2. If you owned a community newspaper and had to formulate a policy for your editors about which letters from readers could appear in a limited space on your editorial page, what kinds of letters would you eliminate and why? Would you be acting as a censor in this situation? Why or why not?
If I owned a newspaper my first concern would be credibility, therefore I would want my newspaper to be as unbiased as possible. So the first policy would be to show both sides of the story. I would set a quota for each side in order to have a decent amount of each opinion. It does not have to be totally equal but as long as there is a chance for each side of the story to be heard. The way I could utilize the small amount of space is by publishing the letters that have the most relevance to the story and is not just some crazy person going off on how much they hate or love something. I would want opinions and views based off of facts in my paper. In that way I would be a sort of a censor but as long as there is not something totally inappropriate and illegal to be published then I would not mind whatever people have to say.
3. The writer A.J. Liebling once said that freedom of the press belonged only to those who owned one. Explain why you agree or disagree.
Technically speaking, yes I believe that he is right although I think I still have a different opinion than him. Freedom of the press only belongs to people who have them because they physically have a press to use and say what they want. Freedom of the press does still belong to people who do not have a press but they do not have access to a press so they cannot exercise that freedom. If they pay someone to use it or get their own then they their previously dormant freedom becomes active and they can exercise it. Everybody has the same freedoms, just not everyone can exercise all of their freedoms.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Questioning the Media ch. 15
2. One charge that has been leveled against a lot of media research-both the effect and the cultural models-is that is has very little impact on changing our media institutions. Do you agree or disagree and why?
I disagree, I think research has shown what has become more popular and what people tend to gravitate towards and it has changed the media. There is a reason people have started to get their news online as opposed to the television or newspaper. The same reason also explains reasons for the invention of things like the kindle and ebooks. The explanation is simple, the internet is easy to access and things as small as kindles and laptops are easy to carry around. Someone can go into a coffee shop and read infinitely more news on his or her laptop than they can through a newspaper. This research and observations have encouraged newspapers and other news sources to now put all their information online.
3. Can you think of an issue that media industry and academic researchers could study together? Explain.
A blazing issue came to mind when I read this question and it was the effects of television on young children and learning. Children watch an enormous amount of television and are extremely influenced by it. Even into their older years are they influenced by it. I just recently started watching a few episodes of some shows I watched from when I was a kid. I realized many of them had similar themes and values and upon some contemplating I realized that I also hold many of those values as important values. The question is can the media industries help researchers time how much television kids watch and help them come up with a way to positively influence these kids. Examples would be of when kids watch television the most and if researchers determine kids do learn from television. Therefore they could collaborate and determine when it is the best time to show positively influencing and educational shows.
I disagree, I think research has shown what has become more popular and what people tend to gravitate towards and it has changed the media. There is a reason people have started to get their news online as opposed to the television or newspaper. The same reason also explains reasons for the invention of things like the kindle and ebooks. The explanation is simple, the internet is easy to access and things as small as kindles and laptops are easy to carry around. Someone can go into a coffee shop and read infinitely more news on his or her laptop than they can through a newspaper. This research and observations have encouraged newspapers and other news sources to now put all their information online.
3. Can you think of an issue that media industry and academic researchers could study together? Explain.
A blazing issue came to mind when I read this question and it was the effects of television on young children and learning. Children watch an enormous amount of television and are extremely influenced by it. Even into their older years are they influenced by it. I just recently started watching a few episodes of some shows I watched from when I was a kid. I realized many of them had similar themes and values and upon some contemplating I realized that I also hold many of those values as important values. The question is can the media industries help researchers time how much television kids watch and help them come up with a way to positively influence these kids. Examples would be of when kids watch television the most and if researchers determine kids do learn from television. Therefore they could collaborate and determine when it is the best time to show positively influencing and educational shows.
