Blog 8 "Fox primary: complicated, contractual"

"With Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee all making moves indicating they may run for president, their common employer is facing a question that hasn’t been asked before: How does a news organization cover White House hopefuls when so many are on the payroll?" (Martin, Hagey). This is a good question how does a organization such as Fox cover there potential candidates? The answer is difficult to answer however after analyzing the article "Fox primary: complicated, contractual" by Martin and Hagey one is led to believe that within the networks there are divisions and rivals. Within each network there are "ownnews division[s]" these divisions compete to show off their candidate the best within the network. They do this by spending lots of money and presenting the candidate as best as possible. To make it in politics today you need a lot of money. Sadly it is true, but in order to get your voice out there you must be able to some how air your opinions. One thing I can say I truly dislike about America today is how we vote for the president, there are electoral votes (which truly elect the president) and then there are our "popular votes" which do nothing to elect the president. This irritates me because they say go vote! However our votes do not count. As a country we should not have electoral votes at all. Only popular votes. I feel like there are many flaws in America but I still love this country. So its our jobs to fix these problems and vote. I say next presidential election DO NOT VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN> Instead vote for a THIRD PARTY! Lets bring a little more balance to this democracy. I am not always in favor of either of these parties most of the time. 

Blog 7 Can Media Regain Public Trust?

Can the media regain public trust? There is really only two answers to this Yes it can or No it cannot regain trust. What is trust? Dictionary.com defines trust as, "reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing." Now what is trust in the media? To me trust is actual factual non-biased news. News that has no twists or hidden information. John Hockenberry worked for Dateline NBC, he says the "fear of corporate owners, of audience response, and of technology cripples authentic journalism" pg 150.  Now Hockenberry does bring up a valid point, the credibility of journalism is hard because there is such a large audience and a lot of pressure to "razel-dazel" the viewers. I personally think most media networks try to keep integrity however I do not like the late night shows. They are just not for me, nor have I ever willingly watched one before this class. Michael Schudson thinks Yes, media can regain public trust. Schudson argues, "that although news is essential for democracy, the behavior of journalists make them unpopular. Journalists' conflict orientation, obsession with facts and events, and 'in-you-face' interviewing are what make journalism effective and essential. And it is those behaviors that should restore faith in journalism" pg 150. I think Schudson has some truth to his argument as well, I do feel like I can trust some of the media like for 60 Minuets, they really do get "all up in people's business" It makes me feel like I can really trust what they broadcast. Trust takes along time to build and with one lie or bad choice you can loose all you credibility with someone. I don't think the media will ever regain its public trust, however it won't loose the trust it has now. It will remain the same. Some of the public will trust and put their faith in media and some will never trust it. Then there is always the people in the middle like me who sometimes trust the truth but can question it. 

Blog 6 The Race for the California State Governor

In class we have recently discussed how many ways a individual can obtain information. In blog six, I will be focussing on all the possible ways one can obtain information for the 2010 California State Governor Election. The only two candidates I will be referring to are Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman.  When I was first asked to find out information on this race and Judge which "source" had the best
unbiased  content I automatically assumed Wikipedia. Meg Whitman put out ads against  SLANDER AGAINST JERRY BROWN, Jerry Brown will soon put out slander against Meg Whitman. I was born here in California and I really do care for the future of this state. I would like to see a leader who wants to get us out of debt. I think that is very important. I believe Education is very important as well. California is consider a "leading state" it leads in many areas for example new "green laws" or "gay rights." Even though I might not always agree with such progressive laws all the time I think that it is very good that we are an always changing state. I feel as a state we do have problems however we do our best to voice our opinion in the general society of America and I like that. I have only been voting for the last 3 years of my life. I think it is important that there is a party balance in California, but typically when I vote i go to the public library and get their non-biased sheet of voting information on all the candidates. I vote for whomever is best for the job at the time not always for a certain party. When people ask me what I am democrat or republican I say neither, I am for whoever is best for the job.

I have put together a quick spread sheet explaining which source I go to for my information in order for a  election.

Blog 5 Will Evolving Forms of Journalism be an Improvement?

Will evolving forms of journalism be an improvement to society? To answer that question fully has taken much debate. After reading from the book "Taking Sides," I have came to the conclusion that people only can receive news by either reading or listening. This said how new is "evolving journalism." As a child 15 years ago, I always remember my grandfather reading the news papers in the morning. In present day he has an iPad. Now he subscribes to the same San Francisco Chronicle news paper it is just a "app" on his iPad. This is an evolving form of journalism in a few ways. The first way is my grandfather can now watch his news, or he has the option to read about it. He also has the option to look up past articles, dates and pretty much any article the SF Chronicle has in its archives. This is where and how journalism is evolving with such technologies as the iPad. The information is becoming easier to find with all the new networks out there. Humans can still only actually get information by reading or listing to it, now the only thing that is different in the last 100 years is how the news has been presented. It has came from bland news, to more of a talk show, man news stations are using something called a "hyper local"pg 205 which basically is focusing reporting news to the local community and focusing truly on  local news. Now many scholars would say that this is not an improvement to society take David Simon, "[he] testified in May of 2009 to a Senate Committee examining the future of journalism. his conclusion was that high-end journalism was dying in America and could not be saved by the Internet and/ or citizen journalists" pg 204. 

I feel David believes that the news should only be presented in a formal way, broadcaster or printed for the masses. I do not think he likes evolving forms of media such as YouTube or sites where users can display news how they want when they want and say what they want. I do not agree with Simon. I think it is good to have many different ways to receive information. The question still remains, will evolving forms of journalism be an improvement to our society? I say Yes. we live in a democracy where we have freedom of the speech and of the press. We do not need to listen to "big" news corporations anymore. We can report news to our fellow Americans. Real news not censored by the "board of directors of fox, or msnbc" I say evolving forms of journalism is an improvement. 

