scott Bosley, executive director of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, wrote in an e-mail. "In fact, you can explain most everything in rational terms that readers understand "without violating that zone.J1
"I don't believe newspapers are obligated to reach the lowest common denominator. I don't think readers feel deprived. Readers respect newspapers for having standards. If their respect and trust in us is violated, we lose more than we gain."
"There have always been print publications willing to use more explicit words and photos on a regular basis than a general-circulation newspaper will allow them," Kate Perry, Minneapolis Star Tribune reader representative, wrote in an e-mail. "So, it's no surprise that's also true on the Web. That's been an advantage to most newspapers in the past because readers could rely on them for the kind of judgment and restraint with language that they seek in publications that come into their home daily and that their families read .... [At the Star Tribune], explicit language is not used gratuitously, only when essential to the news. Depending on the word, the bar can be extremely high."
The bar for The Courant also has been high, but some stories have included explicit language and details. For example, the newspaper has printed a four-letter vulgarity for sexual intercourse eight times in the past nine years, as recently as December 2004. Also, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was ripping into the Clinton White House, The Courant ran a special section in 1998 with details about oral sex in the Oval Office.
That doesn't mean, however, that newspapers should print video stills of a celebrity sex romp, several journalists said.
"Given the audience of the newspaper (it's still a family medium, open for inspection by very young children and anyone else, regardless of sensitivity) it would seem appropriate to maintain a self regulated 'PG' rating," Jay Black, editor of the Journal of Mass Media Ethics, wrote in an e-mail. "There's nothing "Tong with reporters' citing the Web addresses folks could go to for further details; doing so might actually help the newspapers' credibility.
"I'm anything but a prude (I recall using the 'F' bomb in an article about a pornography conference ... my editor cut it), but a certain amount of decorum seems appropriate for a family newspaper," Black wrote.
What about violence? How does a newspaper relay the horror, for instance, of terrorists' beheading Americans? Do people need to see such images firsthand to know the enemy?
"For something as offensive as [beheadings], most news organizations chose not to show it or provide links," Gary Hill, chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists ethics committee, wrote in an email. "True, people who really wanted to see that could find it on the Internet. But I don't think most news organizations would put that image on their page, in their broadcast or even on their website.
"It's hard to argue that the news value of seeing the actual beheading outweighs the sensational, exploitative nature of the video and the harm it causes the friend and family of the victim," Hill wrote. "Most readers and viewers still expect us to make these sort of gatekeeping decisions and would be dismayed if we did not."
Hill noted, however, that ABC News played the Foley story differently on its website and broadcast. The broadcast did not include any of the overtly sexual exchanges, in large part to comply with Federal Communications Commission rules. Those rules, however, do not apply to the Internet, and the network posted the graphic exchanges on its website under warning disclaimers.
'"In this way, we continue to play the role of gatekeeper, but don't thrust potentially offensive material into our audience's faces," Hill wrote.
'"Newspapers have already defined their role for their readers," wrote John Burks, professor of journalism at
'"These traditional rules do not apply in vast regions of the new media, which is what makes the new media attractive to so many people. No hedging, no dodging of explicit details or charges that might somehow offend somebody's grandma or lead somebody's granddaughter astray. I cannot imagine the mainstream news media blowing its doors wide open, not even 'over their own dead bodies.' For better or for worse, mainstream news media is locked in place, certain of its correctitude."
Bloggers -- who have no tradition of regulating their content -- have played roles in several big stories, including the Foley affair,
Allegations about Foley's interest in teenage boys had been floating around political circles and newsrooms in
Newsweek reported in its most recent issue that scanned images of some Foley e-mails were displayed on Sept. 24 on a site called stopsexpredators.blogspot.com before breaking into the mainstream media through the ABC News website.
'" I think the Internet has liberated the very concept of news from those mainstream gatekeepers in a fundamental way," wrote Norman, the
Why have stories of such great interest -- often involving powerful national figures -- been ignored by traditional media?"
But Michael Burgi, editor of Mediaweek magazine, said reporters must continue to do the hard work of seeking the truth while maintaining a level of propriety. Bloggers, Burgi said, will not fundamentally change journalism.
"'Bloggers are people with opinions," he said. '"They are not journalists. I think blogging will cool down over time when the next big thing pops up."
'"Because so much information is available on the Internet," Karen Hunter, The Courant's reader representative, wrote in an e-mail, '"the gatekeeping role has become more demanding for responsible print publications and broadcasters as people look for reliable sources of information and sources that won't offend their sensibilities while delivering information that is important to them.
.. Should print publications and broadcasters strive to be as explicit as Internet sites can be? I say it depends on the audience they serve. The Internet will continue to challenge what is acceptable to society in general, and print publications and broadcasters will have to be nimble enough to respond to their audience's needs and tastes."
Contact Jesse Leavenworth at leavenworth@courant.com.