Questioning the Media ch. 13
1. Are you exposed to popular culture from other countries? Why or why not? Give some examples.
Personally, yes I am exposed to popular culture from other countries. Although it is not because I go out of my way to seek exposure and I do not have many friends from outside the country. The reason I am exposed to popular culture from outside the country is because I am learning German. I know speaking German is not apart of popular culture but during class we also talk about German culture and how it is different from American culture, popular or not. I have learned things like American traditional dating is not the same as German and that Germans listen to very different types of music. I do have friends who have been to other countries but even if they did try to influence what popular culture they learned in other countries I do not believe it would take hold in America or even with a small group of friends.
2. Do you read international news? Why or why not?
No, I do not read international news. The reason is because I do not even read national news, why would I bother to read international news then? The news has really never interested me unless it has to do with sports, for example I did not even know about the British Royal Wedding until the day before it happened. If it is important I figure I will learn about it one way or the other. Another example, I did not watch the news or go online to a news website to learn about Osama bin Laden being killed. I heard it as people screamed it down my hall and posted over Facebook. The news hardly has anything good to say so I do not care to listen to all the things that are wrong with us when I am not really in a position to fix things. I would rather read about who made good draft picks or who got traded or cut. Therefore, international news is of no interest to me.
Personally, yes I am exposed to popular culture from other countries. Although it is not because I go out of my way to seek exposure and I do not have many friends from outside the country. The reason I am exposed to popular culture from outside the country is because I am learning German. I know speaking German is not apart of popular culture but during class we also talk about German culture and how it is different from American culture, popular or not. I have learned things like American traditional dating is not the same as German and that Germans listen to very different types of music. I do have friends who have been to other countries but even if they did try to influence what popular culture they learned in other countries I do not believe it would take hold in America or even with a small group of friends.
2. Do you read international news? Why or why not?
No, I do not read international news. The reason is because I do not even read national news, why would I bother to read international news then? The news has really never interested me unless it has to do with sports, for example I did not even know about the British Royal Wedding until the day before it happened. If it is important I figure I will learn about it one way or the other. Another example, I did not watch the news or go online to a news website to learn about Osama bin Laden being killed. I heard it as people screamed it down my hall and posted over Facebook. The news hardly has anything good to say so I do not care to listen to all the things that are wrong with us when I am not really in a position to fix things. I would rather read about who made good draft picks or who got traded or cut. Therefore, international news is of no interest to me.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Questioning the Media ch. 12
1. What do you think of when you hear the term public relations? What images come to mind? Where did these impressions come from?
Sports have played a major role in my life and when I think of public relations I think of professional athletes, specifically NFL players. All I really watch is ESPN and NFL Network, and those are just sports all day and night. I do not follow gossip on celebreties but if an NFL or other professional athlete gets in trouble I hear it almost immediately. When I think of public relations I think of how the public views these professional athletes. Although I generally think of it in a negative way because it is not important on how the public views athletes until they have a bad opinion of him/her. No one tries to fix a good reputation and there is certainly no news coverage on somebody who everyone thinks is a nice guy.
4. Can and should the often hostile relationship between the journalism and PR professions be mended? Why or Why Not?
The hostile relationship between those two professions should absolutely be mended. Although I do not believe it could happen as long as journalist stay the way they are. Journalist try to make someone look bad because it will get that person in the news and the journalist will make money and PR people try to mend that bad news. As long as journalist are willing to go to the stretches that they do then there will be no success in mending the hostility. Although it is also slightly on the public's fault. If people did not eat up and enjoy hearing about successful people's downfall than there would be no reason for the journalists to cover it so intensely.
Sports have played a major role in my life and when I think of public relations I think of professional athletes, specifically NFL players. All I really watch is ESPN and NFL Network, and those are just sports all day and night. I do not follow gossip on celebreties but if an NFL or other professional athlete gets in trouble I hear it almost immediately. When I think of public relations I think of how the public views these professional athletes. Although I generally think of it in a negative way because it is not important on how the public views athletes until they have a bad opinion of him/her. No one tries to fix a good reputation and there is certainly no news coverage on somebody who everyone thinks is a nice guy.
