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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Although it is very tragic what happened to Anna Nicole Smith, I do not feel that all this coverage should be given to her. Her family is trying to mourn and all they see on the news is all this negative stuff and it's dragging out the time until they will have closure. Also, there are other issues going on in the world right now and very little attention is given to it. I feel horrible for what happened to her but I don't want to constantly hear about her on the news. I do feel that her image is going to change. She is going to be turned into a victim and all the stupid stuff she has done will be forgotten.
Due to Gatekeeping and reinforcement from the FCC, content is examined and reviewed before aired on TV and radio and published in magazines and newspapers. However, while many times the content is evaluated for sex, violence and language I have to wonder who is looking at quality and validity? As McQuail stated the first criteria for media influence is “people”, how did people become so fascinated with sensational news? The quality and validity of news coverage such as the death of Anna Nicole Smith is outlined in the news articles presented. It seems as all media was focused on the death of this celebrity. There has been an excessive amount of coverage of the passing of Anna Nicole and the scandals surrounding her life. However, in this modern day case, it may not be as excessive as we think. Gossip news has become more and more popular over the years and now is seen on the mainstream nightly news coverage, examples being these two articles. Personally, my views of Anna Nicole haven’t changed after the coverage of her death. Looking back at the cultivation theory, we are directly influenced by the media. Because of the constant coverage of her life, I always had the impression she was some blonde, self-proclaimed nut case, fighting for her dead husband’s money. The only way I can see how the coverage of her death has changed someone’s view of Anna Nicole is if they have never really saw any coverage of her before her death. There was always controversy surrounding everything she had done, now, nothing has changed. People can influence what we see in the media, so until we, as a society, wish to see more coverage of intellectual stories, government, and what’s ACTAULLY going on in the world, news will continue to grow in sensationalism and drop in quality and validity.
I knew very little about Anna Nicole Smith then and still know very little now. While at work, I read online that she had passed away. Within minutes, news coverage of her death was all over the place, everyone was talking about it. The media does have a huge impact on its audience because we look to the media for information that is considered newsworthy. After constant reporting on every station and all over the internet, I finally decided to do a little research on her myself. Sad to say, I know just as much about her now as I did before she died...nothing! Just as Paula related back to the cultivation theory, I see the media has had an impact on me. One positive aspect that has come out is through the images of her and her daughter. I finally had the chance to see her as a loving and caring mother for her children, which gave me a slightly different outlook on Anna Nicole Smith as a person rather than as an entertainer.
What I do find amazing and somewhat amusing is the way the media is over exposing her paternity test, her will, and her daughter's future. There are tons of parents who have passed away and many paternity tests to be resolved, but for some strange reason Anna Nicole's is receiving news coverage and makes headlines every single day. The media does a great job of planting information in our minds, making sure to come back and nourish and feed our brains everyday single day with information that is said to be “newsworthy.” So to this day, I can honestly say I think about the presidential election where for the first time in history a female candidate and an African American candidate will run, global warming, and crime in urban cities and not to forget Anna Nicole Smith’s death.
Most media outlets output the stories they think people will be interested in. It's only natural then for Anna Nicole Smith's death to receive what one may view as excessive coverage. We're in a time of celebrity-obsession, and Smith was one of the flashiest trashiest celebrities ever in existence. It's not meant to be disrespectful, but the truth sometimes is. It's true the bizarre astronaut love triangle was happening at the same time and by 'news' standards should have been given the spotlight, but the death of a household name has always taken precendence. What makes Smith's more of a ubiquitious presence in the media though is not just that she died, but everything else that has surrounded her recently. The son's death right after Smith gave birth, her battle over her billionaire husband's fortune...those are realistic issues, and it just happens to be the center of those stories was a Playboy bunny. You can say this is a classic example of media influence because people are talking about it, but let's see how much coverage she gets in the next few weeks.
Most media outlets output the stories they think people will be interested in. It's only natural then for Anna Nicole Smith's death to receive what one may view as excessive coverage. We're in a time of celebrity-obsession, and Smith was one of the flashiest trashiest celebrities ever in existence. It's not meant to be disrespectful, but the truth sometimes is. It's true the bizarre astronaut love triangle was happening at the same time and by 'news' standards should have been given the spotlight, but the death of a household name has always taken precedence. What makes Smith's more of a ubiquitous presence in the media though is not just that she died, but everything else that has surrounded her recently. The son's death right after Smith gave birth, her battle over her billionaire husband's fortune...those are realistic issues, and it just happens to be the center of those stories was a Playboy bunny. You can say this is a classic example of media influence because people are talking about it, but let's see how much coverage she gets in the next few weeks.
It is hard to believe that the media devoted so much time and space to Anna Nicole’s death and it makes me wonder, was the extensive (and in my opinion excessive) coverage of Anna Nicole’s death the result of a slow news day, or was it an attempt to increase viewership and engage readers who otherwise might tune into E! to get their news? Smith’s death, in my opinion, will change the public’s perception of her. While she was once thought of as a caricature of herself, she will now be viewed as a tormented figure, more along the lines of Marilyn Monroe.
Although I do think the death of Anna Nicole Smith has been given a bit too much publicity, celebrity news sells. Celebrity news magazines are one of the most popular genres of magazines, and they continue to keep growing. As stated in the article, “We’re fascinated by it, but we don’t necessarily think it has any value.” The American public is fascinated with celebrities.
In response to your question, I think we have already seen how the excessive coverage of her death has changed her image. The article stated that a Google search indicated over 2,000 articles, none of them having anything to say about what she did with her life. The media and the public is obsessed with her death and the scandals surrounding the last few months of her life. The media specifically influences our perception of Anna Nicole Smith because we only read and hear what they allow us to read and hear. If no one writes about her accomplishments in life, i.e. her raising a son as a single mom, becoming a world-known model/sex symbol from a simple country girl and her battles in court, then no one will remember this about her. The public will simply be informed of her death and the scandal surrounding her death because that is all the media is covering and writing about.
I think that the media has a certain influence on how the general public views news stories. You would think that because of someone's death, the media outlets would show some respect and give only relevant and sporadic updates. The death of a person is a private matter for the family and should not get the amount of press Anne Nicole's did. It is sad when the top story on ABC nightly news or any other prominent news station is about Anne Nicole's death, the paternity case of her daughter, or entire life story played over and over again. There are more important issues around the world to cover than this. I do feel that her death should be announced by the media and an obituary statement and cause of death would have been fine. The fact that there was coverage 24 hours a day about her death was far too much. I do not think it is fair to the family and friends, who are mourning, to have to be reminded everytime they turn on the TV and have their lives interupted for interviews. After all the negative coverage they have put on Anne Nicole, I think it will change post-mortem. I think they will try to make her a victim of her own demise.
Post a Comment