This post is due by Tuesday, March 11 @ midnight for full credit.
Email late posts to rob.williamsATmadriver.com for partial credit.
Read our MEDIA@SOCIETY book, assigned chapter above.
In a SINGLE blog post below, provide for the chapter:
1. A single sentence, IYOW, that captures the chapter's THESIS (main argument).
2. THREE specific pieces of supporting documentation - ideas, concepts, stats, data - to bolster your thesis for the chapter. (Use 2 - 3 sentences for each.)
3. A single PERSONAL story of 3-4 sentences that connects the chapter directly with your own personal media experiences.
4. A SINGLE specific question you have after reading and blogging on the chapter.
Game on,
Dr. W
The journalism of today’s society is shifting to a profession more centered around “stories” which develops a blur between the lines of news, entertainment, and comments on our culture as a whole.
ReplyDeleteWith the idea that people are now finding our twenty-first century definition of journalism unsatisfactory people are trying to actively change it. “In the wake of widespread cynicism regarding journalism, a number of regional newspapers experimented with ways to “fix” journalism and to more actively involve readers in the news process” (Media in Society, 154). In this way, viewers want to be there for the news process and understand it more rather than just subjecting themselves to it’s “stories”.
Television is one of the main ways that people get their news but with this it is important to note that, “...the real impact of the current corporate era is in television” (Media in Society, 140). With this comes the realization that people must be media literate in order to understand that corporations are the ones behind the news we get, and this could result in the “single story affect”.
It is also important to remember that we think of news anchors as our “friends”, people who are there with us with in our homes telling us what we need to know. “From a narrativist perspective, then, news stories- like entertainment media- function as daily conversations with public audience” (Media in Society, 133). We develop these connections with the people who give us our news and thus, we trust them more than we probably should.
In general, watching the nightly news I feel like I am watching a soap opera rather than a factual news channel. The anchors themselves are quite obviously drenched in makeup and it seems almost like more of a fashion and beauty competition than anything else. It’s almost distracting enough to prohibit me from fully gaining an understanding of what the news anchors are saying.
Even though journalism almost seems to be losing its legitimacy in the eyes of many, are these “stories” that we receive still affective in teaching us what we need to know?
Journalism, which claims to be objective, is actually a storytelling business that focuses on getting the good story first, relying on expert sources, reporting two-sided stories, aggressively questioning leaders, and personalizing the news.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in 2009 in a “herd” pack journalism move, major news stations reported a story about the “balloon boy” that ended up being false, but in their attempts to get the story first they latched onto a dramatic story without much concern for fact (144). This illustrates how the battle to get a good story first actually takes away from the supposed point of cable news: to get facts to the public. Presidential election coverage is a breeding ground for news stations only reporting two-sided stories. This seems wrong because most Americans, “whose views do not fall at either end of the spectrum are seldom represented,” and it makes people feel like they have to choose one of the two extremes. Finally, journalism is personalized easily through television news where the news anchors are seen as metaphorical anchors for the public who can “identify with them as characters” (148). However, this can also lead to harmful results such as the new media’s unnecessary focus on crime stories to drive the news.
This chapter discussed the “problem of crime-driven news” which relates to my project (149). With public and media focus on crime stories and media’s tendency to create two sides, one good guy and one bad guy, some races/religions are often thrown under the bus. It’s fascinating to see how journalism evolved and how the concept of “objective” news coverage was always just that: a concept.
How does reducing events to two-sided reports match up with what democratic U.S. journalism is supposed to be (the presentation of neutral facts so citizens can make their own decisions based on those facts)?
1. With the ever-growing use and dependency on technology in America’s 21st century society, we not only see a change from newspapers to online and televised news reports but also how journalists collect, interpret and deliver the information we receive from the media.
ReplyDelete2.
“Journalistic scoops and exclusive stories attempt to position reporters in a heroic light in their news narratives: They have won a race for facts, which they have gathered and presented ahead of their rivals” (p. 143).
