Unit 3, Issue 8

Can the Media Regain Public Trust?

I believe the media is the heart of what people come to know. They present the information in a way that will call people in, lure their attention, and then work on doing what it takes to keep them there. But knowing and being aware doesn't quite pinpoint the fact that do or do not people trust what they hear. Dictionary.com comes to define trust as:

1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., 

of aperson or thing; confidence.

2. confident expectation of something; hope.

Through the different forms of media, each story is portrayed through the viewpoint of its source. But does the media portray integrity? Or more so, are people confident in what they watch and hear? It is true there are some sources of media and news that are more reliant than others and they do carry the responsibility of keeping the public informed. With so many technological advancements, the media has expanded from newspapers to TV and internet, making more resources available to verify the strengths of the information. But even then for example, I highly doubt that someone who sits and watches the 11:00pm o'Clock news, which should be giving us current, valid information, will then get up, go to the internet and verify that the stories he just watched are true. Very  FEW if ANY would do this. 

News does help to keep the democracy from grave danger. It portrays only what they want the public to know, therefor keeping uniformity amongst the people. Yet "trust" being a very deeply rooted word, it is so hard to place one's trust in something that comes to change by the hour. 

Governor Race Info. and my Rating

SOURCE        SUBSTANTIVE COVERAGE                        HYPE                   HUMOR                    WIKIPEDIA                                       7                                0                               0                WASHINGTON POST                                      9                               3                                 0         Megwhitman.com                                       8                              4                                 0                  Jerrybrown.org                                       8                              5                              0                          YouTube                                       6                                 3                                 9

1.) GOOGLE SEARCH WIKIPEDIA: I found it very simple and easy to read and understand. It gave very basic information to get the major concept of what the Governor Race was and when it is held, who the candidates running were, and brief standings. It also gave minor detail about the candidates and their backgrounds; it had their names as link to send you to a wikipedia  page about the person themselves.

2.) WASHINGTON POST: This website portrayed direct stories from the running of the candidates. It gave their information through headline stories that grasped people's attention to read the articles. The information given is for the most part true facts about what the candidates are doing in order to win the people. There is some hype portrayed such as "horse race" - the standings of the candidates - and "hoopla" - photos of activities they are attending.

3.) MEG 2010: Meg Whitman's official website does give substantive coverage on who she is, what she represents and is fighting towards, events she does, and how to stay connected with her. It was a well organized web page and made attractive and simple for the people. But of course it is biased towards view her own interests in this running. There was hype portrayed through her strategies of change, videos, handshaking, crowds, and many more images.

4.) JERRY BROWN: Jerry Brown's official website gave substantive coverage on his view points and what he is representing in this race. He also gave a way to stay in contact with him through facebook, gmail, and yahoomail. Hype was portrayed through a commercial he recently made and through various article with photographs of activities he is attending to reach out to the people/crowd.

5.) YOUTUBE: Although it is composed of many video clips, youtube gave many short clips of personal interviews from the candidates which gave substantive information on their viewpoints and what they represent. It gave the viewers a chance to hear the candidates directly. Along side substantive information, there was also hype through news videos of standings of the candidates and how the running is going. Humor was also presented in a mocking way by the people acting or joking about the candidates.

Overall, each source gave a different perspective on the race for governor and the big decisions being made for the near future.

Unit 3, Issue 10

Will Evolving Forms of Journalism Be an Improvement?

For the first time I fully understood and saw the opposing points defend their answer with a firm response. Although I did feel they only had one defense, we read Deuze, Bruns, and Neuberger, they all had creditable case studies that were made to promote their "yes". They focused their answer on saying that news should be presented in a way where it reaches out to the community, and more specifically the newer and younger generations who aren't picking up a newspaper anymore. They want to reach out in a way where there is involvement from the people and hear their opinions, of course with the foundation of factual information from professionals. I did agree with them pointing out that now the internet, being one of the main sources for news and accurate information, is given out free, because so many people use it. I think one of the main reasons younger people turn to the internet for news is because, one they don't have to pay, and two the information takes seconds to load up. 

Now turning to the testimony of David Simon...speechless. I felt like he defended his answer (no) with such affirmation and belief in what he stood for. At the end he had me convinced that the new/evolving forms of journalism weren't an improvement but instead the destruction of careers, newspapers, lifestyles in dedication to journalism, complex in depth reporting, etc. He states "...post-modern rallying cry that information want to be free. But information isn't free" (pg. 222). The expenses of getting to the core of news is so commonly bypassed because we simply have it at a click of a button. And for that same reason, ANYONE can voice their OPINION and portray it as a fact.

