Media Violence

I see nothing wrong with covering violent things in the news, but it is how they are covered that makes all the difference. Showing graphic things when they are not crucial to understanding the story is when the line is crossed. When things happen live it is harder to censor and make content decisions, but news stories that have hours to write before air have plenty of time to make good decisions on what to show and what not to show.

Media Violence

How much violence should the media air? America is so used to violence that sometimes it doesn't even phase us anymore. Everyday we hear about drive by shootings, rapes, and burglary. But when something huge happens like with Virginia Tech, we ask ourselves is that too much? I think it depends on what station you are watching. Local news shouldn't show stuff like the videos Cho sent in to NBC, but I think its legit for CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News to play the violence. When people turn on the 24 hour news stations they know that it will have violence. I do think the Cho videos went to far. It was too early for the victims' families of Virginia Tech to see their loved one's killer get so much publicity. Journalist need to think before putting so much violence on the news.

"If it bleeds..."

I hate that most people don't respect the news. Well, maybe that's because local, and now national, news is toilet matter. That's right. It's poop. Why do we feel the need to follow the old adage "if it bleeds, it leads"? Seriously, is it really that big of a deal. Fires, rapes, murders, its all we see. Then they feel the need to lighten it up every now and again with a "human interest" piece on a dog show or something equally not relevant to my life or yours.

If the coverage on the VaTech shootings were more on the heroes, the students who stepped forward and the victims, I'd be more inclined to watch. But it is all about Cho, who he was, why he shot up people and that's because we live in a culture of fear. We have to know who is attacking us and why so we can go to extreme lengths to protect ourselves in the future. Have I watched the videos that he mailed in? Hell no, because I learned all I needed to know the first night.

Media Violence

Most of the time the News on tv is Not good news. Most newstories have to do with who was killed, who was shot, who was raped, or who was robbed. The Media is embedded with violence. This is because the American public craves to hear about the bad things because i think that it reassures them that they have a good life and that things can't be all that bad. I do feel that often violent news stories are blown to high in the limelight. the whole incident at VaTech is still being covered in the news, as it should be, but it's all about Cho and very little about the victims and the good people that they were. We all want answers for why things happen, but sometimes the way they are given to us are overwhelming and unneccesary

media violence

When is violence too much violence? I think that the over exposure of violence in news recently has desensitized society on the whole. Now when someone blows up a building or shoots up a school we are almost accustomed to the images. It seems that the media takes the most shocking and gory footage they can get their grubby little hands on and broadcasts it to the world. Replaying the same image over and over searing it into the minds of the viewer. This desensitizes the viewer. This does not take into account the feeling of the victim. I myself am a private person and if something horrific were to happen to me I would not want the entire world to see me like that. No matter how newsworthy the story somethings need to be left to the imagination. The media needs to reevaluate their cause if it is truly in the public best interest and their right to know or if it is solely for the sake of viewers and ratings?

Violence

It depends. If you're talking about news, then I think the media needs to keep in mind that they are serving the public with information and that means a public of all ages. When they present violent material they need to consider the age groups that could potentially view it. I think you can definitely present a violent story without having to show it or go into too much detail and still get the point across. If you're talking about a television show then I just think they need to keep in mind the time of day their show will be aired. I don't think showing violence is a bad thing for adults who are mature enough to handle it, it's the younger audience that I worry about seeing it.

Media Violence

I think the media needs to be careful what they show, but, I do think that the media can talk about what happend. It does not bother me to witness violence on tv, but I know that the Cho video really had an impact on the victims' families. It is a double-edged sword. They need to display the facts, but they also need to be sensitive. I thought they showed enough of the video to give everyone an idea of what Cho wanted to do. Just the part that I watched made me sick so I cannot imagine how the victims felt seeing him all over again.

V-Chip

I think the V-Chip is great if it is used. It is up to parents to censor what their children are watching. I know when I have children that there will be censoring of tv shows that my wife and I do not deem appropriate. I think it is a tool that is available to everyone to use, but I do not think many parents care enough to use it.

V Chip

I don't think there is much of an issue for the VChip. It is installed in TV for parents/owners of the tv's to use if they so please. I don't think it is wrong for a prent to choose what they don't want their kids being exposed to. The V-Chip doesn't automatically censor anyone's tv and so I think it is a good tool for parents to use considering some may not be abel to be around their child 24/7.

wiki-ty whack, v chips

I personally don't trust wiki as a valid source for educational research. I think its perfectly acceptable to use it as a stepping stone for legit research. I think its cool and nice and all that, but I feel that its pretty much a universe of kids who think they know everything.

V-chips. I never plan on having children, so its not something that I actively think about. Parents need to be able to make strong decisions and teach their children first then restrict content. But that's just me. I hate kids, so I'm not the best person to be asking.

V-Chip

The V-chip can be very effective if used. When activated it can block all strong language and other things that children should not be exposed to. Ultimately it is the parents discretion to what they feel their children should be exposed to. My parents didn't allow me to have a TV in my room and we didn't have cable because of the content on cable programing. My parents wanted me to be a kid for as long as possible. I think had they purchased a television with a v-chip they might have gotten cable before I moved out. When I am a parent I will use the v-chip for many reasons. The main reason is there is content on television children are not ready to see.

DA V-CHIP!!!!!

I'm pretty sure the v-chip might be the most useless invention ever for the television. I've never met anyone who uses it or anyone who would begin to know how to use it. I'm sure it's not that hard to figure out, but who honestly wants to change the settings when they want to watch a program that had previously been banned by the parent because it was unsuitable for children. Tv ratings make a little more sense because parents can see what their kids are watching if they pay close enough attention. I think that most parents use the tv as a babysitter for kids or as a reward. The parents are usually busy while kids watch violence, sex, and other acts that they probably should stay away from. Because tv is always changing and pushing the envelope it will be hard for a ratings system to keep up

V-Chip

I think the V-chip is one way to protect children but I think the parents need to control what their children watch. I think the v-chip and ratings can regulate to an extent. I think children should not have televisions in their room because the parent isn't in there and the parent should be monitoring at all time what their children watch. If I was a parent I woukd utilize the v-chip and would regulate my child's tv watching through the ratings but like I said I would watch what my children watch.

fair use and muzak

Of course fair use can be a valid point to get out of a libel suit, but only if it's applicable. Then again, I think the restrictions on fair use and the body of work able to be parodied should be widened. And don't even get me started on copyright laws.