Meta Concepts

So for this bog I was asked to watch a clip of a "fake news show" and look at the meta concept of the entire clip. I ended up watching a clip from The Daily Show in this segment John Stewart talked about how Health Care and was auguring with a man on how there should be healthcare for all Americans. When breaking the clip down into even smaller segments I began to see that there was indeed three ways he tried to sway the audience to his point of view. The Substantive Coverage was very clear, he felt that all Americans should have a universal healthcare system. He talked about how the American Soldiers have a excellent government run system and he thinks America should just adopt the system for all the citizens. This is very expensive and is not an easy topic to debate. I think his side of the argument was very clear but he presented his arguments almost like a 12 year old kid would... Na huh!! I'm right! Stewart then went on to use hype and say how American's soldiers are doing fine with the system. The other man said that it was not a good idea. During all of this Stewart used humor and encouraged the crowd to laugh at the man with his point of view. It really was just a stupid scene. The man was trying to have a debate for universal healthcare but every time he shared a single opinion he was made a joke. I honestly do not get my information from any of these comical shows. I prefer a non-biased source of news. I would rather have a "dryer" show then here some guys opinion on what he believes is to be right. I would rather make the decision my self what is important and not important. Isn't that what America is about?

Blog 3 "Does fake news mislead the public?"

"Does Fake News Mislead the Public"

Did you know that about "40 percent of the public believe that news is biased in favor of one of the two parties... matched by 40 percent who say there is no bias" pg 174. With more and more Americans thinking that the mainstream media is biased, they have been turning away from the traditional media and turning to more comical sources such as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart"pg173.  Shows such as that often do mislead the general public, I know this because some of the news that the show airs doesn't make it onto the BBC, NPR or non-biased media outlets. This link gives a quick glimpse into that area, please click the button --  Jon Stewart -- The Daily Show, Targets "groups mostly in the 18-35 year old range" link 1.  I feel that the show tells stories in very personable ways to sway the audience. The show does have factual evidence but throws in a lot of comical humor.  In some ways this could be considered fake news because there is "other parts" built around the news, now does it mislead all of the public I would have to argue no, it does not. I think if anything it prompts the audience to want to find out more about whatever topic is up for debate. Ted Anthony says "It makes you look into the eye of America through a different window.. He says 'its not a primary source of news but finds it a very very reasonable source of news and that's a reasonable conclusion" link2.  The question still remains does fake news mislead the public? I say yes in many cases it does mislead the public. However, when I watch any comical shows it does prompt me to get off my butt and look into a matter, such as health care reform. I have actually done research now only because I have been curious what is actually going on with that whole bill and reform. 

My general overall conclusion is in many ways yes fake news misleads the public, however I feel it must get audience's more interested in learning and researching a news subject themselves, so it is helpful to the country as well as entertaining.  I would not use a comical sources as my main means of news ever nor would I recommend it to any American. 

link 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWWAZ785yQ

link2 Assistant Managing Editor, the Associated Press http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWWAZ785y

Fox & MSNBC

I think broadcasting companies in America all share one thing in common to make money and get the most viewers possible. According to www.guardian.co.uk, they say that "most experts believe the fierce antagonism between MSNBC and Fox is less about politics and more about economics"link 1. I believe this website for two reasons, one it is a outside neutral source that is comparing the two broadcasting companies and two they do not have a American agenda, they are reporting news to the United Kingdom. Fox News and MSNBC are the two most watched broadcasting companies in USA today. I think it is very important that the Americans take the time out of their day to search out facts, not broadcasters opinions. Both News company do offer the same standard news, but they display the news at different angles. Thus trying to persuade viewers to a particular side.  Reflecting on our classes discussion and topic question "What would these guys do if money wasn't a factor". Now what I sincerely believe is the news would be more like the BBC, Not so much opinion but more just the facts. There would be no arguing such as Fox's Glenn Beck vs MSNBC's trio (Rachel Madow, Chris Matthew and Keith Oberman) news would just be news. Wouldn't that be nice? I think it would. Over the last ten years the way we receive news has changed a lot.  We now do not have to watch an entire news program that takes an hour, instead we can just log on to the Internet and literally search whatever news interests the viewer. This alone has carved out a new way for Americans to get there news anytime of the day. I wish the news companies would focus on more positive then the negative, to me one of the real problems is pessimistic people. We need more positive optimists in this world. 

link 1  http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/26/msnbc-fox-television-cnn-politics

Issue 1

Issue 1 

Are Americans Values Shaped by the Mass Media?

Are American values shaped by the mass media? I say in many ways yes, the values of Americans are shaped by mass media. However I feel that mass media has also been shaped by Americans. In America today there are four major ways to listen to the mass media: internet, television, radio and newspaper. I feel that media influences society in every aspect wether it is encouraging shopping or to share information on supporting children in Africa or broadcasting a up and coming music star. On September 11, 2001 most broadcasting companies came together and united Americans. However over the next nine years the mass media companies have all changed there opinions on the war and what is the next “right” move to make. I feel that when there is free press there will always be people who take advantage of the truth and bend it to strengthen their own opinion/argument towards the audience. Most of the media today, reports news that they feel statistically will get them the most audience attention then in return the most revenue through advertisement. Money is what makes our world go round. Now I am not saying all media does is try to make money, but I would say 95% of the time making money is the name of the game. I think most broadcasting companies have hidden political agendas as well. As a fellow American I feel we must know or do our best to figure out these companies political agendas. Mass Media has it’s pros and cons, but I would much rather have freedom of the press then none at all. Americans values have been shaped by the media and the media has been shaped by Americans. It is just a never ending cycle.