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.