Online music is amazing. I was a bit of a pirate when I was younger but I have reformed. But like most people, I used it to find rare covers and live music for bands that I already liked that weren't commercially available. The other avenue I used online music for was to expand my horizons by finding new music - which has actually become easier through iTunes. You like this band? Then you'll love this band! Which is harder to do with p2p because of the search engine capabilities. I hope online music has changed or will change the industry, but I doubt anything major will happen. I can only hope that it will drive down the prices because maybe I'd buy a whole CD again. For now, I'll pick and choose the single songs that I like.

Wikepedia

I like Wikepedia. There is a lot of great information on there to use. You do have to be careful what you use on there though. I have found some things that were completely false. I think you can cite it, but I think you would be smarter if you double check what you found. Anyone can post on there, so that means you can get some whacked out stuff.

Wikipedia

I think Wikipedia is okay for using on a paper or an essay. I have used it to cite many things before in papers. When comparing websites with information, Wikipedia has the same information the other websites do. I also think it is a quick and easy way to fiind out what something is. It does say encyclopedia on the top of the website. I will keep using Wikipedia for my papers.

Music...

I think that over all Itunes has helped the industry out. People get to hear a couple of songs before buying a CD. BUT!!!!!!!!!!It has had a different affect on me. I don't buy CD's and I don't buy music from Itunes, as long as i have a Computer and a music program I will pirate the music i listen to...I'm just being real yall. I don't even listen to CD's in the car, i listen to my Ipod, but i wont buy music from Itunes...Holla.

Wik....

I don't know for sure if i'd site Wikipedia..Well, it really depends on the class or the professor. Some professors probably wouldn't allow it because it is kind of new and it doesn't seem like a "safe" alternative to an encyclopedia. I guess if i wanted to be lazy I'd use it. I guess thats all I have to say.

Wikipedia

I do use Wikipedia and I do cite it as a source. If I take something off the internet I apply proper citations. Wikipedia is a site of information. You can certainly use it, especially if you back it with other sources. With my experience, most of my use with Wikipedia has been accurate and helpful. If I'm able to use it in college papers and my professors find it as an acceptable source, then why not cite it?

I have and will continue to use wikipedia as a source in papers. I think wikipedia is somewhat reliable and as long as you make sure that you don't use it as your main and only source in a paper then it is fine as a reference. Wikipedia is looked down upon in the academic realm but I think it is ok to use in certain circumstances. It all depend on the information given on the web page.

Wikipedia is actually a fairly valuable resource.
yes there is no real regulation of it, but if people read it knowing it isn't 100% authoritative then I don't see what the problem is.
In general you can look up somethign and get a pretty basic idea of what it is. This is valuable when you hear about something that you've never heard of before.
When Wikipedia finds out a part fo their site may not have credible info they tag it and let people know.
The idea of free information, and a collective community that puts it together is also a great idea.

Wikipedia

I think that Wikipedia is a good way to find decent iformation very quickly. As we have seen, almost every class presentation has used Wikipedia to present information to the class. I use Wikipedia when i need infor in a hurry. First off it is free and has an easily searchable engine. Second most of the information is cited from second sources which helps give it some credibility. If I wanted to cite from Wikipedia in a paper or essay I would make sure that I double checked their references. Information is also at a constant change which is also an advantage of using Wikipedia. You can find recent events instead of looking at an encyclopedia that is 10 years old. I know that some colleges have outlawed using Wikipedia at their institutions because they see the info has not credible, but i think they should take a closer look of how Wikipedia has helped millions of people world wide.

Online music

I think that music has already been reformed as an online medium. It is very rarely that people still go out and purchase cd's. With programs like iTunes and Ruckus, it is just that much easier to get only the songs you like instead of having to buy a full album. Downloading online is up and cd sales are down which shows how the internet as a medium for music has taken off. Now even movies are being offered to buy in digital form from iTunes and even Wal-Mart. People and companies are always trying to keep up with the latest trends, and right now that is the online music revolution.

Fair Use and Online Music

Online Music might very well be the biggest thing to happen to music in 20 years. People now discover their music online one way or another and now bands and record labels must cater to that form of music consumption and the better labels and bands that do that will be more successful.

I think fair use is great. Essentially it covers you for using some form of material when you want to use it but not take away from the original in such a way that someone would use your material and not buy the original. There is no financial harm done really, which is really what the original artists and companies care about.

Online Music

I think Itunes is a great invention. I love the fact that you can sit at your computer and purchase a cd without even having to leave, and you can listen to a portion of every song. They have a fixed price and you know what you are getting. I also like the fact that you can choose which songs you want. I think this has helped the music industry because they do not have to do anything either, just reap in the money.

Fair Use

I think fair use is a way to get out of a libel suit. People use other people's stuff to make jokes and for parody. I think fair use is great because without it, we wouldn't have people to laugh at. I like fair use and I think that it should stay around.

Fair Use

I think fair use is a valid excuse to get out of a libel suit. Parody a lot of the times brings promotion to the original. When weird Al parodies a song it makes you appreciate the original and listen to the original to see the differences. It makes it have more attention and is actually bringing it advertisement.

Online Music

Itunes and online music has changed the recording industry in many ways. With sharing sites like Kazaa and Lime Wire people can get music without even buying it. But with Itunes the person doesn't have to go buy the CD at the store and can buy just a song on the internet. The reocrding industry doesn't have to produce as many CDs to sell because they are selling more on Itunes. The good thing about Itunes is you can just buy one song without buying the whole CD. I think with music online it is helping smaller unknown musicians get their music heard and bought.