In today’s society, everything has to be instantaneous, we do not like to wait for things and as soon as something significant happens you must know about it. That is due to technology. Instead of compiling concrete, factual evidence before presenting it to the viewers, journalists and news companies jump to conclusions (before seeing that it is in fact true) in order to be able to present the stories so they report it before their competitors.
“…Modern print journalist are expected to be neutral or detached, TV news derives some creditably from live reporting, believable imagery, and viewer trust in the familiar reporters and friendly anchors who read the news” (p. 149).
During the Partisan Era, the newspapers had distinct affiliations to a certain party. However, in today’s society we see a shift away from affiliations and more toward neutrality (or less affiliated). This is to reach out to a broader viewing population and therefore, make more money.
“…[Journalist] were not allowed to display their expertise overtly. Instead, they had to seek outside authorities—characters and professionals with expertise—to give creditability to and help document neutral reports” (p. 145).
Before the Internet, the newspaper was the only creditable form of news. In today’s news there are so many websites, news reports, blogs and other form of medium that can be accessed with a click of button. So in today’s society it all comes down to who is more creditable.
3. In my middle school, there was a potential bomb threat and we were locked down because of a suspicious box with wires coming out of it outside the school. Every news station was there reporting on this “bomb” and it turns out it was a 6th graders science experiment that had fallen out of his backpack on the way to school. All the reporters were there to be the first to report this bomb, but they all jumped to conclusions and it turns out they looked pretty stupid.
4. How do we as viewers distinguish between biased news and opinionate news in the media?
The journalistic landscape of the United States has experienced a major transformation as it engages a narrative strategy of story telling rather than objectivity.
ReplyDeleteThe first avenues for debate and information in the United States were through colonial newspapers. Benjamin Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette was one of the first newspapers in the American colonies to voice perspectives on issues such as “the Stamp Act,” soon the Gazette “had the largest circulation, most pages, highest advertising revenue, and most literate columns of any paper in the area.” (134) During the mid-nineteenth century, the emergence of the middle class and an expansion of literacy led to “human interest narratives aimed at nonelite audiences.” (135.) Challenges to reporting have risen from the emergence of new technologies such as the television; this has established a visual rapport between the anchor and the audience. “Blogs have also challenged mainstream reporting by presenting a variation on public journalism that is accessible to nearly everyone.” (158) The format of journalism is reshaping into a more intimate structure in which audiences can hear their opinions echoed in a community structure.
I would say the news channel I rely on most for political information is the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Although it is primarily a comedy show mixed with satire, it still provides honest information that discloses the obscure problems with America’s political system, it’s also great entertainment.
Has the romanticization of small-town pastoralism in news reporting faded over the years?
1. Journalism depends on the people to provide entertaining news that can in turn be interpreted into a quality story.
ReplyDelete2. Reporters take small tidbits, add a problem, and by using persuasive terminology, they make a worthwhile story. The story of “Balloon Boy” is an example from the text (144). They heard a small story about this “balloon boy” and by using persuasive tequniques they were able to provide a great story for the public.
“TV news derives some creditability from live reporting, believable imagery…” which shows journalists as reliable sources for information (149). The trust gained through seeing the focal point of the story can give more details and support to the story.
A journalist’s position on a case is the best way to create a successful story. How viewers observe a journalist on the screen can change the feelings that spectators have towards such stories. Reporters are portrayed with a “heroic light” to attract those who watch their broadcasts (143).
3. On the Norwood Band Network I watched a news report about a heroin dealer who was arrested. When explaining the search of his house, the reporter described every aspect of the story with complete terror on her face in order to make the story seem more dangerous and risky towards the public.
4. Do reporters include all of the important information in their exaggerated stories?
(1) The journalistic values of modern American society have shifted away from the objective, inverted-pyramid values of 19th century United States towards a more business-oriented model that favors the conglomerates who own the media industry.
