Democracy and Media Chp.14, 15 &16

Journalism. Although I can appreciate writing of all forms, I question journalism.  Call me a cynic, but can a person really be neutral on every topic? They are LIARS!!! Yes, if you are going to report facts, you must set aside your personal bias and do just that present the facts.  However, I believe, as long as one can think, they can feel; being detached from your feelings is simply impossible and just not human. And it is a shame that journalists can’t even voice their political opinions outside of work because they need to maintain their so-called “neutrality.”  They are not living scrolls or monks taking a vow of silence. It’s almost like their freedom of speech is being taken away from. Then again they chose that profession not me.

One of the questions in chapter 14 asked, “ Are there no new ways to report the news?” Hmm? Besides shows that parody news like SNL or The Colbert Report (with their intentions of comedic effect to approach real issues), I don’t see how society can report the news in a new way. Sure, drama sell, drama is sexy, it gets our attention so is there really a need to present such stories in a new way? Information is information no matter what format be it we get our news from our TVs, radios, cell-phones, computers/laptops, ect. Also, I this chapter it made an interesting note that even though journalists try to get a story first it doesn’t really matter to the viewer or even boosts ratings.

Chapter 15 presents the age-old question of does art imitate life or vise versa. From all the tragic events that rocked the nation, everyone seems to blame the media and it’s violence. And through these tragic events, people who were close to love ones that were murdered by mentally disturbed individuals always seem to try and profit from their circumstances. However, there cases are always considered invalid. Can we as a society use media violence as a scapegoat for our behavior? Let’s face it; the media is NOT for the weak-minded. As far as Chp.16 goes, freedom of expression has it’s limits. Especially in this day in age where everything is copyrighted and certain material or words are censored. 

The Media, 911, Iraq

      If you mention September 11, 2001 to anyone in the US (especially New Yorkers), you’ll receive numerous stories and emotions that relate to either tragedy or courageousness. People wanted their stories to be told, and news reporters were more than ready to receive any ‘scoop’ they could get their hands on.

      Yes, September 11 struck a media frenzy all over the nation and across the world. You could not flip through channels without being bombarded with images of the Twin Towers crumbling down, people jumping out of the Towers only to plunge into their death, and bystanders running for cover as debris was falling onto their heads. Through these horrific images people went from being deeply hurt to anger and all fingers pointed to the Middle East. Could America ever feel safe again?

It does not surprise me that after such a tragic day, all focus would now be turned to the Middle East and the thought of such people having weapons of mass destruction in their grasp would be just the push Bush needed to retaliate. So, what did America do? Go to war.

      Yet, this is just the beginning of such a controversial event for there are two sides to every story. Michael Massing’s book entitled, Now They Tell Us  (more like what are they not telling us), depicts how, “pre-war journalism was flawed, as too many reporters failed to independently evaluate administration claims about Iraq’s weapons programs.”  Up till now, who could blame the reporters for skewing information at the time? To go against the current would cause one to question your patriotism.  Thus, no one would ask the tough questions, and if you pushed to hard you would not be called on during press conferences.

       Massing makes an interesting point that, “US news organizations gave Americans the war they thought they wanted to see.” It’s true. We Americans can take action a movie packed with violence and bloodshed but when it comes to actuality censorship is a must. Why is that? Massing mentions often times watching the BBC and Middle Eastern news channels because they reported everything (even the most graphic images of the war) they were not scared to ask the tough questions unlike American reporters because they were, “too sympathetic to the administration,” which compromised their journalism. It also didn’t help that US reporters were ignorant of the Arabic language, customs, religion, and region.

       Michael Massing leaves you feeling as if the war in Iraq has done more harm than good by displaying many articles of reporters fabricating and manipulating the events occurring in the war with Iraq (sometimes even not being mentioned at all a.k.a Times front headline stories). 