Agenda Setting
Agenda setting refers to the level of government and institutional influence on what is covered in newspapers and broadcasts as well as how it’s covered. Journalists have long been considered liberal, at least socially. I find this ironic. Since
Bellow is one article discussing Agenda Setting:
“A Note of Bias: ABC’s Mark Halperin Calls For A Purge of Newsrooms,” is one of the more sardonic and ironic pieces I have read on the subject of Agenda Setting. Here, a noted conservative host and blogger argues that newsrooms are staffed with liberals and need to be replaced with people like him, individuals without a political persuasion. Of course he says this on a right-wing radio station and is not known for ever saying something positive about liberals. In fact, he argues in this article that he was totally offended when someone called him a liberal. Jim Naureckas, writer of this article, counters Halperin’s statement with a very telling one of his own; “…Halperin would better serve journalism by acknowledging [his own bias] rather than appearing on right-wing talk radio to urge an ideological purge of newsrooms.”
LexisNexis™ Academic
Copyright 2007 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved Extra!
January 2007 - February 2007
LENGTH: 817 words
HEADLINE: A Note of Bias;
ABC's Mark Halperin calls for a purge of newsrooms
BYLINE: By Jim Naureckas
BODY:
Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News and the main author of the widely read daily online briefing the Note, has more influence over the political tone of mainstream journalism than virtually any other individual. In his book Lapdogs, press critic Eric Boehlert called the Note "the agenda setting morning round-up for the political class .... It's impossible to overstate the behind-the-scenes influence of the Note."
Nevertheless, when Halperin showed up to plug his new book on the show of second-string right-wing talk radio host Hugh Hewitt (10/30/06), he sounded less like a powerful media executive and more like an applicant for a job with Accuracy In Media. As Hewitt probed Halperin for signs of left-wing deviationalism, Halperin tried to establish his ideological soundness by professing his desire to purge journalism of liberals:
"We need in this country strong news organizations that are not ideologically biased, that are not staffed by liberals, and that stand up to power of all sorts .... It is not a model that works if the organizations are either biased or perceived as biased. I want to help change that. I've worked throughout my career to help change it, and that means getting liberals out of the newsroom, not replacing them with conservatives, but getting people who understand the ethos of being a journalist for an organization that is powerful enough to stand up to big interests, and earn the respect of the American people."
"Many people I work with in ABC, and other old media organizations, are liberal on a range of issues," Halperin declared. "And I think ... the reality of how that affects media coverage, is outrageous, and that conservatives in this country for 40 years have felt that, and that it's something that must change."
Despite Halperin's embrace of the conservative party line on media, Hewitt still described Halperin as "very liberal"--on the basis of his family, the college he went to, and the fact that he works for the media when writing up the interview for his blog (l0/30/06, 10/31/06). In response, Halperin wrote to Hewitt begging him not to say such a mean thing about him:
"1 really enjoyed our radio talk and 1 appreciated the opportunity to appear with someone I respect so much .... As I said on the show, you and I agree on almost everything we discussed .... As for your repeated insistence that you could reach no other conclusion but one that says that I am "very liberal," I'm sure if you think it over, you will reconsider."
Progressive blogger Glenn Greenwald (10/31106) and others have commented on what Greenwald aptly characterized as "Halperin's sad little crusade for right-wing blessings." But equally interesting is the notion of "bias" on display here. Halperin refuses to discuss his political views, insisting that he doesn't even vote. Anyone with identifiable views--particularly the "liberals" that he identifies as his colleagues--is apparently too "biased" to be taken seriously as a journalist.
But a point of view is not the same thing as a bias. Overwhelmingly, biologists have the point of view that organisms evolved through natural selection rather than being created in their present forms. But you can't on that basis charge that biology is biased against creationists; it's their weak science, not prejudice against their views, that marginalizes them in the field.
That's not to say that believing, say, that George W. Bush is doing a good job is just like believing that the earth is 6,000 years old. But if reporters who are hired in part for their expertise on politics tend to think that he's doing a bad job--even more than the average person, perhaps--that may be because he is doing a bad job, not because journalism as a profession is "biased."
An actual bias is a systematic distortion of reality. As an example, take the October 23 edition of Halperin's Note, which offered predictions about "how the (liberal) Old Media plans to cover the last two weeks of the election." Reporters, it began, would "glowingly profile Speaker-Inevitable Nancy Pelosi, with loving mentions of her grandmotherly steel (see last night's 60 Minutes), and fail to describe her as 'ultra-liberal' or 'an extreme liberal,' which would mirror the way Gingrich was painted twelve years ago."
Actually, a Nexis search for "Gingrich" within six words of "ultra-conservative" or "extreme conservative" from
So, when Halperin thinks back to the media's coverage of Gingrich in 1996, he has a clear picture-which happens to be wrong. That's bias, and Halperin would better serve journalism by acknowledging it, rather than appearing on right-wing talk radio to urge an ideological purge of newsrooms.
-----
So…is Gatekeeping faltering in today’s media? In my opinion, without a doubt. Is Agenda Setting occurring? Absolutely. And there is little else as perilous for the journalist profession.