ReplyDelete(2) The chapter begins with a summary of journalism in early American culture, progressing to the journalism model that we use today. From the time of colonial United States, objectivity was an important value in journalism, being able to lay out the facts for the public on a certain event or issue and leaving it up for the readers to decide. One method that was popular in the late 19th century was introduced by Adolph Ochs, owner of the New York Times. This method was the "inverted pyramid...often stripped of adverbs and adjectives, such reports began with the most dramatic or newsworthy information. Straight-forward answers to who, what, where (and, less frequently, why or how) led the top of the story and then tailed off with less important details" (139). However, this objectified method became outdated with the introduction of "yellow journalism" by William Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer. Hearst described it as, "the modern editor of the popular journal does not care for facts. The editor wants novelty. The editor has no objection to facts if they are also novel. But he would prefer a novelty that is not fact to a fact that is not novelty" (136). This form has carried on into modern journalism, who focus more on telling stories and boosting ratings than laying down simply objective facts. Don Hewitt of "60 Minutes" puts it, "There's a very simple formula if you're in Hollywood, opera, publishing, broadcasting, newspapering. It's four very simple words: tell me a story" (143). It turns out the most popular, albeit not necessarily "most important," get the priority in the media, such as crime blocks, happy talk, sports, etc.
(3) Personally, I thought the most interesting part of the chapter was the beginning which talked about the rich history of American journalism. I was fascinated by the yellow journalism rivalry between Hearst and Pulitzer, two penny-paper owners with completely different backgrounds that sought to get the most viewership. The newspaper community owes much thanks to Hearst and Pulitzer for their capitalistic innovations that spurred a major readership increase.
(4) The Pulitzer Prize is named after Joseph Pulitzer from the New York World. Is there a similar award named after William Hearst?
1.) The journalism profession in our society has shifted to focus on entertainment for the people and news to affect their daily lives.
ReplyDelete2.) As the journalism profession grew two forms became popular among the authors. The first section was story model, which grew attention for sharing information about important events from wherever in the world. This idea grew from penny and yellow presses. The next was an information model, which was mostly found in newspapers that contained more factual and straightforward knowledge. The information model has grown into a very large scale that now have companies such as CNN, FOX or Kare11. In this chapter they discuss all the different type of news that we see each and every day. The problem of happy talk caught my eye because what news in our world today is happy? Not much in my opinion. In the 1970’s many newscasters took the risk of running news that as much easier for United States families to listen to.
3.) My giant of friend Max Minea is not a democrat by any means. In fact, he now attends the University of Miami Ohio, also known as frat boy nation. With that said this school is filled with republicans and only republicans. It is in a way the opposite of St. Mike’s. One weekend back in high school his parents left and his grandparents came to the house to watch us hooligans. He would not stop bitching about grandparents leaving FOX news on every TV in his house. He is a hardcore republican but could see through FOX’s bullshit.
4.) How can organization or companies such as FOX get away with only showing one side of the story?
1. News media are becoming increasingly partisan, as stations and reporters are focusing more on attracting consumers than delivering facts.
ReplyDelete2. "One of the great paradoxes of modern US journalism is its claim for detachment...even though journalism is primarily practiced as selective storytelling," (139)
When a handful of conglomerates own the airwaves, there is natural competition to garner the most viewers. This is most easily done by supplying audiences with the most interesting stories, which may be embellished or half-truths. These stations appeal to niche markets, often unable or unwilling to deliver straight facts, which could be seen as boring, or, worse, not what viewers want to see.
"...a stock of ritual practices underlies the modern performance of US reporting and the narrative construction of news. These include getting the "good" story first, relying on expert sources, reducing events to two-sided reports, questioning aggressively...and personalizing the news." (143)
Good investigative journalism is all about getting to the scene first, so a station may "break the story" and tell the public first. This lends credibility to stations and journalists, though it can become sensationalist at best and inaccurate and damaging at worst. Additionally, in limiting viewpoints to two sides, interviewers may miss important details or motives, and one or both sides they feature may be too biased to give accurate information.