4. Can and should the often hostile relationship between the journalism and PR professions be mended? Why or Why Not?
The hostile relationship between those two professions should absolutely be mended. Although I do not believe it could happen as long as journalist stay the way they are. Journalist try to make someone look bad because it will get that person in the news and the journalist will make money and PR people try to mend that bad news. As long as journalist are willing to go to the stretches that they do then there will be no success in mending the hostility. Although it is also slightly on the public's fault. If people did not eat up and enjoy hearing about successful people's downfall than there would be no reason for the journalists to cover it so intensely.
Questioning the Media ch. 11
2. Why are so many people critical of advertising?
People are critical of advertising for very fundemental reasons. Advertising may support, and try to gain support, for things they do not like or do not approve of. A mother is not going to like seeing an advertisement with people smoking in public places around children, and Europeans are not going to like the Bud Light commercial mocking them for wearing speedos. People become spitfully critical of things they do not like or agree with. Advertising covers all realm of possibilites for products and services. Therefore with everything being availble for advertising it makes it easier for people to be critical of it Although it would not be fair, or Constitutional, to limit what can and can not be advertised. Last year I heard a commercial for a website that helps people in relationships find affairs, of course I did not like that but maybe someone else does.
7. Is advertising at odds with the ideals of democracy? Why or Why Not?
I do not believe advertising is at odds with the ideals of democracy at all. If anything, I believe it is rather in accordance with the ideals as long as it is not limited to certain products or services. Advertising is a form of speech, and democracy allows for free speech which includes advertising. Not everyone is going to like what every single other person says but that can not possibly be expected with all the opinions that exist. Advertising may appeal to some people, but not all. Although that does not mean its free speech should be impeded. The only time when advertising really should be absolutely limited is when people are telling lies about products.
People are critical of advertising for very fundemental reasons. Advertising may support, and try to gain support, for things they do not like or do not approve of. A mother is not going to like seeing an advertisement with people smoking in public places around children, and Europeans are not going to like the Bud Light commercial mocking them for wearing speedos. People become spitfully critical of things they do not like or agree with. Advertising covers all realm of possibilites for products and services. Therefore with everything being availble for advertising it makes it easier for people to be critical of it Although it would not be fair, or Constitutional, to limit what can and can not be advertised. Last year I heard a commercial for a website that helps people in relationships find affairs, of course I did not like that but maybe someone else does.
7. Is advertising at odds with the ideals of democracy? Why or Why Not?
I do not believe advertising is at odds with the ideals of democracy at all. If anything, I believe it is rather in accordance with the ideals as long as it is not limited to certain products or services. Advertising is a form of speech, and democracy allows for free speech which includes advertising. Not everyone is going to like what every single other person says but that can not possibly be expected with all the opinions that exist. Advertising may appeal to some people, but not all. Although that does not mean its free speech should be impeded. The only time when advertising really should be absolutely limited is when people are telling lies about products.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Questioning the Media ch. 8
1. What kinds of stories, topics, or issues are not being covered well by mainstream papers?
I know it is rather cliche and pretty typical but feel-good stories are never typically in the papers. The papers attract people because of the dark, grueling and sad stories it portrays so often, nationally and internationally. Generally one will see the headlines talking about some natural disaster, terrorist attack, lack of oil or how poor the economy is. I am not saying that these things do not need to be reported because they most certainly do but so do the good things that happen. It would raise national moral and possibly inspire people want to do better things. Mainstream papers could reach the whole nation and just like it is disappointing to hear bad news it is inspiring to hear good news.
5. Will blogs and other Internet news services eventually replace newspapers? Explain your response.
I do not think that newspapers will ever get replaced, at least not by something electronic. There are far too many stipulations that are required to read things on the Internet. Not everybody has such accessibility or think it is just too much trouble to read things on the Internet. Some people would rather sit down and read a nice paper in the coffee shop and tossing it once they are done rather than carrying around their laptop, connecting to wifi, that you have to pay for sometimes, and reading off a computer screen. Plus there will always be that nostalgic feeling that people will have for newspapers.