As a college student, its hard for me to take a side when i should be first in line to say i look up news online on a day to day basis, but pick up a newspaper twice a year if a lot. But to think of all the hard work and dedication people placed into becoming great journalist thirty years ago makes me wonder how many talents are going unseen or covered by the louder voice of someone else; a louder voice that isn't necessarily stronger. 

Reflection on Fake News

Watching The Daily Show with John Steward and Colbert Report with Steven Colbert, was pure laughter for me. They both clearly figured "Substantive Coverage", "Hype", and "Humor" throughout their show. What was most predominant for me was their humor. Regardless of the topic they were covering, there was always humor - mainly joking in a mocking way. With facial expressions, exaggerated gestures, and altered images, they portray the news in a humorous way. There's not one moment of the entire show where they speak about a situation in a serious tone of voice to really give factual news. There's constant laughter in the background from the crowd, also portraying that whatever is being said is in a humous way.

Through watching this and comparing it to actual news, I think there is complete opposite pole of perception between both forms of news. With the simple introduction and background music used, to the fact that both these sources are seated in front of a crowd to entertain, its difficult to see this news as a reliable source.

Unit3, Issue 9

Does Fake News Mislead the Public?

Reading through both Fox and Hollander's controversial opinions, I felt like they both leaned more towards answer "no" to that question, although Fox's answer was "yes". Fox defends her answer through saying that people depend on the media to receive political information and through most recent years, young (teen) people turn to "comedic sources" for their information. She states, "media can fill those voids with second-hand information that is central to construction of social reality" (pg. 176). The young crowd has been turning to late night shows, such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, to feed off of and raise an opinion on political campaigns.

Now Hollander defends his answer through stating that although entertainment programs do inform people, there is no correlation between what is viewed and their political knowledge. He states, "the research here supports the idea that younger people seek out entertainment-based programs to keep up with a political campaign and that watching such programs is more likely to be associated with recognition of campaign information than it is with recall of actual information" (pg. 196).

So in my opinion, although fake news may give out false information in a comic way, it does not mislead the public. People who watch late night shows must understand the concept and comic perception these people are giving. In no way are they speaking to inform the public of real/factual issues affecting the US, but instead to entertain.

Fox vs. MSNBC

When opening the site, first thing that jumped out at me was that Fox reports more "current events" happening both around the world and in the US. They give a deeper insight on the events that directly affect people in the US, and specifically from what I read, people living in California. I saw a report on a immigration shooting in Los Angeles. People have become aggressive towards the unfair justice system towards police officers making drastic decisions in the discipline they give to immigrants - Los Angeles being the main focus here. They say they have started investigations on the officers histories and I interpreted this as trying to portray security to the people and they are trying to keep immigrants safe. 

MSNBC has portrayed mostly political controversy. Most of the headlines go over all the decisions Obama is making that have come to affect the people. They direct their attention to the situations that are coming to make America angry and trying to portray Obama as a man who is trying to keep the US safe and justifying all the decisions he's making. 

Fox would definitely, to me, be a more people friendly news reporter. I feel they make things a little more understandable and directly, in a "sugar-coded" way. 

Unit 1, Issue 1

As soon as I read the title question "Are American Values Shaped by the Mass Media?", the automatic answer that came to mind was "yes!". But as I began to read both, Schiller and Carey's points of view, I had to really analyze my quick response.

In The Myth of Unchanging Human Nature, Schiller says, “what human nature is seen to be ultimately affects the way human beings behave, not because they must act the way they do but because they believe they are expected to act that way…" (pg. 7). This statement really jumped out at me! I completely agree with Schiller in saying this because its true. I believe that although media portrays many characteristics and behaviors, people choose to follow them because they categorize it as the "right" way, yet little do they realize its been manipulated into their minds through subconscious ways of saying "it brings acceptance".

On the opposite side, Carey stands in saying American values aren't shaped by the media mass. He did go into state many forms of beliefs such as religion, politics, etc., that do shape American values. He also emphasized how values are transmitted to the people through "giving and sending information through various forms". In this, I believe Carey is right and the most common form of communication is through the information being transmitted among the people. “Society is possible because of the binding forces of shared information circulating in an organic system” (pg. 18). People come to have values because of what is most commonly seen and believe around them. Once again, they are manipulated into believe in order to be a part of.

In conclusion, I come to believe that although it changes through time, the mass media does essentially shape American values. Although when a constant is changed, when enforced and repeated, time makes it valuable. People come to view things that once weren't accepted as something that can now or potentially be morally correct. And we can't fail to mention that at all ends meet, America (people) itself has come to shape the mass media, who then reflects what is already valued.

I'm here!

:)