"More than ever, journalists are delivering not just news but opinion as well... the sacred line that traditionally has divided editorial...from news columns is being blurred, as reporters add generous portions of analysis to their delivery of the facts." (p.154)
More often, journalists and editors are dumbing down articles so that the general public may process information and for opinions. However, this can be dangerous as too much analysis of facts can influence readers perception of facts, and skew opinions toward one side.
3. In a recent interview with Lily Allen, the issue of feminism was discussed. Though a dedicated feminist, as is evident in her songs and interactions with social media, her words were taken out of context during a recent interview. Allen was quoted as saying that "women are the enemy," and that "feminism shouldn't be a thing anymore." This was a misquote of Allen's belief that genders should have been equal long ago, and that feminism should be obsolete by now, and yet it is not.
4. If journalists take their analyses out of their columns, will the general public still be able to process them and form their own informed opinions?
Journalists and news reporters, instead of being objective in their work, focus on telling stories that have drama, conflict, and a beginning, middle, and end.
ReplyDeleteJournalists often follow what they believe to be a good news story and to break the news first, which sometimes can turn out to be false. A good example of this was the “balloon boy” hoax in 2009, when journalists flocked to Colorado after word spread that a boy was in a balloon thousands of feet above the sky. The story turned out to be a lie in order to get publicity, but the public, and news stations, still believed for a while. TV news has made the news more personable and relatable for viewers. The beginnings of narrative TV started with Friend Friendly at CBS, who was quoted with saying, “‘though based in truth, the programs still have to have stories of their own, with the basic outline of beginning, middle, and end.’” (149). Following the Watergate scandal, news stations began to capitalize on crime-driven news, embellishing and seeking out news that is generally “bad news” or things you wouldn’t want to hear, yet are drawn to. “Stations began hiring consultants, or so called news-doctors, who advised news directors to invest in… ‘Action news’ or ‘Eyewitness News’” (149).
I feel like every time I turn on the news something bad is happening, whether it be a crime or a crisis in a country. Often times happier stories come on in the morning shows, while intense, gripping, and violent news tend to be shown on nightly news. But there is a lot to learn from the stories that lift us up, like finding cures for diseases or humanitarian efforts, things that shouldn’t be ignored. While definitely newsworthy, crime-driven stories that bring us down are not the only things the public should be hearing. I always hear “what has the world come to?” or something along those lines, and I think the news sometimes makes people forget all the good that’s being done in the world, alongside the bad.
What is the public fascination with crime and violence?
Thesis: Journalists write narratives that focus on eye-catching stories to increase the chance of selling their article.
ReplyDeleteSupporting Points:
1) In order for an article to be eye-catching, readers are looking for the story to be written in an interesting manner. “Every news story should… display the attributes of fiction, of drama. It should have structure and conflict, problem and denouement, rising and falling action, a beginning, a middle, and an end” (133). Along with that, stories are more appealing when they are written in a way which the reader can connect or relate to the article.
2) By the 1830’s, publishers began to write stories that did not involve the entire truth. This technique of writing became popular because it reached out more to the readers and therefore more articles were sold. By adding non-fiction into true stories, it helped the publishers reach out to more people.
3) A write, who wrote in the New York World, used his article that he published to target and attract immigrant populations. “To increase circulation, he ran a continuous stream of sex, sin, and even cannibalism stories” (135). Along with the article being attention-grabbing, the writer caught many readers attention by displaying his article with large headlines, maps, and graphics (135).
Story:
Several times when I have watched the news, I have questioned if a news story is being told in a biased way or if it has been exaggerated to grab peoples’ attention. For that reason, it is hard to really know the actual truth to the news stories we are exposed to, whether it is displayed on the media or seen in the paper. Another reason why it is hard to know what the actual story is is because, as mentioned in the book, the “anchor man” who is releasing the story, has to stay calm in order for the viewers to stay composed.
Question:
How can journalists publish a story even if they know included some false information in the story?
Thanks for sharing your good wisdom here, colleagues...