Media influence
This week’s readings focused on the topics of gate-keeping and agenda-setting. Do the media affect public perception of certain issues? If so, how much do they influence the public? McCombs and Shaw’s study, for example, addresses these very questions, and the research shows the media agenda definitely influences the public agenda and opinion.
While going through this week’s reading, I kept thinking about last week’s coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s death. Cohen notes in the Rogers and Dearing article that “the press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.” This is certainly my experience, as everybody at work was talking about it.
I never watched the Anna Nicole Smith reality show nor did I know much about her other than her up-and-down weight issues. But the media coverage following her death was excessive in my opinion. And I’m not the only one who thought that way…
See this article written in the USA Today about the Anna Nicole Smith coverage: http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2007-02-11-media-mix_x.htm
The article talks about the type of coverage that the death was given. The coverage is “validated” from a Good Morning America professor and is “explained” by a scholar.
Another good article from the Detroit Free-Press about the excessive coverage - http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070209/ENT07/70209036 - reads kind of like a warning…”there will be more coverage of this event coming: beware” – which is interesting because it’s kind of like the media warning the public from the media. What’s wrong with that picture?
McQuail chapter 12 lists the influences on news selection, and the first criteria noted is “people.” When deciding what’s news, McQuail says “there is a general tendency to look for well-known people, especially leading politicians and celebrities” (312). This is certainly true in a lot of instances – think how often Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie are in the news for doing nothing.
My question to you: given the excessive coverage of the death, how do you think Anna Nicole’s image/reputation will change post-humorously? Maybe you don’t think it will be changed at all, and that’s fine. But how does the media influence our perception of Anna Nicole?
While going through this week’s reading, I kept thinking about last week’s coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s death. Cohen notes in the Rogers and Dearing article that “the press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.” This is certainly my experience, as everybody at work was talking about it.
I never watched the Anna Nicole Smith reality show nor did I know much about her other than her up-and-down weight issues. But the media coverage following her death was excessive in my opinion. And I’m not the only one who thought that way…
See this article written in the USA Today about the Anna Nicole Smith coverage: http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2007-02-11-media-mix_x.htm
The article talks about the type of coverage that the death was given. The coverage is “validated” from a Good Morning America professor and is “explained” by a scholar.
Another good article from the Detroit Free-Press about the excessive coverage - http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070209/ENT07/70209036 - reads kind of like a warning…”there will be more coverage of this event coming: beware” – which is interesting because it’s kind of like the media warning the public from the media. What’s wrong with that picture?
McQuail chapter 12 lists the influences on news selection, and the first criteria noted is “people.” When deciding what’s news, McQuail says “there is a general tendency to look for well-known people, especially leading politicians and celebrities” (312). This is certainly true in a lot of instances – think how often Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie are in the news for doing nothing.
My question to you: given the excessive coverage of the death, how do you think Anna Nicole’s image/reputation will change post-humorously? Maybe you don’t think it will be changed at all, and that’s fine. But how does the media influence our perception of Anna Nicole?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Cultivation
Cultivation theory is simply the idea that what we watch on television directly affects the way we relate to the culture around us. It focuses on the younger generation mostly because of the way are easily effected by what is on television. The two links below explore the origins of the theory and pose the question, "does television shape our culture, or does our culture shape television?"
This article is helpful in understanding some of the studies that have been done across the globe. It is interesting to see how controversial this subject can be. It is interesting to think of how our beliefs and lives can be shaped by a machine in each of our houses.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/A/htmlA/audienceresec/audienceresec.htm
This article explores the idea of how crime is presented through television. It use cultivation theory to express a link between the increase of crime and the increase of crime that was beginning displayed on the news. The article also explores the coming about of violence in films. Expressing the idea that the rise in violence on film are in some way connected to the rise in violence in real life.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_200010/ai_n8916365
No one wants to believe that what we watch can have any effect on how we are as people. But, the truth is what we put in is at some point going to come out. Television has always been a form of entertainment and should be viewed as such. I hope that we do not let it shape who we are and it is up to us as the viewers to help regulate was becomes popular on television.
This article is helpful in understanding some of the studies that have been done across the globe. It is interesting to see how controversial this subject can be. It is interesting to think of how our beliefs and lives can be shaped by a machine in each of our houses.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/A/htmlA/audienceresec/audienceresec.htm
This article explores the idea of how crime is presented through television. It use cultivation theory to express a link between the increase of crime and the increase of crime that was beginning displayed on the news. The article also explores the coming about of violence in films. Expressing the idea that the rise in violence on film are in some way connected to the rise in violence in real life.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_200010/ai_n8916365
No one wants to believe that what we watch can have any effect on how we are as people. But, the truth is what we put in is at some point going to come out. Television has always been a form of entertainment and should be viewed as such. I hope that we do not let it shape who we are and it is up to us as the viewers to help regulate was becomes popular on television.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)