Mass Media Business

       I’ve come to realize, or maybe have always subconsciously known, that mass media is everywhere. You cannot avoid it you cannot escape it. Why? Because unless your both death and blind there will always be ways the media will creep into our consumer minds and feed our never-ending wants.  How do “they” continue to control our psyche? Ads. Advertising agencies spend millions each year to buy our minds. Yet, we as consumers keep falling into their carefully researched traps. All ads try to appear to some social niche or groups of people with the ideal that the particular product they are selling is somehow relatable to that particular group. However, it’s a shame that advertising agencies will openly use stereotypes to sell a product. Why? Because the cooperate world is full of predominately wealthy white males who have either established or inherited large media cooperations (a.k.a Murdoch and Disney among the many), so the majority of their views on society is bias but is backed by large bills MONEY. And money travels far. For instance, I do not think M. Night Shyamalan, an Indian film director, would have appreciated a title with a racial slur as Slumdog. But Danny Boyle, an English film director, obviously did not mind and many went out to see the movie regardless of its controversial title. So, is media and advertising the one to blame for all the prejudices and racism in the world? No. Although, I feel it definitely helps to continue such cruel practices. However, I find it funny that on one hand the media uses stereotypes to sell products but on the other will use public relations to promote positive images. But sometimes a negative image of a person results in positive feedback, and then again it could backlash. Like Paris Hilton, no one would have ever known who she was if her sex tape didn’t reach the masses. But with much PR (public relation), she is now her own commodity making millions upon her billions as an heiress. In the end, the mass media business is one big contradiction after another. 

Extra! Extra! Read All About It!

          Newspapers. I don’t like them. I hardly read them. I don’t subscribe to none of them. So, when I found out this week’s reading would consist of the rise and fall of newspapers, I cringed a little. When I sat down to read this chapter, I expected it to be painfully mind- numbing, but to my surprise it was not. Although, there were times when the information spewing out from the text felt a bit lengthy and redundant (particularly the listings of topics newspapers put in their papers). A few things sparked my interest while I was reading this certain chapter. First, I did not know that Julius Caesar developed a somewhat newspaper entitled, Acta Diurna. I guess I missed that information in my social studies class. Second, I did not know that the first newspaper, developed by Benjamin Harris, was the last newspaper. It’s a shame it was banned after one issue, maybe the title Publick Occurences, Both Foreign and Domestick, was just too long to read and did not sound very patriotic. Or could it be the fact that, “having a negative tone regarding British rule,” did not help Harris’s newspaper in the long run. Third, I saw the irony of how the New York World, bought by Joseph Pulitzer, and the New York Journal, bought by William Randolph Hearst would compete against each other even though Albert (Pulitzer’s brother) founded the New York Journal. If this chapter has taught me anything, it has shown me that the newspaper business is a dirty, backstabbing industry that would do just about anything to stay on top. It seems as though newspapers went from being partisan “just stating facts”, to being interpretive, to eventually being mostly about displaying as many advertisements as it possibly can. Now what does that say about today’s American society?

            It’s no secret that newspapers are struggling, but books seem to withstand the hands of time. From the papyrus of Ancient Egypt to Amazon.com, no matter what form/medium writing takes place in, people will read! Books are here to stay.

Blog Thoughts

        Truthfully, the only time I watch the news is to check and see what the weather will be like for the day. I guess it’s because I get sick of hearing a long stream of murders, muggings, money loss in stocks and other terrible things happening locally, in the city, or globally.  Even when there is a slight chance that a reporter might actually report a positive story, it is always followed up by something devastating or horrendous. I feel like not only sex sells, but violence does to (or maybe that’s just stating the obvious).  Thus, I question, would people still watch the news if a news show dedicated itself to just presenting positive news for a week? I wonder if ratings would go down by Tuesday. Secretly I think people are drawn about hearing other people’s misfortunes. Yet, of course being in a civilized society where we no longer act brutishly and behave like troglodytes, would we ever admit to enjoying someone else’s tragedy (until it hits close to home and even then we still do).