Fair Use

I think that parody and Fair Use are ok to use to get out of a libel suit. As long as the parody has some new creative viewpoint it should be allowed to be used. Sure the original artist, writer, or whoever is going to be mad that someone based an idea off of their own and is making money, but almost everything we have has been based off someone elses idea. Changing a small portion of original work should not count as parody, but in the case of Gone with the Wind and the Wind Done Gone, i think that is a perfect example of why the 2nd book should have been allowed. Even though the storyline was basically the same it was told from another's viewpoint. Weird Al is another artist who uses parody. He usually asks for permisson from the original artist to parody their song and then does the parody, but in the case with his song Amish Paradise he did not get permisson from Coolio to parody Gangsta's Paradise. However, no lawsuit was filed because it was fair use and a parody

3 blog answers in one b/c im behind :)

VNR's:
I don't think that VNR's are ethical journalism. If you get a new story idea from one of the videos, go out and do your own reporting. But trying to pass off these PR created videos that are more often than not spun in one direction (pro-client) is completely unethical.

Sensationalism:
News sensationalism encompasses most of the "news" we see today. There is seriously so much wrong with the 24-hour news networks but there's really no solution to make it better or change the way they do business. For me, it definitely harms the reputation of the news source. Sensationalism is just another reason why I choose to get all of my news online. There's no flashy graphics, no breaking news. I can read about the stories I want to read about without having to sift through the crap.

Celebublogs:
Celeb blogs aren't news. I really don't care about all these celebrities. Do I care who's doing and who and who's snorting what? NO! But there is a large population of people who do, which is sad. Occasionally, someone will send me a link to Perez Hilton that makes fun of a celebrity that I don't care for, and sure that's amusing, but it is most definitely not news. Since more and more people care about this stupid celebrity circus, more stories are coming on news stations about them. It still doesn't mean I watch or care. If I cared, I'd read the silly tabloids while waiting in line at the grocery store.

VNRs

I think that VNRs are unethical. I think it is wrong that PR companies and television stations are pushing viewers into buying or doing something that promotes their business. It disturbs me that when I watch the local news station that I have to think to myself is that a real segment or is it a VNR, since a local station in OKC has had many VNRs on their station. I also think that it is an easy way for the news station to fill some air time when they don;t have a segment ready.

VNR's

I think VNR's are a pretty unethical thing for a news station to put on air as if it is something they put together themselves. It is stuff like this that makes people not trust the news on tv. It is the very essence of why people don't watch the news.

VNR's

I beleive that VNR's should not be broadcast in the news without the public first being notified. It is not fair that the audience doesn't know that they are receiving a "built-in" ad in their daily news coverage. To me it is almost a type of subliminal advertising, especially when the news stations don't let their viewers know what they are doing. Obviously the news stations are being paid to air the VNR's, which once again goes against the ethics of good journalism. News shouldn't be something that is bought and sold, but something that is important to people locally and nationally. I was also shocked to see that KOKH FOX 25 in OKC had shown so many VNR's. I would bet though that news stations with lower ratings are more likely to air VNR's for the money.

news sensationalism

I think that news sensationalism can be both good and bad. The good part of it is that it often draws viewers to a subj.ect they might not be interested in otherwise. The viewer could learn more about important news through the use of sensationalism. The bad thing about sensationalism is that when it seems to be overused just to gain viewership or readership. Obviously all news organizations want the highest ratings they can get. Most are willing to try anything once, and if it works (like sensationalism does) they are likely to keep using it. I try to keep myself from becoming to involved with sensationalized news stories, but i must admit that I have fallen victim to watching the news based on how the corporations sensationalize their broadcasts

Sensationalism

I think that it possibly can harm a news source's reputation, but in the end you can't really put your finger on just one who does it. I think everyone does it to get more viewership. The truth usually comes out and people are usually disappointed. I relate it to onlookers. They see flashing lights so they slow down to look, but when they finally get there they are really disappointed. Not sure what that means, but I used it. I think it is spicing up the news to make it sound more intriguing. I think this Pat Tilman issue is the latest at hand. The truth was hidden to make him sound like an American hero, but it might be an issue of friendly fire. I believe the blame from this situation is going to fall on the government.

News Sensationalism

I do not know what to think about news sensationalism. Does it harm the reputation of the media source? I think this could be a yes or no answer. I think the reasoning behind news sensationalism is usually for ratings. That is all what our society is about. So it brings attention to the media source most of the time. News sensationalism to me is something that over grabs my attention than other stories and goes over board on the story. Some examples I remember from growing up are like Bekah said Natalee Holloway and Lacy Peterson. Another one I have is Elizabeth Smart.

sensationalism

I feel that sensationalism in the media is not a foreign concept to our generation. I think that we are so conditioned to that type of news that it is difficult to realize that it is salatious. I'm not sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing it's pretty much just a thing. We grew up in the era of news for shock value with stories like the Menendez brothers, Amy Fisher, and Lorena Bobbitt. The stories of yesterday have been replaced with more sensationalism like Scott and Lacy Petersen and Natalie Hollaway. These stories are sad and have become engrained in our culture through the sensationalism of journalism.

Celebrity Blogs

I do not think celebrity blogs are the same kind of journalism as most, but they serve their own purpose. They entertain people and sometimes inform as well. I honestly do not know a exact reason why people seem to care more about celebrities than real news and events in the world. I do not fault people for being more interested in those things though, who am i to say what is really important and what someone should spend their free time thinking about?

celebrity blogs

Celebrity blogs turning into real news stories is nothing more than lazy journalism. Yes, entertainment sells but there are entire channels devoted to celebrity gossip. It does not need to continually pollute the major news networks airwaves. Journalists need to search for a real story with pressing matters instead of fill the public's brain with useless gossip about who just releasted a sex video or who just checked into rehab. The commedian Chris Rock said on Oprah that it is a sad day when the public is more concerened with Britney Spear's shaved head then the number of troops who died in Iraq today. Maybe the public is becoming so involved in celebrity news because the real news has become so depressing and difficult to watch.