ReplyDeleteSo much to consider...
Dr. W
1) This chapter focuses on news channels’ shift from reporting actual news to telling stories to increase people’s interest.
ReplyDelete2) One page 139, it explains that “One of the great paradoxes of modern U.S. journalism is its claim for detachment – a main ingredient in objectivity – as a fundamental virtue…rather than address the way news functions as storytelling, many journalists… have come to define the newsworthiness of information by a conventional set of criteria: timeliness, proximity, conflict, impact (or consequence), prominence, human interest, novelty, and deviance.” This just goes to show how little news the news is actually telling us. Considering the fact that the news only “reports” on things that people are interested in based on proximity, conflict, novelty, etc. we can call this more “storytelling.”
3) “If journalism was truly an objective practice, it should report on everything that happens on any given day… Journalism, instead, is a storytelling business… [we] should judge journalists’ worth by the quality of stories they choose to tell, by how they select which issues and events to transform into news – and by what they may leave out on any given day” (140). News anchors are bias; they choose stories that will get them viewers, its almost like it is not even news anymore because we aren’t told about everything that is happening, only the things the stations think we are interested in.
4) I feel as though most of the time, news anchors don’t care about their stories; they only care about the ratings. I’ve seen in some cases news anchors get emotional or feel a personal connection to the story, but other than those few instances, it’s all about getting a story that viewers care about. “There’s a very simple formula if you’re in Hollywood, opera, publishing, broadcasting, newspapering. It’s four very simple words: tell me a story… Getting a timely story that attracts viewers and readers fills up a journalist’s day and enables him or her to meet routine deadline demands” (143).
5) Personally I feel like the media cares a lot about the story, and very little about the people. They may care about the situation and really feel for victims of things that happen, but have no problem asking eyewitnesses or locals about it which I think is really insensitive and annoying. On the anniversary of the sandy hook shooting, the town asked that the media stayed away, and some stations were respectful of that but others were too obsessed with the story and came anyway despite what the town wanted.
6) Will this ever stop or will there be some sort of legislation that comes out of it because of how disrespectful the media can be?
1. Journalism in the twenty-first century is changing to accommodate what the public wants at any given time, regardless of what it needs, shifting from an objective perspective to a more subjective storytelling outlook, which only benefits singular news controllers.
ReplyDelete2. One way the style of journalism changes through the years can be seen through how the internet has had a very large impact in how news is reported to the masses. “…With more than 80 million blogs, it’s likely that more full-time citizens journalists will emerge, doing real reporting” (page 159). With more internet-users in more places, news reporting can happen faster than ever before. Although this type of open reporting can sometimes be misleading by of amateurs reporting misinformation as fact. Another way journalism is changing through the years can be seen in how news reporting used to be an objective practice at the beginning of news reporting during the partisan era, and how it has since evolved into news conglomerations controlling which news stories and media is broadcast to the public. “In fact, if journalism was truly an objective practice, it should report on everything that happens on any given day…” (page 140). A completely objective news reporting system would include every piece of news media for the day shown in equal segments. One more reason journalism is evolving with the times can be seen in how audiences perceive reporters. “Reporters today are often regarded with suspicion” (page 152). The public is becoming increasingly aware of how journalism has become more subjective and how reporters only tell the stories they want to tell. The practice of journalism has turned into a mistrustful practice in the public’s eyes.
3. I think the news media today has become increasingly corrupted via showing the American public more subjective news coverage rather than an objective and fair point of view. News companies have taken control of how we feel about events happening in our world by showing and telling us what they want us to hear. Not only do news media control our knowledge and emotions regarding local as well as global occurrences, but they also manage which news stories reach their audience. To keep the public under control, news media giants, such as Fox News and NBC pick and chose which stories to broadcast to the public, often choosing the stories that would be the most beneficial towards them. We hear less and less of objective news stories as we enter a new age of journalism in the twenty-first century.
4. Is the objectivity of news media at all controllable by the public?