      The news is a sad reality. You can never escape hearing about how people lie, steal, and kill from news anchors. So, why am I not surprised when I hear in the movie Outfoxed that Bill O’Reilly is a pathological liar or that Fox news reporters would use the line “People say…” to cover up their own personal opinions. Have we really evolved?  I believe that people’s innermost thoughts are caveman-like but are repressed in a more subconscious level. Except for people like Bill O’Reilly, they flat out act upon their enraged feelings alone. Probably that’s why our jails are packed with inmates who we deem are a danger to society. Still, I can see why people like watching O’Reilly, he is lively, zealous, and most important entertaining. And that is what is going to boost ratings.

        Anyway, I know you mentioned you like to look at cool and interesting things on our blogs, well if I only knew how to post links and remember I don’t even have a myspace, facebook, or a twitter: just bare with me I’m learning.  But I can refer you to one song by M.I.A. entitled “THE MESSAGE”. It’s catchy don’t worry it’s nothing crazy, it relates to the media and the government. You might find it…dare I say it… Entertaining! And now I must get back to studying.

Who's in Charge?: Television and Movies

          Underneath McDonalds there is a small, dark room where three men run world! Seriously, after watching the movie Manufacturing Consent last week, I have questioned if the cooperate world has ever really been for the people. Advertising, agencies and conglomerate chains have all but two goals: to sell and to profit (mostly profit). But who is to blame? Do we blame ourselves for indulging in false images and sounds that leave empty promises only to promise “new and improve” versions of products? Or do we blame advertising agencies for constantly distracting us with luring images that promote only a short term of self-satisfaction? Either way you look at it it’s a never ending cycle, but who started the cycling frenzy to begin with? Could there possibly be a secret society running this whole economy? Is it likely that advertising and promoting new products, particularly technology, is just a mere tool to something greater?

            As I read through chapters 5,6,7 and recall fond memories of VHS tapes, movies, and the infamous PBS station that put me to sleep as a child, I am alarmed by such rapid advancements in technology. Not only can we turn on the TV, dial numbers on a wireless phone, swipe a card at the grocery, we now have the power to personalize our TVs, cell-phones, credit cards, and much more to our likings. If you like a certain television show DVR it, surf the internet, make movies, and much more on a cell-phone, and even if you have bad credit your credit card can at least look “pimped out” with personalize pictures. Truly, I feel that if we keep personalizing our technology, soon it will become part of us physically. No airwaves or electronic signals needed. Just the human body and a computer chip implant. 

Mass Communication and the Internet

            Remember playing the “telephone-game” when you were in elementary school? The rules were easy. All you had to do was listen to the sentence that was being whispered and repeat what you heard into a fellow classmate’s ear. However, in a room filled with short attention spans and giggles, it would seem that the goal of the telephone-game could never be achieved. Either some poor soul would forget instantly what was said and scramble to come up with something new, misinterpret what was whispered, or deliberately jumble up the message for their own satisfaction. Ultimately, the real message gets revealed and everyone is in bewilderment.

            This example is but a small representation of the linear model of mass communication and its affect on society. In this case, the message (which portrays texts) travels through numerous ears (mass media channel) and ends up being received (children who are not the senders at the time but receivers of the message). Yet, there are no gatekeepers and the only feedback is at the end when the false as well as the real message is exposed. In the book, Media and Culture, on page 13 Roger Rosenblatt states in Time magazine that, “We are a narrative species. We exist by storytelling-by relating our situations-and the test of our evolution may lie in getting the story right.”

          Since the oral and written era has passed and the age of convergence has come, what better way can we leave behind our identities for the next generation than through digital communication? No matter how far we progress technology wise, we ourselves cannot escape the need to feel connected with others. Whether we join social networking sites, write blogs, or contribute to Wiki websites, in the end, all we really want is our story to be told and to be told truthfully.

           Authors Richard Campbell, Christopher Martin, and Bettina Fabos of Media and Culture, do an amazing job with breaking down various processes (like the linear model of mass communication, or media literacy and the critical process for case studies) so that the reader can understand such complicated inner workings of the media and mass communication. Part of the writers’ appeal is their ability to combine historical facts with present day situations to produce startling information that is well outlined and relatable.