Celebrity "News"

I do not believe celebrity gossip is news at all. It is simply PR to get their name floating through the ears and brains of everyone consuming this "news." I hate every time I turn on the television that there is something new is some one's life that happened, and it applies to me how? This is just time filler for news stations. They want to have the celebrity gossip on there, because somehow it works. People like this stuff for some reason. I think people just like gossip in general, no matter who it is about. This is not news and I wish it would leave the news stations because it is worthless.

I don't think celebrity news counts as real news. I look at it more as simply entertainment. I don't watch it or pay attention to articles about celebrities because I find it extremely informational and beneficial. I follow it because it's entertaining, it's gossip in hollywood. Entertainment sites and blogs like those aren't credible news sources. I don't trust what they say about people because they over-dramatize every photo they have and you don't know where they get their information from.

Celeb Blogs

Celebrity gossip blogs does not meet my definition of news. It is what it says, gossip. Which celeb hooked up with another celeb or what club is hot is definitely not news to me. News is having to do with the real world not Hollywood. Now don't get me wrong, I like to know the in of Hollywood but it's all gossip. In New York they have a Blog called gawker.com and one page is the gawker stalker where it tells where celebrities were seen through out the week. I once did see a celeb and reported it and it made it up the next day. Now if it was that easy, couldn't people just make up gossip and report it? The "real news" channels need to go out and get their news and not copy it off of a blog which probably is not legit.

celebrity blogs and news

First off, I beleive that news is any event that occurs that has some amount of importance to a certain number of people. Because the American population is so obsessed with the rich and famous, we are always looking for the quickest way to get the newest gossip before it actually hits the news-stand or television. The celelbrity blogs are an important source of getting these stories to the public and an exceptionally quick pace. Someone goes and sees something take place then they can go home and post a blog in a matter of minutes and then millions of people are able point and click their mouse to the latest gossip or "news" about celebrities like Britney Spears or Paris Hilton.
I do think that these type of "news" stories take up too much of our media. I'm sure there are millions of other newsworthy stories that would catch the attention of viewers, but news-stations and newspapers want ratings and that is what celebrity news gives them.

Sports Advertising

I do not think that advertising, in moderation, is a bad thing. You have to pay for the thing somehow, because you know you can't always rely on the fan to come through when the team is doing bad. I think if there is too much, then it gets really annoying. When you play 2 minutes and then there is a commercial, then that becomes a problem. I think players are always going to have the "big head". There isn't really anything you can do about that. If they are on TV, here comes the ego's. I do not believe that putting advertising in games is a bad thing. You know that you are going to be hitting the younger generation with the in game advertising so I think we need to be careful with what we are advertising.

Advertising in Sports

"JUST A BIT OUTSIDE!"

That is my favorite wuote from the Major League movies. Anyway I think advertising is what it is. It pays the bills, what other medium is going to fund all of our entertainment? I think if advertising begins to take up the majority of the time in sports that is bad, and TV timeouts all annoy us, but what is the alternative?

I actually think advertising in video games is kind of neat. Again the caveat is that it doesn't cause the game to take forever to get to through the advertising.

sports advertising

There are pros and cons to advertising in sports. In my opinion it has gone a bit far. Currently it seems that advertisers own everything from the stadium or arena to the athlete him or herself. Advertising has gone overboard in a sense prostituting athletes to sell their product. At the same time the advertising for an athlete can heighten their fame and put “more butts in the seats.” It’s a vicious cycle and it’s difficult to determine whether or not advertising is destroying the game. I feel that advertising has boosted the appeal of professional athletes causing every child in America to want to become one. In reality the chance of becoming a professional athlete is slim to none. It may sound as though I am an anti-sports enthusiast when in fact that is quiet the opposite. I myself was an all-state athlete. At the same time I understand prima-donna attitudes and often they exists in a good athlete long before the multi-million advertising deal. I disagree with advertising in games it seems crazy and almost as if advertisers are trying to brain wash the entire planet.

Advertising in Sports

I don't think advertising in sports is a bad thing. The reason the people are watching the tv is because of the sport, so they aren't going to stop watching just because an ad comes on. Advertising is the way television makes money and also sports programs make money from advertisers too. I also don't think the ever-increasing barrage of media coverage destroys the game by breaking down the team mentality. I think the coverage of sports makes the team want to do better because they know more people are watching. I think wherever advertisers can reach people is great, so I don't think it is a problem with gamers.

Sports Advertising

When I watch advertisements during a sporting event, it usually doesn't bother me that much. I notice that there are a lot of advertisements going on throughout the entire game. It's not just during commercial breaks, there are ads that scroll through the big screens at the arenas. Timeouts, pre-games, post-games are all sponsored. Adverstising is everywhere, but I don't think it's a problem. I don't think it really affects the event itself, if anything it helps fund and support it. Advertising is a big revenue for sporting events, pro and college. From my experience working with SoonerVision, the number of advertisements that we have to get through is ridiculous, but never does it interrupt or affect a game. The only reason we have so many advertisements is because they are sponsors who help fund these athletic programs. I don't see it as a problem.