I know it is rather cliche and pretty typical but feel-good stories are never typically in the papers. The papers attract people because of the dark, grueling and sad stories it portrays so often, nationally and internationally. Generally one will see the headlines talking about some natural disaster, terrorist attack, lack of oil or how poor the economy is. I am not saying that these things do not need to be reported because they most certainly do but so do the good things that happen. It would raise national moral and possibly inspire people want to do better things. Mainstream papers could reach the whole nation and just like it is disappointing to hear bad news it is inspiring to hear good news.
5. Will blogs and other Internet news services eventually replace newspapers? Explain your response.
I do not think that newspapers will ever get replaced, at least not by something electronic. There are far too many stipulations that are required to read things on the Internet. Not everybody has such accessibility or think it is just too much trouble to read things on the Internet. Some people would rather sit down and read a nice paper in the coffee shop and tossing it once they are done rather than carrying around their laptop, connecting to wifi, that you have to pay for sometimes, and reading off a computer screen. Plus there will always be that nostalgic feeling that people will have for newspapers.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Questioning the Media, ch. 6
1. How many cable channels do watch regularly? What programs do you watch? What attracts you to a certain channel?
I watch about about four cable channels; ESPN, Cartoon Network, NFL Newtwork and ABC. I really do not wander far from those channels unless I see a movie on some other channel that I want to watch. I watch just about show that comes on ESPN except Jim Rome is Burning and Baseball Tonight because I do not really like Jim Rome's show and I can not stand baseball so I am not at all interested in what is going on in the baseball world, plus they are all cheaters anyways. On Cartoon Network I watch Adventure Time and the Regular Show and that is all I watch on CN. I will watch anything on NFL Network and I watch Modern Family on ABC. What attracts me to these things is that they all interest me or entertain me. Learning what is going on in the sports world is about as educational as I get on TV.
4. CNN and MTV have changed out society as well as the global culture. Have these changes been positive or negative? Explain.
As much as I enjoy MTV, which is a lot, I do not exactly think it has impacted society in a positive matter and niether has CNN. MTV was good back in the day when it only played music but now it plays a bunch of reality TV that is absoultely useless. Everything on those shows revolves about who is having sex with who and who is going to fight in this episode. It is really annoying, I would much rather just watch music videos all day. CNN does deliever news that is slightly usefull but it is extremely biased, as every other news station is, and it only reports negative things. If someone only watched all the bad news they report then I think that person could fall into a state of depression.
I watch about about four cable channels; ESPN, Cartoon Network, NFL Newtwork and ABC. I really do not wander far from those channels unless I see a movie on some other channel that I want to watch. I watch just about show that comes on ESPN except Jim Rome is Burning and Baseball Tonight because I do not really like Jim Rome's show and I can not stand baseball so I am not at all interested in what is going on in the baseball world, plus they are all cheaters anyways. On Cartoon Network I watch Adventure Time and the Regular Show and that is all I watch on CN. I will watch anything on NFL Network and I watch Modern Family on ABC. What attracts me to these things is that they all interest me or entertain me. Learning what is going on in the sports world is about as educational as I get on TV.
4. CNN and MTV have changed out society as well as the global culture. Have these changes been positive or negative? Explain.
As much as I enjoy MTV, which is a lot, I do not exactly think it has impacted society in a positive matter and niether has CNN. MTV was good back in the day when it only played music but now it plays a bunch of reality TV that is absoultely useless. Everything on those shows revolves about who is having sex with who and who is going to fight in this episode. It is really annoying, I would much rather just watch music videos all day. CNN does deliever news that is slightly usefull but it is extremely biased, as every other news station is, and it only reports negative things. If someone only watched all the bad news they report then I think that person could fall into a state of depression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)