Advertising in Sports...and video games too

I don't see advertising as a problem with sports. One thing advertising does is keep sports going. Just look at the NHL, probably one of the lowest rated sports in the United States, yet it is able to stay afloat due to advertising. I think that if Pro, semi-pro, and Colleges let advertisers in to their venues, then it is not enough to hurt the sports world. Many advertisers such as coca-cola and snickers make sporting events more fun by holding contests and games while the crowd waits for the action to start. Sure there are more and more advertisers now than ten years ago, but the audience of sporting events has increased not only on location but throughout television and radio.
I think that advertising in video games is not a problem either. It is another way to help get products to people that they might not ever no about. Also, video games are always wanting to make their products as lifelike as possible, so why not add advertising to the mix. Who cares if a video game character drinks a Pepsi or wears Nike shoes. Advertising can help make products that are unrelated more appealing to the public

Gatekeepers

I think the public are the future gatekeepers. Evening news is no longer the prime source of news consuming going on, internet blogs, cameras on phones etc..give the public plenty of ways to express themself and create alternatives to "Major" news sources. Stories that 20 years ago would not get much press, get tons of it today. Events that would not get covered are able to be captured because of media/technology available today.

future of gatekeeping

If the internet is the future of the media then it is difficult to say who its ‘gatekeepers’ will be. As of now it seems that each person who puts information on the internet is their own gatekeeper. Currently anyone is allowed to read whatever they choose by whomever they choose and for the most part it seems that the information is not filtered. However, who knows what the future holds? There may come a time when someone filters the information on the internet. I believe this will prove to be an extremely difficult task since pretty much everything on the internet is protected by the first amendment. But if news corporations continue to get leads on the internet and place more and more content on the net who knows soon they may find a way to filter information on the World Wide Web. There is a healthy future for gate keepers of television since each story is ‘filtered’ or written in a way to persuade the audience to believe that particular point of view. The idea of filtering facts and stories to influence an idea is frightening and disheartening. It makes me glad that no one can filter my blog but equally as sad that if I’m lucky, at the most, eight people will read it.

Gatekeepers

I think that it is going to be the big media companies that are relied on to filter what we consume through the media. The companies with the most money is going to be the gatekeepers. I do not believe that there is going to be much gate keeping going on through the Internet. People are going to write what they want and people will take it with a grain of salt. It is going to stay the same as it is today. Big companies rule.

Gatekeepers

In the future of the media, I honestly see the gate-keepers being the ones with the money who own the company. If the owner doesn't want something to go out on the news, he will make sure of it. With the Internet there are no gatekeepers over blogs, but blogs are only an opinion. There are so many options on the Internet, I don't think gatekeeping will be as much as a factor as it is in news.

Media Gatekeepers

I think our future in media will consist of the power in the hands of even the fewer. With the way things have been going, I think all media outlets will be owned and controlled by just a few people and businesses. I don't think internet sites such as blogs have an influence over the public. The number of people involved in blogs that are relevant to news and media are few. When people want to find out what is going on in the world, they turn to television, newspapers and those news outlet's Web sites like "cnn.com". Yes, the fact that anyone can post something on the web is good, but it doesn't make them any more credible than Fox news or CNN. Our future media will remain heavily controlled by a few, worse than it is now. I think, blogs and sites like it are not a popular resource of information.

the gatekeepers

I think that as media progresses only the super large businesses will have a significant role as gatekeepers in our media society. Now, more than ever, there are so many sites on the Internet that allow almost anyone to post information without it being moderated by a so-called gatekeeper. Wikipedia is a prime example where anyone can post knowledge that they have on a certain subject. Blogs, such as ours, are rarely moderated by gatekeepers except in extreme situations. If gatekeepers become too powerful in the media society will be hurt in a major way. I could see the government becoming too involved in what we would be allowed to view like in the novel 1984. Gatekeepers can be useful in keeping erroneous information out of the media and of the Internet. The use of gatekeepers can be a touchy subject in the media because when you regulate what we as an audience are allowed to view there will always be bad with the good.

Fairness Doctrine

I think that there is a chance that the fairness doctrine could work but its only a slim chance and its kind of farfetched. My roommate John and I were talking about it and we came to the conclusion that if the FCC would put as much time and assets into the fairness doctrine as they did in indecency issues it would have no choice but to be flawless...but we know thats not gonna happen. Yes people want to hear both sides of the story, but do they really care??? Moe it over sons.

Fairness

I think that in theory the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea but I am not sure how well it would work if enforced in today’s society. Yes, it is important to hear both sides of an issue if you are completely unaware of a particular issue. However, with the environment that many modern people live in they already have their mind made up about a certain issue before it becomes a popular topic. This makes it almost pointless to discuss both sides of an issue. For example when it is election season most people know who they are going to vote for early on. I’m sure that almost everyone could make up their mind quickly if given the choice between Edwards and Clinton in a “mock” election. I think that the idea of the Fairness Doctrine is very democratic and gives everyone a voice, which is a positive thing. I don’t want to sound like a cynic but I don’t think the Fairness Doctrine has a place in today’s society which is a sad thing in my opinion.

Fairness Doctrine

I honestly don't think the Fairness Doctrine could work in today's society. The media are already opinionated and mostly one sided. It would be hard for them to tell both sides of the story. We have certain stations that are more liberal or conservative who have their certain viewers. People these days have their mind made up before they usually hear the topic. I think the Fairness Doctrine would be good just for letting the audience know both sides of the issue, and letting them pick which side they are for. Sometimes we do forget there are usually two sides of a story.

Fairness Doctrine

I think the Fairness Doctrine should be implemented. I think it is necessary to hear both sides of every story. We get the majority of our news from TV and it should be important to let the viewers hear both sides. It's like what Racz said, "The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views." I think it would help balance our information, let us chose what we want to agree with, rather than everything be chosen for us. Unfortunately, I don't think the doctrine will work in our society today. Media is so "one-sided" and controlled by that "one-side" that the doctrine will never take place. Everything is too political.

Falsifying Stories

I do not think that blatant falsifying stories is a widespread problem. What I think happens more than often is not enough fact checking. I do not think that reporters sit around and think how they can write a false story to hurt someone for the main reason that being sued is never fun.

I also do not think journalists should have liscenses. In terms of logistics, how would you give them out? What would be the requirements?

Also, I do not think journalists are the same as doctors or attorneys in that you have to have many many years of schooling followed by graduate school. I disagree with the University dean on the video we watched when he said bloggers are not journalists. When I heard him say that I immediately thought, "Of course he is saying that, he gets paid to teach people at a school to be journlists. If people could be journalists without the schooling he would be out of a job."

The other point to make is that just because someone CAn be a journlist does not mean they are a good one.

Fairness Doctrine

I do not think that the Fairness Doctrine would work today, partly because it does not have enough backing to make it through Congress. People today have their sources where they get their news, whether from television, radio, or newspapers, people choose where to get the facts. They go where they like and that is all there is to it. I think the premise behind the argument is good, but it just will not work. I think that journalists try to get opposing views, but the argument here is that the Left Wing wants to be heard also, and they do not feel like they are. There is probably a reason for that since the highest ratings are coming from the Right Wing. People go where they like and that is all there is to it.

Fairness Doctrine

I agree with the previous post. I think it is a good thing that there is no set law on a "Fairness". For the first thing, life is not fair. Most importantly though is the fact that telling media what they must cover, what they must say, what they must do is the exact opposite of telling them what they cannot say or do, which is almost as bad. Like the previous post says, anyone flipping through TV can find opposing views on the same issue. Anyone with an internet connection can find even more views and angles on issues and can find even more issues to talk about in the first place. The doctrine itself sounds very socialist and when the government is getting onvolved in content when it has nothign to do with obscenity is dangerous. I also think the fairness doctrine does not apply much anymore because in theory networks are not so much "public trustees" anymore. There are too many different ways to consume media than there were back when this was the reigning theory. Satellite TV, cable, the internet all can put out their own product that is less regulated, and therefore they can serve their own interests as well as their customers. In a sense any media outlet must care about the public in some way because the public consumes media, and you must know and cater to your audience. But the public can get vital information from so many other places that my local news station is not the first place I go to for vital information.

Fairness Doctrine

I don't believe it is necessary to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. I think that people can choose what they want to watch or listen to, to get the facts of both sides of a story. There are the counter balances of Olbermans Countdown and Bill O'Reilly, and anyone can get the opposite views by watching either of these programs. If the news is going to be required to present both sides of an issue, I believe that is taking an essential part away from freedom of speech. We have the option to pick up the remote or turn the dial on the radio to get the information that we so desire. The fairness doctrine doesn't really seem that fair at all to me. I don't believe it would work in our society today because there are already so many people out there with a strong belief in their own politics and they don't really care too much what the other side really has to say. Today, news stations and newspapers are able to feed off of what the other side has to say and that helps each achieve ratings which keeps competition in good spirits. The fairness doctrine is good in principle but lacks what Americans want to see in today's media.

Falsifying stories

Yes and no. I don't think it's as big of a problem as some people make it out to be. I think it most certainly can become a problem though with the way media and journalism ethics is spiraling downward. I think the real problem is that the media is not giving us true news. I think they just present stories they know will attract viewers rather than broadcast serious issues that public could potentially not know anything about. I feel the biggest problem is that only a small number of people choose what we know, see and hear. Falsifying news does not seem like a widespread problem with our media right now, but the way media has been going I wouldn't be surprised if it did become a problem. To me, reliable journalism has been on a decline in the last decade.

Falsifying Stories

I do think there is a falsifying/making up stories problem in the news media. In today's world it's not about the real content on the story but what can get the most ratings. Ratings are everything in the media. Journalist will make up a story or fabricate it a little bit just to be ahead of their co-workers or the other networks. I think that journalist needs to go back to their original concept and make getting the correct news to the public their first priority and not thinking about ratings. I think that Journalists should have licenses that can be revoked if they are irresponsible for their work because they should be telling the public the truth, not making it up and they aren't doing their original job.

TO SPIN OR NOT TO SPIN?

I don't believe that falsifying the news or fabricating news stories is a major problem of the press in the United States. You always here that the news organizations are bringing you the facts and the true details of every story that the submit to their audience, but in reality they are usually putting a spin on their story. I don't think that the "spin" of a story is necessarily falsifying though, I do think that the "spin" is used to get the audience to think a certain, either for or against a certain ideology. Basically each medium of the press wants to get the highest percentage of the audience out there and sometimes mistakes are made in the stories they present, but I feel that this is highly unintentional, and if it is intentional they do a very good job of hiding what they are doing. I want to be believe that the press is not lying to me, but I think that most of the American public (including myself) don't do enough of a background check to find every little fact to be either true or false.

The media and the marketplace have had the best of times and the worst of times to be cliche. I agree with the idea that consumers are buying the ideas and products that the marketplace produces. However, I wonder if the viewer was well educated on what they needed if they would still buy all the crap that is advertised.
In the US the media structure is set up in such a way that media is dependent on the market place and pretty much vice verse. The Media would have trouble surviving with out the money from advertisers and I doubt many products would be as successful with out the advertising they receive. It seems to be a vicious circle that continues to cycle.

Marketplace and the public

I feel like there is a love/hate relationship between the marketplace and the public. We continually criticize the marketplace about what they present to the public, but isn't it the public that just eats this stuff up? The marketplace continues to function and work the way it does because "they" profit off of our viewership, readership, etc. We will always hope that our marketplace of information will present truthful, unbiased content, but unless the consumers/public stop participating in it they're still working hand in hand with the marketplace they claim to disapprove of. The public disapproves of the fact that everything is biased and censored, but at the same time the public continues to read, watch and listen to that very same censorship that is given to them by the marketplace. It's frustrating that this issue can go on forever because it seems like the relationship between the two will never go away or be solved.

Media Literacy

For myself, I never thought my media literacy education was anything unusual. Ever since about 7th grade I was in some sort of class, or one of my classes spent a whole few weeks every semester talking about the media and how to consume it. Throughout High School I had different types of classes such as Contemporary Issues or World of Ideas, or an entire Media Class in which we just studied the different types of media out there. However, discussions in this Capstone class have let me realize that not everyone in this country have the same opportunity. For me, it is nothing special to think, "What is this commercial after?" or "What is this story really trying to say?" I do not know really who should be responsible for this type of education. IF schools were capable of doing it I would put it on them, but budgets and whatnot do not realistically allow for every school to include these special kinds of electives. I think society in general should try to educate itself when it can about Media Literacy.

Conflict between the marketplace and the public

I think there has always been conflict between the marketplace and the needs of the public. First of all there are the stereotypes of each marketplace, like Fox is the conservative network and CNN is the more liberal network. With these images I think the marketplace is always trying to please the public, but yet the public is never pleased. Either way they think a network is too liberal or conservative. The marketplace is always trying to make things better according to what the public wants and needs. I honestly think no matter what the marketplace does, the public will never be happy with it and that the two will never really meet a happy medium. Like Graham said, I don't have much knowledge in either subject.

the marketplace and the public

I think that the marketplace and the needs of the public has always had a very akward relationship, due to the fact both sides have different beliefs of what they actually need and want. the public is always wanting something for the best price, deal, or other contractional obligation while the market place needs to make the most profit that it can for the service that it has to offer. I feel it is very hard for both the market place and the needs of the public to reach a resolution in most of the affairs that they encounter together. Sometimes the needs of the public cause a greater strain of problems with the marketplace in general. I feel that i don't have a great amount of knowledge on how these two groups interact, but through their interaction and using the media to show that interaction it will help me understand how the public needs and the pressures of the marketplace will always share a common ground.

Media Literacy

My media literacy began at a very early age. My parents have always been aware of what is going on in the news and with the media. They have always told me to be leery of what I was seeing on television because it may be an exaggeration of the truth, and I have seen that all the more as I have grown older and found these things on my own. My parents are definitely conservative so we were mainly watching Fox News instead of CNN, and that has carried into my life. That is what I watch because I think it is what I was taught and that is what I learned.
I did not have anything in school to teach me about the media. It was all in the home.

Media Literacy

Like most everyone else in my group, my media literacy experience started in college. I watched news sometimes but never with any regularity. The only time I picked up a newspaper was to do the crossword. In my Film Studies degree, I learned to pick apart the visual media - form and content. One class that made me look at a lot of things I had never thought about was Race, Gender, and Media. For instance, I never really looked at ethnic representation in television.
I had never thought about why who sends us what messages was important. I started getting skeptical about what information was being left out of stories in my newscast. I still don't watch much news but I read plenty of news online from a variety of sources. I feel better about how and what I watch now, that's for sure.

Media Literacy

I think I have been more exposed to the media being in college than I did when I was in high school. Growing up the only time I watched the news was with my dad or at the gym because that was the only thing on the television, and being a high school student I got bored easily and didn't care much. My school never exposed us to the media, but we did have a media class where we shot and edited our own packages and then put them in our own television show. That was about as far as my media exposure went. In college I have come to care more about what is going on, so I will turn on the news when I get home at night or open up the paper in the mornings. Last summer I interned at Dateline NBC and in every hall they were playing MSNBC on the television. I really enjoyed getting to see news coverage all day long and this really exposed me to what was going on in the world. I think as we get older, we mature and actually care more about being exposed.

I agree with Graham and I also believe that my media literacy began in college. I have always been the type of person who has vocally expressed their own thoughts and ideas. However, I think that I was unaware of so many ideas dealing with critical thinking and media literacy before college. My media literacy began like many others in English composition and analyzing advertisements. I had always thought that advertisements often exploited women, but I was unaware to what degree. It was in this class that I noticed that these ads dehumanized women exposing only portions of their body and rarely their face. While in this class I realized the media through advertisements reinforces the United State's patriarchal gender roles. Demonstrating the idea that women should only look good and don't have much to say. My media literacy grew when I took a trip with the journalism college to view media abroad. This expanded my mind and helped me to view the media in the United States through the eyes of other countries. That experience has made me a critical consumer of American media. My media literacy has also expanded through my knowledge of technology and equipment. Since I now know how to film and edit different materials I understand the techniques used to relay the message to the audience. I now watch reality television and understand that it cannot be completely real because of the different angles the camera used in a particular sequence. Media literacy is a power tool to posses. But the scary thing is people don't realize how powerful this tool is until they are in possession of it.

Media Exposure

When I was in junior high and high school I did not follow the news. I never read the newspaper and when my parents watched the news on TV I would leave the room. The only time I was ever exposed to "news" was for about 20 minutes during school. Channel One was my schools attempt to teach us current events. Some teachers actually made us watch it, while other teachers didn't care if we watched it or not. The one time I can really think of news infiltrating into the school system was when 9/11 occurred. We did nothing but watch the news and listen to the radio that day. Every now and then I would get into conversations with friends at school who actually followed the news. I agree with Graham when I say that keeping up with the news and current events was not something that was implemented in my schooling.Since I've come to college I've tried to at least catch a newscast before the day is over, because professors in college incorporate current issues and news more than teachers did in high school with their discussions and teachings. I feel more compelled to keep up with what's going on because I like to be able to follow along in lecture, that and the fact that I think it's simply a part of growing up.

Media Literacy

I think that i've aqcuired my sense of media literacy more in college than in all of my previous education. To me, high school was just more of a time of getting the basic education of reading, writing, history, and math; it was not a time when we focused on how the media influenced our daily lives. It seems that the media itself shapes our own media literacy. They provide us with a mold of their own to get the people to think a certain way. Once in college i realized more and more that you cannot always trust the media for what it says to be true. Often their are political beliefs about what we see and do not see in the media (including magazines, television, and newspapers). To understand media to it's fullest is a very tough task. If i really want to find a message in the media i have to sometimes view the media over and over again. Also, media is always changing and therefore understanding it will always be a constant process

Indigenous Lecture with Salazar

I attended the Thursday morning lecture on Ethnic Citizenship and Social Media in an age of shifting identities. The title of the lecture was the my main interest in this particular lecture, however I was highly disappointed in the overall presentation of the lecture. For starters outside of the room in which the lecture was held massive construction was taking place making it difficult to hear the speaker. After the construction quieted I was able to listen to the rest of the lecture. I assumed that Juan F. Salazar would be lecturing on actual media occurrences in indigenous countries. This was hardly the case. Salazar spent most of the time giving facts about the indigenous people of Chile. Salazar who is an anthropologist made a documentary style video that involved indigenous people living in Chile. He did not speak about the film revealing its findings or even why he made it. The main point Salazar repeated was many who had viewed the video thought it was shot by the indigenous people. At the end of Salazar's lecture someone asked what exactly his claim was and Salazar stated, 'I do not really have a claim.' The lecture was alright but I wish he had given more information on how media was changing the indigenous people or how they were changing the media.

On Thursday, I attended the symposium at the Union. I found this talk very interesting. I think it is important to approach the subject of stereotypes and how Americans view nationalities. I think she made a good point about these stereotypes and their effects and I like how some are using the media now to speak out on their voice. I do know however, that I did lose some of what she was saying because I couldn't hear everything quiet so well. However, I did find the symposium interesting and I was glad I attended.

"Out of Place: rom Exile to Flexible Citizenship"

I also attended "Out of Place: From Exile to Flexible Citizenship" by Maria Gabriela Nouzeilles. Ms. Nouzeilles was extremely hard to understand because of her heavy accent, lack of amplification, and the fact that she was speed reading to us off of her essay. The first part of her "presentation" was about the process of becoming invisible. As an immigrant, do you stay true to your country or American-ize to decrease the level of attention you draw to yourself?

The second part was about a new type of traveler, the cosmopolitan traveler, and transmigrants who can enjoy the pleasures of flexible citizenship. Transmigrats are able to create allegiances with more than one country while cosmopolitan travelers are more of a "postmodern tourist."

She claims that visual media reinforces the idea of transnationalities. How? I couldn't understand her arguement. But she did note that exiles should pay attention to how the media portrays them because we tend to alienate ethnic minorities.

Then Ms. Nouzeilles showed two clips from a Brazilian video artist Sandra Kogut. The first was a little too experimental for me, so I didn't really get the point of "Parabolic People." The second was very interesting though, "The Hungarian Passport," which was about her struggle to claim her Jewish heritage through her Hungarian grandparents who were displaced during the war.

"Out of Place: From Exile to Flexible Citizenship"

I attended "Out of Place: From Exile to Flexible Citizenship" presented by Maria Gabriela Nouzeilles. After sitting through it, I wished I had been able to listen to a different one. For the majority of her presentation I could not understand a word she was saying. I personally didn't find her to be a good presenter. I kept having to ask the people next to me what she was saying and talking about. Her presentation was about her perspective on the diversity of citizenship in Latin America. One point I was able to grasp was that she presented the fact that issues like satellite communications, the internet, global markets and travel have made our world into a global society. She continued to say that conflicts are created through the world as a consequence of globalization’s threat to the identity of longstanding cultures. In conclusion to her presentation she showed us a brief video of an old woman from a particular latin culture traveling on a train through different country. The train employee gave her a hard time with her passport and identification because she was not from there. Nouzeilles mentioned that these cultural divisions and the world's globalization issues are coming out and being presented through the media.

And that's all I could make out through the entire hour.

The New Media

On Thursday I attended the Symposium in the Union. It was a little difficult at first to grasp her original argument because she was simply reading from an essay and not exactly speaking. I found it to be really interesting to hear her perspective and the view of foreign people. She talked about the stereotypes and how those were now being brought out in the media and now those people who were originally quiet are now grabbing their voice through the media. I thought it was hard to grasp her argument but I think that it eventually came out in the end.
I also thought the clips from the movies that she is associated with was a great touch. After she explained what the videos stood for, I began to fully grasp what she was saying.

Ethnic Citizenship and Social Media

On Thursday at 9 a.m. I attended the symposium Ethnic Citizenship and Social Media in an Age of Shifting Identities by Juan Salazar. With all the noise from the construction going on in the Union it was a little hard to hear but this is what I got from his presentation. Salazar is a professor in Sidney, Australia but is from Chile. He never really stated an argument in his presentation but he talked about the media on the indigenous people of Chile. There were many indigenous social movements with the latest in the 1990s which was an emergence of an indigenous movement with different features in a context of globalization, neoliberalism, democratization, and multiculturalism of Latin America nation-states. The media for the indigenous people is called the Mapuche which deals with the concerns of the Mapuche people from Chile and parts of Argentina. Some aspects of it are the urbanization with the mass migration from rural to urban parts and the indigenous leadership in the urban areas. To show the new influence of the Mapuche, Salazar made a documentary, De la Tierra a la Pantalla. While making this documentary Salazar stopped reading the Chilean press and only read the Mapuche press for four years to learn more about them. He said it was amazing to read about his country in a different way and to see the different outlook. But when showing his documentary to the indigenous people they are shocked that a white man made that movie because it shows their ways so well. He played a little from his film but had it on mute. The documentary really helped people understand the Mapuche and also showing how any certain type of media can influence your beliefs. All people are believe different things so its great for others to voice what they believe. Now about 500 media organizations are run by indigenous people.

The new media

On Thursday morning I attended the symposium on Ethnic media in Latin American countries. The presentation was held by Juan F. Salazar (originally from Chile) who is a professor in Sydney, Australia. He didn't really seem to hold an argument but rather an enlightenment on how the indigenous people of Chile (the non-white Latin Americans) have begun to grab a voice in media. The leading media for indigenous people in this country is called " Mapuche". The Mapuche Press is an alternative voice that can be heard on the Internet, but it is mainly for the indigenous Mapuche people who live in Chile and Argentina. The Mapuche media deals with the concerns of the Mapuche people. (e.g. how they deal with the urbanization of their culture into the mainstream world, or how they deal with environmental issues). What Salazar did to show the new influence of the Mapuche was filming a documentary about the people. First off, Salazar stopped reading the common Chilean Press for four straight years. He only looked at Mapuche media to try and understand them. By doing this, Salazar said he was able to a whole new perspective of his country through the eyes of an Alternative media source. His film was a documentary that has gone on to several film festivals. The Mapuche people who have seen his film were surprised to find out that he is a "white Latin American" and not really an "indigenous" person of the country. This shows the influence of Mapuche and how the media can shape our views based on how we read it and let it into our lives